[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65305-65310]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26294]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0408; FRL-9726-3]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of
Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) portion of the
California SIP. This SIP revision incorporates District Rule 2410--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)--into the California SIP
to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of
certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment or
unclassifiable areas. EPA is approving this SIP revision because Rule
2410 provides an adequate PSD permitting program as required by section
110 and part C of title I of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0408 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Some docket
materials, however, may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., voluminous records, maps, copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3811<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
    A. What action is EPA finalizing?
    B. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit
regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the
primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Specifically, CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(J) require the State's plan to meet the applicable
requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit
program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
and visibility protection. The purpose of District Rule 2410--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, is to implement a pre-
construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in
attainment areas. EPA is currently the PSD permitting authority within
the District because the State does not currently have a SIP-approved
PSD program within the District. Inclusion of this revision in the SIP
will mean that the District has an approved PSD permitting program and
will transfer PSD permitting authority from EPA to the District. EPA
would then assume the role of overseeing the District's PSD permitting
program, as

intended by the CAA. For a more detailed discussion of District Rule
2410, please refer to our proposed approval. See 77 FR 32493 (June 1,
2012).

II. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the San Joaquin Valley portion
of the California SIP. The SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR
52.220 and 40 CFR 52.270 by incorporating by reference District Rule
2410, as adopted June 16, 2011 and submitted to EPA by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) on August 23, 2011. In addition, the letter
from the District to EPA, dated May 18, 2012, providing certain
clarifications concerning District Rule 2410 and 40 CFR 51.166, will be
included as additional material in 40 CFR 52.220. The regulatory text
addressing this action also makes it clear that EPA is relying, in
part, on the clarifications provided in the District's May 18, 2012
letter in taking this final approval action. As such, the District's
implementation of the PSD program in a manner consistent with these
clarifications is a pre-condition of today's final approval of the
District's PSD SIP revision. This SIP revision provides a federally
approved and enforceable mechanism for the District to issue pre-
construction PSD permits for certain new and modified major stationary
sources subject to PSD review within the District.
    As discussed in EPA's proposal relating to today's SIP revision
approval action, the District has requested approval to exercise its
authority to administer the PSD program with respect to those sources
located in the District that have existing PSD permits issued by EPA,
including authority to conduct general administration of these existing
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD
permit actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications,
amendments, or revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such
permits. Pursuant to the criteria in section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the
CAA, we have determined that the District has the authority, personnel,
and funding to implement the PSD program within the District for
existing EPA-issued permits and therefore are transferring authority
for such permits to the District concurrent with the effective date of
EPA's approval of the District's PSD program into the SIP. A list of
the EPA-issued permits that we anticipate will be transferred to the
District is provided in the docket for this action. EPA has already
provided a copy of each such permit to the District. As described in
our proposal, EPA will retain PSD permit implementation authority for
those specific sources within the District that have submitted PSD
permit applications to EPA and for which EPA has issued a proposed PSD
permit decision, but for which final agency action and/or the
exhaustion of all administrative and judicial appeals processes
(including any associated remand actions) have not yet been concluded
or completed upon the effective date of EPA's final SIP approval action
for Rule 2410. The District will assume full PSD responsibility for the
administration and implementation of such PSD permits immediately upon
notification from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals
processes and any associated remand actions have been completed or
concluded for any such permit application.

B. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    In response to our June 1, 2012 proposed rule, we received two
comment letters, one from the Western States Petroleum Association
(WSPA) and one from Earthjustice on behalf of a consortium of
environmental groups (Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, the Kern-
Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Center for Race, Poverty, and
the Environment, and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition). Copies
of each comment letter have been added to the docket for this action
and are accessible at www.regulations.gov. The comment letter from WSPA
supports EPA's analysis and proposal to approve District Rule 2410 into
the SIP. The comment letter from Earthjustice opposes the SIP revision
and raises several specific objections. We have summarized the comments
received and provided a response to the comments below.
    Comment 1: WSPA expresses its support for EPA's expeditious
approval of District Rule 2410, and recommends that such approval be
completed as soon as possible in order to ensure that permitting is not
unduly impacted for facilities subject to PSD review.
    Response 1: EPA appreciates the commenter's support. We agree that
EPA's proceeding expeditiously with its final action on the District's
PSD SIP revision, after careful consideration of public comments
received on its proposed action, will serve to facilitate timely
processing of PSD permit decisions for facilities within the District
that are subject to PSD review.
    Comment 2: Earthjustice states that CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
(C) require SIPs to include enforceable measures to regulate the
construction and modification of stationary sources. The commenter
believes that District Rule 2410 includes loopholes for enforcing
District compliance with its permitting requirements because currently,
within the District, interested parties are able to seek judicial
review of final PSD permitting decisions under section 307 of the Act,
whereas under Rule 2410 and California state law there is no right to
judicial review of permitting decisions for power plants licensed by
the California Energy Commission (CEC). The commenter asserts that
under California Public Resources Code (CPRC) section 25531, judicial
review of such CEC approvals may only be had at the discretion of the
State Supreme Court, and there is no guaranteed right of review. The
commenter states that this legal conclusion regarding the limited
availability of judicial review for power plant permitting decisions
has been repeatedly asserted by the CEC and the District. The commenter
concludes that approval of Rule 2410 would open the door for abuse and
noncompliance in PSD permitting decisions, and does not comply with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Act because it does not
guarantee judicial enforceability.
    Response 2: As EPA has stated previously, we interpret the CAA to
require an opportunity for judicial review of a decision to grant or
deny a PSD permit, whether issued by EPA or by a State under a SIP-
approved or delegated PSD program. See 61 FR 1880, 1882 (Jan. 24, 1996)
(EPA's proposed disapproval of Virginia's PSD program SIP revision due
to State law standing requirements that limited judicial review); 72 FR
72617, 72619 (December 21, 2007) (in approving South Dakota's PSD
program, EPA stated: ``We interpret the statute and regulations to
require at minimum an opportunity for state judicial review of PSD
permits''). EPA continues to interpret the relevant provisions of the
Act as described in these prior rulemaking actions. We believe that
Congress intended for state judicial review of PSD permit decisions to
be available for members of the public who can satisfy threshold
standing requirements under Article III of the Constitution. See 61 FR
1882, January 24, 1996.
    The commenter argues that California's judicial review procedures
under CPRC 25531 for PSD permit decisions subject to the CEC
certification process do not satisfy the CAA's requirements for
judicial review. The commenter states that these State judicial review
procedures are inadequate because such review may

only be had at the discretion of the State Supreme Court, and there is
no guaranteed right of judicial review.
    CPRC section 25531(a) provides: ``The decisions of the [CEC] on any
application for certification of a site and related facility are
subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court of California.'' \1\
California courts have found that California Supreme Court review of a
power plant certification decision under CPRC section 25531 is a
decision on the merits. Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. California
Energy Commission, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1447-1448 (2003); see also
In re Rose, 22 Cal.4th 430, 444 (2000) (when the sole means of review
is a petition in the California Supreme Court, even the court's denial
of the petition--with or without an opinion--reflects a judicial
determination on the merits). EPA believes that the opportunity
provided by CPRC 25531 to seek review of a PSD permit decision for a
CEC-certified facility before the California Supreme Court and to
obtain that court's judicial determination on the merits satisfies the
CAA requirement that an opportunity for judicial review be provided
under State law for PSD permits in SIP-approved PSD programs. We
recognize that the judicial review process under CPRC 25531 differs in
a number of respects from the administrative and judicial review
processes available for PSD permit decisions under 40 CFR part 124
(opportunity to petition for administrative review by the EPA's
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)) and section 307(b) of the CAA
(opportunity to seek review before Circuit Court of Appeals) when EPA
or a delegated agency under 40 CFR 52.21 is the PSD permit issuer.
However, the CAA does not require that the process for judicial review
of the grant or denial of a PSD permit issued under a SIP-approved PSD
program be identical to that provided when EPA or a delegated agency
under 40 CFR 52.21 is the PSD permit issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``facility'' within the meaning of CPRC 25531
refers to ``any electric transmission line or thermal powerplant, or
both electric transmission line and thermal powerplant,'' and the
term ``site'' refers to ``any location on which a facility is
constructed or is proposed to be constructed.'' (CPRC 25110, 25119.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: Earthjustice suggests that District Rule 2410 does not
meet the public participation requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q), citing
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. The commenter states that EPA
notes that Rule 2410 does not, on its face, comply with various public
participation requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(q). The commenter further
states that EPA dismisses these defects by relying on commitments in a
letter from the District's Permitting Director to comply with the
public participation requirements for issuing PSD permits. The
commenter states that these commitments are not enforceable, are
insufficient to support approval, and are not proposed to be codified
into the SIP or other approved regulatory language. The commenter also
states that it has not been established through any legal reference
that the District's Permitting Director is authorized or empowered to
bind the District legally to any particular practice, and that should
the District fail to adhere to the processes outlined in its letter,
stakeholders would have no recourse for ensuring the District's
adherence. The commenter also states that the District has relinquished
some of its permit processing responsibilities to the CEC, and that the
CEC would not be bound by the District's commitments.
    Response 3: We disagree that Rule 2410 does not comply with the
public participation requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q). Section 5.0 of
Rule 2410 requires the District to follow the public participation
requirements identified in certain sections of District Rule 2201 prior
to issuing a PSD permit. District Rule 2201 is enforceable because it
is already approved into the California SIP (see, e.g., 75 FR 26102
(May 11, 2010)). EPA asked the District to provide a letter clarifying,
among other things, how Rule 2201 addresses certain specific
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 relating to the District's implementation
of a number of PSD procedural requirements. EPA believes this written
clarification is appropriate to support our analysis of and conclusions
concerning Rule 2410. As noted above in Section II.A, the District
provided a clarification letter dated May 18, 2012 to EPA that reflects
the District's and EPA's interpretation of the District's public
participation processes consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q). The letter
memorializes the proper intended reading of the provisions at issue,
and the regulatory text that EPA is finalizing in this action expressly
states that EPA is basing its approval of the District's PSD SIP, in
part, on the clarifications regarding the District's implementation of
the PSD program contained in the District's May 18, 2012 letter. EPA is
also including this letter in the additional materials that will be
referenced in the CFR as part of this SIP revision approval action.
Because the District's implementation of the PSD program in a manner
consistent with these clarifications, including those related to the
District's public participation processes, is clearly a pre-condition
of today's final approval of the District's PSD SIP revision, the
clarifications provided in this letter concerning District Rule 2410
are binding and enforceable, and the District must adhere to the
positions taken in the letter. In sum, District Rule 2410 meets the
public participation requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q) and is therefore
consistent with section 110(a) of the Act in this regard.
    Finally, with respect to the argument that the District has
relinquished some of its permit processing responsibilities for power
plants to the CEC, we are not aware of any particular PSD public
participation requirements related to 40 CFR 51.166(q) that the
District will be relying on the CEC to meet on the District's behalf,
and the commenter has not specifically identified any such requirement.
The District must adhere to the public participation requirements in
Rule 2410 prior to issuing a PSD permit.
    Comment 4: Earthjustice asserts that EPA has not demonstrated, as
required by section 110(l) of the Act, that the federal PSD program, as
``reformed'' through the addition of the flexibility provisions in
2002, will not interfere with the maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards. The commenter disagrees with EPA's analysis that
``the requirements of the PSD SIP revision are essentially equivalent
to * * * those of the [Federal Implementation Plan] codified in 40 CFR
52.21'' in support of EPA's determination that its proposed SIP
approval action here would be consistent with section 110(l). The
commenter states that the problem with this argument is that there has
not been any analysis of whether these PSD regulations, with the
various flexibilities that allow sources to be constructed without
offsetting emission reductions, without best available control
technology to minimize emission increases, and often without any
obligation to ensure that the emissions will not cause or contribute to
a violation of any national ambient air quality standards, are
sufficient to prevent deterioration of air quality and sliding the
District into nonattainment. The commenter notes that the PSD program
being approved into the SIP has never been a part of the SIP and
therefore has never been analyzed for its consistency with a plan for
maintaining compliance with the national standards. The commenter
believes it is meaningless to say that the permitting program will not
get any worse once it is approved into the SIP because it has

never been demonstrated that this permitting program is adequate to
prevent the deterioration of air quality in the District.
    The commenter states that the California legislature has
specifically rejected EPA's finding that the 2002 New Source Review
(NSR) Reforms could benefit air quality because permit requirements
have impeded or deterred upgrades to sources, citing California Health
and Safety Code sections 42501(e) and (f) (finding that the revisions
to the federal regulations drastically reduce the circumstances under
which modifications at an existing source would be subject to federal
new source review and rejecting the argument that this would be
beneficial to air quality because this claim is contradicted by
California's experience). The commenter believes that the 2002 NSR
Reforms to the PSD regulations allow growth to increase with fewer
mitigation requirements and fewer safeguards for assessing air quality
impacts.
    The commenter also notes that although the District is attainment
or unclassifiable for particulate matter 10 micrometers ([mu]m) in
diameter and smaller (PM10), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), and lead, EPA has approved a maintenance plan only for
PM10 in the last 10 years since the revisions to the PSD
regulations. The commenter asserts that without such a plan there is no
basis for assessing how a permitting program that allows significant
modifications of major sources to avoid control and air quality
analysis requirements will ensure that increased emissions from these
sources will not interfere with attainment of the national standards.
The commenter argues that blind reliance on the District's parallel
nonattainment new source review permitting is no substitute for the
missing analysis because the District allows sources to offset emission
increases with ``pre-baseline'' emission reduction credits--meaning
current air quality sees only an increase in emissions--and to offset
emission increases of one pollutant with decreases of another, which
may or may not be relevant to maintenance of the particular national
standard.
    The commenter asserts that EPA needs to provide its argument and
analysis under section 110(l) of the Act for review and comment, as the
proposed rule provides no rational basis for believing that the
District's PSD program is sufficient to prevent growth in emissions
that could interfere with attainment and maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards in the Valley.
    Response 4: We disagree with the commenter's contentions that EPA
has not conducted the analysis required by section 110(l) of the Act
and that EPA's analysis does not provide adequate assurance that
approval of the District's PSD program would not interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS. As stated in the Federal Register notice for
our proposed approval of the District's PSD SIP revision, EPA included
an analysis under section 110(l) in the technical support document
(TSD) for the proposed rulemaking for this SIP revision approval
action. In the TSD, we stated that our approval of the submittal would
comply with CAA section 110(l), because the SIP, as revised to reflect
the submitted revision, would provide for reasonable further progress
and attainment of the NAAQS, and the requirements of the PSD SIP
revision are essentially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as,
those of the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) codified in 40 CFR 52.21
and used to date by EPA to implement the required PSD program within
the District. EPA noted that approval of the District's PSD SIP
submittal would merely result in the transfer of authority for the PSD
program from the EPA to the District, and therefore would not result in
any substantive changes to the PSD program requirements, other CAA
requirements, or air quality. We believe that our 110(l) analysis was
adequate and appropriate, for the following reasons.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he Administrator shall
not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42
U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full
attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may
be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section
110(l) if EPA finds that it will at least preserve status quo air
quality, particularly where, as here, the pollutants at issue are those
for which an area has not been designated nonattainment.
    In response to the commenter's concern that approval of the
District's PSD SIP submittal including NSR Reform would allow fewer
projects to be subject to PSD review,\2\ meaning that fewer sources
must demonstrate that their emission increases will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or apply the best available
control technology to those emission increases, we note that our
approval of the District's PSD program, which incorporates by reference
40 CFR 52.21, into the SIP will not result in a change to the status
quo. As stated in our TSD, the PSD program has been implemented within
the District by EPA in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21,
which incorporated the NSR Reform provisions to which the commenter
refers since their inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA understands the comment regarding the ``various
flexibilities'' allowing sources to be constructed without BACT and
air quality assessment to be directed at NSR Reform's revisions to
the method of determining what changes are deemed to be major
modifications under EPA and San Joaquin's rules and therefore
subject to PSD review. Plainly, once a change is deemed a major
modification, 40 CFR 52.21 and the District's rule incorporating
52.21 by reference have provisions for BACT and air quality
assessments required by PSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as revised through NSR
Reform were not already in place within the District, EPA is not aware
of any basis for concluding that the PSD program under 40 CFR 52.21,
including NSR Reform, that has been incorporated by reference by the
District would interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS within the
District, nor has the commenter provided specific information
demonstrating that such interference would occur. The commenter refers
to a general legislative statement by the California legislature that
appears to have been adopted in 2003 that disagrees generally with NSR
Reform but which is not specific as to what changes in air quality, if
any, would occur as a result of EPA's approval of the District's PSD
program.
    NSR Reform affects only permitting of modifications to existing
sources, and more specifically, modifications to existing emissions
units. Any growth occurring from new, greenfield sites would be
controlled and permitted in the same manner both pre- and post-reform.
Therefore, any concerns about NSR Reform would be related to
unregulated growth from existing major sources. In the specific case of
the District, modifications that are not subject to PSD review
generally have been, and will continue to be, subject to review under
the District's minor NSR program, which is approved into the California
SIP through District Rule 2201. Rule 2201 contains the District's
permit program for all increases in pollutants subject to a NAAQS,
whether classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable by
EPA. The rule includes pre-construction permitting requirements for
sources that are not required to be permitted under title I,

parts C and D of the Act as new major stationary sources or major
modifications at existing major stationary sources in attainment or
nonattainment areas, which are commonly referred to as ``minor NSR,''
although this term is not used in Rule 2201. A modification in the
District that is not required to obtain a PSD permit (whether due to
the application of the NSR Reform provisions or not) would still be
subject to the preconstruction permit requirements of the District's
minor NSR program in Rule 2201, including any associated testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. All modifications
within the District are required to obtain a permit revision prior to
modification of the applicable units. Generally, for any new or
modified emissions unit, the District's NSR program begins applying
BACT for emission increases of two pounds per day (0.4 tons per
year).\3\ See District Rule 2201, Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The District's
NSR program also generally requires a demonstration that emissions from
certain new or modified stationary sources, including minor sources,
will not cause or make worse the violation of an ambient air quality
standard. See District Rule 2201, Section 4.14. EPA's approval of the
District's PSD program will not change the level of review that is
conducted for modifications not subject to PSD review within the
District. The District's robust minor NSR permitting program for such
sources provides additional assurance that EPA's approval of the
District's PSD SIP revision, which incorporates NSR Reform, will not
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS within the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the District's rules, CO emissions from a new or
modified emissions unit at a stationary source with a post project
potential to emit of less than 100 tons per year are exempt from the
requirement to apply BACT. In addition, the District's definition of
BACT is at least as stringent as the federal definitions for Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that at the time EPA adopted NSR Reform, we provided an
analysis of the environmental impacts of the ``various flexibilities''
the commenter discusses. Based on examples and modeling, we concluded
that NSR Reform would likely have a neutral to positive effect on air
quality relative to the pre-Reform provisions. See generally
Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR
Improvement Rules (Nov. 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis).\4\ This
analysis applied at the time the NSR Reforms became effective within
the District, March 3, 2003. See 67 FR 80186. The commenter has
provided no specific data that leads EPA to conclude that this initial
analysis was incorrect. Considering the District's minor NSR program,
which was not a part of the above-mentioned national analysis, the
environmental impacts of continuing to implement the NSR Reform should
not be different from the effect modeled in the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Supplemental Analysis is available at
http:[sol][sol]epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf, and has also
been added to the docket for this action. It is incorporated into
these responses by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, as EPA concluded in its TSD for the proposed rulemaking,
the transfer of the PSD program under 40 CFR 52.21 from EPA to the
District is not expected to result in any substantive changes to the
PSD program requirements, other CAA requirements, or air quality within
the District, and EPA continues to believe that its approval of the
District's PSD SIP revision would not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS within the District, or with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA bases this conclusion on the
fact that the District's PSD program will be no less stringent than the
federal PSD program under 40 CFR 52.21 that it is replacing. In
addition, EPA has taken into consideration the District's extensive
minor source permitting program that will impose control requirements
on sources that are not major under the PSD program. EPA finds that the
approval of this SIP revision is entirely consistent with the
development of a plan for the District to attain and maintain the
NAAQS.
    Last, it is unclear to EPA what the basis is for the commenter's
statement that relying on the existing District nonattainment NSR
program is not a substitute for the necessary analysis under CAA
section 110(l) in terms of maintenance of the NAAQS, or how the
commenter's concerns with the District's nonattainment NSR permitting
process relate to EPA's CAA section 110(l) analysis in this case. We
assume that the commenter is referring in this statement to the
District's major nonattainment NSR program.\5\ For the reasons outlined
above, EPA believes that its 110(l) analysis for this action is
appropriate, and we have not specifically relied on the District's
major nonattainment NSR program to support our 110(l) analysis here
because our approval action addresses the District's PSD permitting
program, which regulates only those pollutants for which the District
has been designated attainment or unclassifiable. General concerns
about the District's major nonattainment NSR permitting process are
outside the scope of this PSD SIP revision approval action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To the extent the commenter may be referring to the
District's minor NSR program as it relates to nonattainment
pollutants, as noted in more detail above, the District's minor NSR
program is quite comprehensive and will impose permit requirements
on numerous sources not subject to major nonattainment NSR or PSD
review by the District, and, accordingly, will provide additional
protection of the NAAQS beyond that provided by the District's PSD
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Final Action

    EPA is approving CARB's August 23, 2011 submittal of District Rule
2410--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)--into the
California SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction
review of certain new and modified major stationary sources in
attainment or unclassifiable areas.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 December 26, 2012. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(415) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (415) New and amended regulations were submitted on August 23, 2011
by the Governor's designee. Final approval of these regulations is
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in a May 18, 2012
letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District regarding specific implementation of parts of the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 2410, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' adopted
on June 16, 2011.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated May 18, 2012 from David Warner, SJVUAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 2410 and 40 CFR 51.166.

0
3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding new paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.270  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Rule 2410, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' adopted
on June 16, 2011, for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD) is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the
Clean Air Act, based, in part, on the clarifications provided in a May
18, 2012 letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District described in Sec.  52.220(c)(415). For PSD permits
previously issued by EPA pursuant to Sec.  52.21 to sources located in
the SJVUAPCD, this approval includes the authority for the SJVUAPCD to
conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to
process and issue any and all subsequent permit actions relating to
such permits, and authority to enforce such permits, except for:
    (i) Those specific sources within the SJVUAPCD that have submitted
PSD permit applications to EPA and for which EPA has issued a proposed
PSD permit decision, but for which final agency action and/or the
exhaustion of all administrative and judicial appeals processes
(including any associated remand actions) have not yet been concluded
or completed by November 26, 2012. The SJVUAPCD will assume full
responsibility for the administration and implementation of such PSD
permits immediately upon notification from EPA to the SJVUAPCD that any
and all administrative and judicial appeals processes (and any
associated remand actions) have been completed or concluded for any
such permit decision. Prior to the date of such notification, EPA is
retaining authority to apply Sec.  52.21 for such permit decisions, and
the provisions of Sec.  52.21, except paragraph (a)(1), are therefore
incorporated and made a part of the State plan for California for the
SJVUAPCD for such permit decisions during the identified time period.
    (ii) [Reserved].
[FR Doc. 2012-26294 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DATE:
May 10, 2012
FROM:
Lisa Grogan-McCulloch, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Branch
SUBJECT:
Potential Future Subpart L Options

I. 	Introduction
Following publication of proposed confidentiality determinations for the Fluorinated Gas Production source category (subpart L), EPA received public comment that the release of process-specific emissions of individual fluorinated greenhouse gases (GHGs) from some fluorinated gas production and transformation processes may reveal trade secrets.  In response to these comments, EPA is undertaking an in-depth analysis on whether the subpart L reporting requirements could be changed to mitigate these concerns without compromising the adequacy of the data set available to the Agency to inform development of future climate policy.  As part of this effort, we are presenting in this Memorandum potential options for changes to the subpart L reporting requirements should EPA determine that a change is appropriate.

There are several possible options for reporting process level emissions from fluorinated gas production.  In this memo, we have attempted to outline these options in order to be as comprehensive as possible.  EPA is currently in the process of evaluating whether these options would generate an adequate data set upon which to inform future policy.  Should EPA determine that a permanent change to the reporting requirements is appropriate, any comments received on this memorandum will facilitate the narrowing of options and development of a future proposal.
II. 	Overview of Current Subpart L Reporting Requirements

Under the current subpart L, fluorinated gas producers are required to report GHG emissions by process and by chemical.  Specifically, facilities are currently required to report the following:
   * The total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from
         o each fluorinated gas production process (98.126(a)(2)(i)) ,
         o each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process (98.126(a)(2)(ii)),
         o each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production or transformation process (98.126(a)(2)(iii)), and
         o venting of residual fluorinated GHGs (heels) from containers returned from the field (98.126(a)(2)(iv)).
   * Where producers use the emission factor or emission calculation factor methods under section 98.123(c), they are also required to report chemical-specific emissions for each process vent and for equipment leaks, which reflects the fact that emissions are calculated separately for vents and leaks (98.126(c) and (d)).
   * Where producers use the mass-balance method under 98.123(b), they are also required to report emissions by the role the chemical plays in the production process (i.e., as reactant, product, or by-product), again reflecting the method by which emissions are calculated (98.126(b)(3)  -  (5)).
   * In addition, fluorinated gas producers are required to report, by process, the chemical identities of the contents of the streams (including process, emissions, and destroyed streams) analyzed under the initial scoping speciation at 98.124(a) as well as the location and function of those streams (98.126(a)(3) and (4)).
   * The first reporting under subpart L is to occur in 2012, for reporting year 2011 (RY2011).

III. Options for Reporting Emissions from Fluorinated Gas Production and Transformation Processes
EPA is considering several options to address the concerns raised by the commenters on the proposed confidentiality determinations for subpart L.  Section A below describes an approach under which facilities would be required to meet certain criteria as a condition for reporting their fluorinated GHG emissions in a less detailed manner than currently required by the rule.  Section B describes a range of options for reporting at various levels of detail.  The options described in Section B could be applied together with the approach described in Section A or separately.

        A. Option of establishing criteria to determine the level of reporting

As discussed above, given the comments on the confidentiality rulemaking (77 FR 1434), EPA is considering whether EPA needs the current level of data reported from all facilities within subpart L, or whether EPA would have an adequate data set with which to inform future policy by collecting this level of information from most facilities and less detailed information from facilities with specialized circumstances.  To this end, EPA is considering an approach under which facilities that meet certain criteria could report their fluorinated GHG emissions in a less detailed manner according to one of the options outlined in Section B below. The criteria could include considerations such as whether a facility has a unique process or product, whether the facility's process information is already in the public domain, and/or the quantity of the product produced.  Under this option, all facilities that do not meet the criteria for reporting in a less detailed manner would be required to report using the current subpart L reporting requirements.

        B. Options for Reporting at Alternative Levels of Aggregation
For fluorinated gas production and transformation processes, EPA is considering a range of reporting options that would provide varying levels of detail regarding the source of the emissions (ranging from reporting by process and by emission type to reporting at the facility level) and the chemicals emitted (ranging from reporting by speciated fluorinated GHG to reporting in CO2e).  Table 1 below illustrates where the possible alternative reporting options (as well as the current reporting approach in the rule) fall along these two axes.  To address the possibility that reporting chemical-specific emissions at the process level could disclose business-sensitive information, many of the options (represented as cells in Table 1) involve reporting at different levels of aggregation for the source and the chemicals.  For example, under one option, the source would be reported at the highest level of aggregation (by facility) while the chemicals would be reported at the lowest level (by fluorinated GHG species).  Under other options, the source would be reported at the lowest level of aggregation (by process and emission type) while the chemicals would be reported at a higher level of aggregation (e.g., by gas group or in terms of CO2e).  In addition, different options could be combined.
Based on Table 1, there are twelve or more individual options that could be based on different combinations of these levels.  Rather than reviewing these individually, Section 1 focuses on the varying levels of aggregation for the source, while Section 2 focuses on the varying levels of aggregation for the chemicals.  Section 3 then discusses four individual options in more detail.

      1. Levels of Aggregation for the Emissions Source
      a.  Reporting by process and emissions type (current requirements in subpart L)
Currently, subpart L requires facilities to report their emissions by process.  In addition, they are required to report the identity and mass of the product produced by each production or transformation process. Where the emission estimation method permits, facilities are also required to report their emissions by emission type.

The definition of "process" in subpart L reads in part, "Process means all equipment that collectively functions to produce a fluorinated gas product, including an isolated intermediate (which is also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform a fluorinated gas product. A process

Table 1.  Overview of GHG Reporting Alternative Options for Subpart L

                            Increasing Aggregation
Emission Source

                                      Gas
                             Increasing Aggregation

By process, by emission type
   *  Vents
   *  Leaks
Product of process reported
By process, by emission type
Product of process not reported; instead process identified generically,  e.g.,
   *  Production reaction A
   *  Production reaction B
   *  Transformation distillation process C
By Process only
At Facility-Level
   *   All production, transformation processes combined

By chemical
                                 Current rule

Gas groups (based on chemical structure OR atmospheric lifetime)

CO2e

may consist of one or more unit operations. For the purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a combination of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity, operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a fluorinated gas product."
Emission type refers to emissions from process vents and equipment leaks.  The emission factor and emission calculation factor methods provide separate estimates for these emissions types while the mass-balance method does not.
Reporting the identity and mass of the product produced by the process provides a natural means of identifying the process and allows EPA to compare processes that make similar products at different facilities.  Reporting by emission type allows EPA to identify and evaluate potential reduction opportunities.

      b. Reporting by generically identified process
Given that some commenters have asserted that the identity of the product of the process could disclose sensitive business information (if the product is an intermediate), EPA is considering an option where facilities would identify processes generically.  The process would first be identified as a production process, a transformation process that transformed fluorinated GHGs produced on site, or a transformation process that transformed fluorinated GHGs produced at other facilities.  Within these categories, the process would be further identified as a reaction, separation/recovery, or packaging process, or as a combination of these.  Finally, the process would be tagged with an identifier chosen by the facility (e.g., a letter or number) that would remain constant from year to year to allow year-to-year comparisons.  One area where reporting of the identity of the product of the process may not involve reporting of sensitive business information is where that product is a final product, whose identity would already be known to competitors.   Compared to Option a, this option would not allow EPA to identify and compare processes making the same product across different facilities
      c. Reporting by  process, with emission types reported in aggregate (across processes)
Under this option, the emissions reported for each process would not be broken down by emission type.  Emission type could be reported in aggregate across all processes.  Under this approach, potential reduction opportunities for each emission type within each process would be more difficult to evaluate than under Options a and b.  Because the relative magnitudes of emissions from vents and leaks are not likely to be business-sensitive, and similar sets of chemicals are expected to be emitted from vents and leaks for any given process, distinguishing between emissions from vents and leaks would not add to the risk of revealing business-sensitive information (compared to reporting by process).

       d.  Reporting at the facility level
The least detailed option under this section would be to require reporting emissions at the facility level for all production and transformation processes combined.  EPA would anticipate using this requirement to supplement a requirement to report emissions at the process level.  For example, a requirement to report emissions by chemical group at the process level could be supplemented by a requirement to report emissions by chemical at the facility level.  Such an approach would retain some of the benefits of chemical-specific reporting (e.g., comparison of emissions estimates through atmospheric measurements) without linking particular chemicals to particular processes.

      1. Levels of Aggregation for Chemicals
      a.  Reporting by individual (speciated) fluorinated GHG (current subpart L requirement)
Subpart L currently requires fluorinated gas producers to report their emissions by chemical.

For subpart L, information on the identities and characteristics of GHGs is particularly important.  First, the range of GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes spanned by the fluorinated GHGs is quite large.  Lifetimes range from a few days (e.g., for several unsaturated fluorocarbons) to thousands of years (e.g., for saturated perfluorocarbons), while GWPs range from less than one (e.g., for several unsaturated fluorocarbons) to above 20,000 (for SF6).  Often, the same fluorinated gas production facility may emit fluorinated GHGs at both ends of the GWP and lifetime ranges.  Knowledge of the GWPs of the chemicals emitted is necessary to distinguish between processes emitting many tons of a low-GWP chemical and processes emitting a few tons (or kilograms) of a high-GWP chemical.  While the CO2-equivalent emissions of both processes may be the same, appropriate emission reduction strategies may differ.  Knowledge of the lifetimes of the chemicals is important to understanding how emissions from different processes would fit into policies that focus particularly on short-lived or long-lived GHGs.

Second, fluorinated gas producers are a significant emission source for many fluorinated GHGs, and for some fluorinated GHGs, they are the only source.  This makes them especially important in efforts to reconcile atmospheric measurements of fluorinated GHGs with estimates of emissions of fluorinated GHGs from all emitting industries.  (Most fluorinated GHGs lack significant natural sources.)

Chemical-specific reporting is also consistent with GHG Inventory reporting under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which encourages chemical-specific reporting.   Under the UNFCCC, other countries report chemical-specific emissions from comparable fluorinated gas production facilities. For example, in 2011 and previous years, Belgium's GHG inventory reported emissions from "an electrochemical synthesis (electro-fluorination) plant, which emits, or has emitted SF6, CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F10, C5F12 and C6F14 as well as fluorinated greenhouse gases not covered by the Kyoto Protocol (among which CF3SF5, C7F16, C8F18 and C8F16O)."   From this plant, Belgium reported 2009 emissions of CF4, C4F8, C5F12, and C6F14 in tons of each gas.   France and Italy have also reported chemical-specific emissions from their fluorinated gas production facilities.

      b.  Reporting by fluorinated GHG group based on chemical structure
One set of options that would retain information on chemical characteristics but not on precise chemical identities would be to require reporting of emissions by fluorinated GHG group.  Such fluorinated GHG groups could be based on chemical structure, GWP, atmospheric lifetime, or some combination of these.   Whatever the organizing principle, to be useful for policy analysis, the groups should meet the following criteria:
      1. They should be distinct (i.e., not overlapping);
      2. Considered together, they should be comprehensive (i.e., cover all fluorinated GHGs);
      3. They should track atmospheric lifetime and GWP.
One set of groups that EPA is considering is based on the structure of the chemicals.  The groups would include:
   * Fully fluorinated GHGs.  These would include fluorinated GHGs that contain only single bonds and in which all available valence locations are filled by fluorine atoms.  This group would include but is not limited to saturated perfluorocarbons, SF6, NF3, SF5CF3, fully fluorinated linear, branched and cyclic alkanes, fully fluorinated ethers, fully fluorinated tertiary amines, fully fluorinated aminoethers, and perfluoropolyethers. Fully fluorinated GHGs generally have lifetimes of over 500 to several thousand years and GWPs of 6,500 to 23,900.

   * Saturated hydrofluorocarbons.  This group would include hydrofluorocarbons that contain only single bonds (i.e., hydrofluoroalkanes such as HFC-134a and HFC-23).  Saturated HFCs generally have lifetimes from 5 to 55 years and GWPs from 650 to 4,000, but there are exceptions at both extremes (see discussion below).

   * Other fluorinated GHGs.  This group would include fluorinated GHGs that are neither fully fluorinated GHGs nor saturated hydrofluorocarbons.  This includes but is not limited to hydrofluoro-olefins, fluoroketones, hydrofluoroethers, and hydrofluoropolyethers .  These GHGs generally have lifetimes of less than 10 years and GWPs of less than 1000, but there are some exceptions with higher GWPs and lifetimes.

To ensure that the gas groups are both distinct and comprehensive, the last gas group is designed to capture everything not in either of the first two groups.  With the exception of HFE-125 and HFE-134, which have lifetimes of 136 and 26 years respectively, EPA is not aware of any medium- or long-lived fluorinated GHGs that fall into this group.
This approach would avoid linking particular chemicals to particular processes, which might reveal business-sensitive information.  At the same time, reporting by chemical group, defined by chemical structure, would provide general information on the chemical and atmospheric properties of the emissions because fluorinated GHGs with fairly similar atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs would be grouped together.  For example, most saturated HFCs whose lifetimes and GWPs have been evaluated by the IPCC have lifetimes ranging between 5 and 55 years and GWPs ranging between 650 and 4,000 (based on the Second Assessment Report).  It would therefore provide useful information for assessing potential emission reduction approaches (e.g., if reported at the process level) and for informing policies that distinguish among chemicals based on their atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs.  It is also similar to the approach of current international conventions that address chemicals with impacts on the global atmosphere (e.g., UNFCCC, Montreal Protocol).

However, the range of lifetimes and GWPs spanned by each chemical group is still relatively large, and it becomes larger when outliers are factored in.  For example, HFCs include HFC-152a (with a lifetime of 1.4 years and a GWP of 140) and HFC-23 (with a lifetime of 270 years and a GWP of 11,700).  This reduces the usefulness of the data compared to chemical-specific reporting or to reporting by other possible chemical groups.

      a.  Reporting by fluorinated GHG group based on atmospheric lifetime or GWP
Another option that EPA is considering is to group gases explicitly by atmospheric lifetime or GWP.    This grouping approach, like that described in Option b, would meet the three criteria for gas groupings described above.  Table 2 below lists one possible set of groups based on atmospheric lifetime.  A similar example could be drawn up based on GWP.  For the fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are included in Table A-1 of  40 CFR 98, subpart A, EPA could propose to  add lifetimes to Table A-1 based on the most recent IPCC update of GWPs and lifetimes (e.g., the Table 2.14 errata).  For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs and lifetimes were not on Table A-1, EPA could propose that reporters would either independently assess the lifetime or GWP of the gas or report the gas as unclassified.

             Table 2.  Fluorinated GHG Atmospheric Lifetime Groups
                   Groupings by atmospheric lifetime, years
                                     <1
                                      1-5
                                     5-20
                                     20-60
                                    60-300
                                    >300

Under this approach, the ranges of atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs would be considerably lower than under Option b, increasing the usefulness of the data compared to Option b.  However, this option would require facilities to know the lifetime of each chemical to report it.  Although lifetimes have been estimated for the fluorinated GHGs listed on Table A-1 (and could therefore be easily added to this table by EPA), they have not necessarily been estimated for fluorinated GHGs that are not on Table A-1.  (Atmospheric lifetimes are easier to assess than GWPs, however.)
Hybrids of the two grouping options (chemical structure and atmospheric lifetime or GWP) could partially address the drawbacks of each (e.g., by breaking saturated HFCs into two or more groups based on lifetime), but this would increase the complexity of the rule.

         a. Reporting emissions in terms of CO2e across all fluorinated GHGs
EPA is also considering requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions in terms of CO2e across all fluorinated GHGs.  EPA would anticipate combining this option with another option (e.g., process emissions could be reported in CO2e while facility-level emissions could be reported by chemical).  If CO2e emissions were reported at the process level, this approach would allow ranking of processes in terms of their GWP-weighted emissions.  However, unlike reporting by chemical group, it would not allow EPA to distinguish between processes that emit large quantities of low-GWP chemicals and small quantities of high-GWP chemicals.  Similarly, it would not inform policies that distinguish among chemicals based on their atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs.  Finally, for fluorinated GHGs that are not on Table A-1, this approach would require facilities to know or estimate GWPs or to use default GWPs (see the discussion below) .

      1. Converting fluorinated GHG emissions into CO2e
To convert non-CO2 emissions into CO2e, the EPA generally requires facilities to use Equation A-1 of subpart A, which multiplies the mass of each chemical by the GWP for that chemical in Table A-1.  For fluorinated GHGs that do not have a GWP listed in Table A-1, EPA is considering an option under which facilities would either use a default GWP or use their best estimate of the GWP, based on the information described in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) . The default GWP used would depend on the type of fluorinated GHG. For fully fluorinated GHGs, the default GWP would be 10,000, which is based on the average GWP of the fully fluorinated GHGs on Table A-1. For other fluorinated GHGs, the default GWP would be 2,000, which is based on the average GWP of the other fluorinated GHGs on Table A-1. EPA would propose to distinguish between fully fluorinated GHGs and other fluorinated GHGs because the former have significantly longer lifetimes and higher GWPs than the latter.

Facilities using best estimate GWPs would also be required to report those GWPs to EPA along with the data and analysis that were used to develop the GWPs.  This would enable EPA to verify the GWPs and to consider them for inclusion on Table A-1.

The default GWPs would be an option for facilities that either do not know the GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs that they emit or do not wish to report best-estimate GWPs for one or more chemicals because this would involve disclosure of the identities of the chemicals.  The default of 2000 (for fluorinated GHGs other than fully fluorinated GHGs) would be the same as that used by facilities to calculate whether they must use stack testing to establish an emission factor for a vent that emits one or more fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs on Table A-1.  Both the 2000 and 10,000 default GWPs are intended to represent averages across their respective gas groups; they are not conservative.  EPA expects that this would generally result in unbiased estimates of facility-wide CO2e emissions that include fluorinated GHGs without GWPs on Table A-1; however, some facilities might choose to use the default rather than their own best-estimate if that estimate was higher than the default.  In this case, facility-wide CO2e emissions would be underestimated, and EPA might never receive the information necessary to update Table A-1 to correct the underestimate.  Other options include making the defaults more conservative (i.e., higher numerically) to encourage facilities to estimate and report their own GWPs, and requiring facilities to report speciated emissions of fluorinated GHGs (and estimated GWPs, if available) that are not on Table A-1 and are emitted in significant quantities (e.g., 1 ton or more for each fully fluorinated GHG and 5 tons or more for each other fluorinated GHG, which would be expected to equate to approximately 10,000 mtCO2e in either case).

IV.	References
77 FR 1434.  January 10, 2012.  Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.
Muffat, Jeffry C., to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQOAR-2011-028. Public comment letter to EPA's Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.  EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018. Dated March 12, 2012.
Mascarenhas, Brendan, to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQOAR-2011-028. Public comment letter to EPA's Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.  EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0017. Dated March 12, 2012.


[Federal Register: April 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16771]
[DOCID:fr04ap06-32]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filings

March 20, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER06-499-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an amendment to its
1/18/06 filing of revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0284.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-542-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co amends its 1/25/06 filing
to reflect subsequent change in the Commission's regulations.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0285.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-700-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
clarifications and corrections to their March 2006 Credit Policy
Amendments.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0273.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-726-000.
    Applicants: Madison Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Madison Windpower LLC petitions the Commission for
order accepting market-based rate schedule for filing and granting
waivers and blanket approvals.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0274.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-727-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an unexecuted service
agreement for Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Calpine Energy
Services LP, effective 2/15/06.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-728-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Potrero LLC.
    Description: Mirant Potrero LLC submits revisions to its must Must-
Run Service Agreement with the California Independent System Operator
Corp.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0276.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-729-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0277.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-730-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume.
    Filed Date: 3/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0278.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4801 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Stakeholder Meetings That Included Discussion of MM2A Memorandum or Related Issues
Meeting Host
Date of Meeting
Attendees
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
February 1, 2018
State, EPA Region 7 Staff
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
February 8, 2018
State, City, County Reps, EPA Region 7 Staff
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
March 6, 2018
State, EPA Region 7 Staff
Connecticut SIPRAC
April 12, 2018
Connecticut, industry, consultants, EPA Region 1 Staff
Region 7
April 17, 2018
States (Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa), EPA Region 7 Staff
NEDA CAP
April 30, 2018
NEDA CAP Membership, EPA HQ Staff
EPA Headquarters (HQ)
May 3, 2018
Clean Air Task Force, EDF, American Lung Association, Earth Justice, NRDC, Sierra Club, EPA HQ Staff
AWMA Georgia Chapter
May 16, 2018
States, Industry, Consultants, EPA Region 4 Staff
Environmental Show of the South Conference
May 17, 2018
States, Industry, Consultants, EPA Region 4 Staff
EPA Headquarters
June 7, 2018
Clean Air Task Force, EDF, American Lung Association, Earth Justice, NRDC, Sierra Club, EPA HQ Staff
NACAA
June 7, 2018
NACAA Air Toxics Committee and Permitting Committee, EPA HQ Staff
ACA
June 7, 2018
ACA Membership, EPA HQ Staff
ACC
June 7, 2018
ACC Membership, EPA HQ Staff
Region 7
June 20, 2018
Iowa, EPA Region 7 Staff
NTAA
June 28, 2018
NTAA Membership, EPA HQ Staff
RATC
July 12, 2018
RATC Membership, EPA HQ Staff
AAPCA
July 19, 2018
AAPCA Membership, EPA HQ Staff
API
August 23, 2018
API Membership, EPA HQ Staff
AWMA Southern Section
September 26, 2018
States, Industry, Consultants, EPA Region 4 Staff
Region 7
October 11, 2018
State and Local Reps., Region 7 Staff
Region 7
November 13, 2018
State SBEAP Reps., Region 7 Staff
EPA Region 1 Air Toxics Workshop
November 15, 2018
Region 1 and Region 2 Staff, New England States and New Jersey
AWMA/ASME Information Exchange
December 4, 2018
AWMA Membership, EPA HQ Staff
NACAA Permitting and NSR Committee
February 13, 2019
NACAA Permitting and NSR Committee Membership, EPA HQ Staff
Plastic Industry Association
March 26, 2019
Plastics Industry Association Membership (EHS and Committee Members), EPA HQ Staff


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32153]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-51]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13442-000]

McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

June 26, 2009.
    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the
feasibility of the Robert C. Byrd Hydrokinetic Project No. 13442, to be
located on the Ohio River, in Mason County, West Virginia, and Gallia
County, Ohio.
    The proposed Robert C. Byrd Project would be located just
downstream of the Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dam in an area of the Ohio
River approximately 9,500-feet-long and 1,100-feet-wide and would
consist of: (1) A single barge suspending up to 10 axial flow turbine
generators into the river with a total installed capacity of 350
kilowatts; (2) a new 300 to 8,000-foot-long, 13.5-kV transmission line;
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 1,533 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Bruce D. McGinnis, Sr., P.O. Box 534, 502
Second Street Ext., South Point, Ohio 45680,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13442) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15897 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40011]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-95]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Hondo Municipal Airport, Hondo, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Hondo Municipal Airport under the provisions of
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to the Mr. Robert Herrera, City Manager, at the
following address: 1600 Avenue M, Hondo, Texas 78861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Cooks Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fax: (817)
222-5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Hondo Municipal Airport under the
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Hondo requests the release of 30.785 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. The total acreage consists of two
tracts. One is a 25.783 acre tract and the second tract is a 5.002 acre
tract, for a total of 30.785 acres. The land was acquired by Deed
without Warranty from the United States on July 16, 1948. The property
to be released will be sold to allow for future development of the
airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Hondo Municipal Airport, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on July 1, 2008.
James Michael Nicely,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-15552 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5548]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-64]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-84-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Technical
Conference

January 23, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
in the above-referenced proceeding on Friday, February 8, 2008, at 10
a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's December 28, 2007 Order \1\ directed that a
technical conference be held to address the issues raised by Southern
Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s (Southern Star) November 30, 2007,
tariff filings to reflect annual adjustments to its fuel and loss
reimbursement percentages (FLRPs). Commission Staff and parties will
have the opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised by Southern
Star's filing including, but not limited to, technical, engineering and
operational issues, and issues related to the interpretation of tariff
provisions governing Southern Star's FLRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 121 FERC ] 61,306
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Timothy Duggan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Deborah Frazier at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1585 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P