### 55171 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule related to Virginia permits for major stationary sources and major modifications locating in PSD or Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 23, 2012. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2012–22094 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0305; FRL–9724–9]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Maryland; Deferral for CO** 2 **Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic** 
**Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environmental (MDE) on April 4, 2012. This revision proposes to defer until July 21, 2014 the application of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources in the State of Maryland. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before October 9, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2012–0305 by one of the following methods:

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0305, Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 0305. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects

or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by
email at talley.david@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. On April 4, 2012, MDE submitted a revision (#12–02) to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to maintain consistency with Federal greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements under the PSD program.

I. Background

A. The Tailoring Rule

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving overwhelming permitting burdens from the regulation of GHG’s that would, in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources (75 FR 31514). EPA accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that determine
which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters.

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements apply to major stationary source GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due
to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, EPA did not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they are subject to PSD requirements solely
on account of their GHG emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most noticeably the best available control technology


### 55172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1 As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses both PSD and Title V requirements. However, EPA is only taking action on Maryland’s PSD program as part of this action. (BACT) requirement as defined in CAA section 169(3), apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2e), but only if the project also significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant. CO 2 e is a metric used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). The CO 2e for a gas is determined by multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP. The applicable GWP’s and guidance on how to
calculate a source’s GHG emissions in tpy CO 2e can be found in EPA’s ‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,’’ which is updated annually under existing commitment
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, phased in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources that emit, or have the potential to emit (PTE), at least 100,000 tpy CO 2e are subject to the PSD requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the PTE at least 100,000 tpy CO 2e and that undertake a
modification that increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO 2 e are also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA noted that if sources
or modifications exceed these CO 2 eadjusted GHG triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements
unless their GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.

Maryland implements its PSD program by incorporating 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, under COMAR 26.11.06.14B(1). This incorporation references a date specific version of the CFR and is updated periodically and submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. In order to adopt the Tailoring Rule, Maryland’s previous update incorporated 40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as published in the 2009 edition, as amended by the ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’ (75 FR 31514).’’ EPA approved this revision into the Maryland SIP on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45949).

B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule

On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated
the final ‘‘Deferral for CO 2 Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic
Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs’’ (Biomass Deferral). Following is a brief discussion of the
deferral. For a full discussion of EPA’s rationale for the rule, see the notice of final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490.

The biomass deferral delays until July 21, 2014 the consideration of CO 2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘biogenic CO 2 emissions’’) when determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds, including those for the application of BACT 1 . Stationary sources that combust biomass (or otherwise emit biogenic CO 2 emissions) and construct or modify during the deferral period will avoid the application of PSD to the biogenic CO 2 emissions resulting from those actions. The deferral applies only to biogenic

CO 2 emissions and does not affect nonGHG pollutants or other GHG’s (e.g., methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N 2O))
emitted from the combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to biogenic CO 2 emissions in the PSD and Title V programs and does not pertain to any other EPA programs such as the GHG Reporting Program.

Biogenic CO 2 emissions are defined as
emissions of CO 2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than
fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ‘‘biogenic CO 2 emissions’’ include, but are not limited

to:

• CO 2 generated from the biological decomposition of waste in landfills,

wastewater treatment or manure management processes;

• CO 2 from the combustion of biogas collected from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment or manure management

processes;

• CO 2 from fermentation during ethanol production or other industrial fermentation processes;

• CO 2 from combustion of the biological fraction of municipal solid waste or biosolids;

• CO 2 from combustion of the biological fraction of tire-derived fuel;
and

• CO 2 derived from combustion of biological material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue, and agricultural material.

EPA recognizes that use of certain types of biomass can be part of the national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Efforts are underway at the Federal, state and regional level to foster the expansion of renewable resources and promote bioenergy projects when they are a way to address climate change, increase domestic alternative energy production, enhance forest management and create related employment opportunities. We believe part of fostering this development is to
ensure that those feedstocks with negligible net atmospheric impact not be subject to unnecessary regulation. At the same time, it is important that EPA
have time to conduct its detailed
examination of the science and technical issues related to accounting for biogenic CO 2 emissions and
therefore have finalized this deferral.
The deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for no more than three years, to allow the Agency time to complete its work and determine what, if any, treatment of biogenic CO 2 emissions should be in the PSD and Title V programs. The biomass
deferral rule is not EPA’s final
determination on the treatment of biogenic CO 2 emissions in those programs. The Agency plans to complete its science and technical review and any follow-on rulemakings within the three-year deferral period and further believes that three years is ample time to complete these tasks. It is possible that the subsequent rulemaking, depending on the nature of EPA’s determinations, would supersede the biomass deferral rulemaking and
become effective in fewer than three years. In that event, Maryland may revise its SIP accordingly.

For stationary sources co-firing fossil fuel and biologically-based fuel, and/or combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire derived fuels, municipal solid waste (MSW)), the biogenic CO 2 emissions
from that combustion are included in the biomass deferral. However, the fossil

CO 2 emissions are not. Emissions of CO 2 from processing of mineral feedstocks (e.g., calcium carbonate) are also not
included in the deferral. Various
methods are available to calculate both the biogenic and fossil portions of CO 2 emissions, including those methods contained in the GHG Reporting Program (40 CFR Part 98). Consistent with the other pollutants in PSD and Title V, there are no requirements to use a particular method in determining biogenic and fossil CO 2 emissions.

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for biogenic CO 2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of the obligation to meet the PSD and Title V permitting requirements for other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a future date pending the results of


### 55173 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is applicable to biogenic

CO 2 emissions from a particular source during the three-year effective period and the study and future rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD and Title V permitting requirements for the biogenic CO 2 emissions from a source with particular characteristics, then the deferral would end for that type of source and its biogenic CO 2 emissions would have to be appropriately considered in any applicability determinations that the source may need to conduct for future stationary source permitting purposes, consistent with that subsequent rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule ( e.g., a major source determination for Title V purposes or a major modification determination for PSD purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify that we do not require that a PSD permit issued during the deferral period be amended or that any PSD requirements in a PSD permit existing at the time the deferral took effect, such as BACT limitations, be
revised or removed from an effective PSD permit for any reason related to the deferral or when the deferral period expires.

Section 52.21(w) of 40 CFR requires that any PSD permit shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under the limited conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a
source while the deferral was effective need not be reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its biogenic CO 2 emissions from PSD applicability after the deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO 2 emissions after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its biogenic CO 2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD permit
to authorize the modification.

Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope
of the biomass deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the Maryland SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent rulemaking. The
results of EPA’s review of the science related to net atmospheric impacts of biogenic CO 2 and the framework to properly account for such emissions in Title V and PSD permitting programs based on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, we are unable to predict which biogenic CO 2 sources, if any, currently subject to the deferral as incorporated into the Maryland SIP would be subject to any permanent exemptions or which currently deferred sources would be potentially required to
account for their emissions in the future rulemaking EPA has committed to undertake for such purposes in three or fewer years. Only in that rulemaking can EPA address the question of extending the deferral or putting in place requirements that would have the equivalent effect on sources covered by
the biomass deferral. Once that rulemaking has occurred, Maryland may
address related revisions to its SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

Similar to our approach with the Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the biomass deferral into the regulations governing state programs and into the Federal PSD program by amending the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’
under 40 CFR sections 51.166 and 52.21 respectively. As discussed above, Maryland implements its PSD program by incorporating section 52.21 by reference. This incorporation references a date specific version of the CFR and is updated periodically and submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. In order to adopt the Biomass Deferral, Maryland has revised COMAR 26.11.06.14B(1) to incorporate the 2009
version of 40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as amended by’’ the Tailoring Rule and the Biomass Deferral. Additionally, the definitions of ‘‘PSD source’’ and greenhouse gas’’ at
COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.02.01 respectively have been revised to incorporate the Biomass Deferral.

III. Proposed Action

EPA’s review of this material
indicates that it is consistent with Federal regulations. EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision incorporating the Biomass Deferral, which was submitted on April 4, 2012. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed approval of Maryland’s SIP revision request. These comments will be considered before taking final

action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule relating to the Biomass Deferral and GHG permitting under Maryland’s PSD program does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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


### 55174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Dated: August 23, 2012. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2012–22098 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND**
**SECURITY**

**Coast Guard**

**46 CFR Part 10**

**[Docket No. USCG–2012–0734]**

**Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner Credential Applicants With Anti**  **Tachycardia Devices or Implantable**
**Cardioverter Defibrillators**

**AGENCY :**  Coast Guard, DHS.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed policy change and request for comments.

**SUMMARY :**  The Coast Guard is seeking public comment regarding criteria for granting medical waivers to mariners who have anti-tachycardia devices or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Current Coast Guard guidance found in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04–08, Medical and Physical Evaluation Guidelines for
Merchant Mariner Credentials (NVIC 04–08), states that anti-tachycardia devices or ICDs are generally not
waiverable. The Coast Guard is considering changing that policy. Prior to issuing a policy change on whether to grant waivers for anti-tachycardia
devices or ICDs and the criteria for such waivers, the Coast Guard will accept comments from the public on whether the proposed criteria would adequately address safety concerns regarding
merchant mariners with ICDs.

**DATES :**  Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 9, 2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that
date.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2011–0734 using any one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–

0001.

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number

is 202–366–9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section below for instructions on submitting

comments.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  If you have questions about this notice, call or email Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division (CG–CVC–4), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1128, email MMCPolicy@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing material in the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone

202–366–9826.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Public Participation

You may submit comments and related material regarding whether this proposed policy change should be incorporated into a final policy on issuing medical waivers to mariners
with ICDs. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG–2012– 0734) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘USCG–2012–0734’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click ‘‘Search,’’ find this notice in the list of Results, and then click on the corresponding ‘‘Comment Now’’ box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1 ⁄ 2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.

Viewing the comments: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http:// www.regulations.gov and insert ‘‘USCG–
2012–0734’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click
‘‘Search’’ and use the filters on the left side of the page to highlight ‘‘Public Submissions’’ or other document types. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR
10.215 contain the medical standards that merchant mariners must meet prior to being issued a merchant mariner credential (MMC). In cases where the
mariner does not meet the medical standards in 46 CFR 10.215, the Coast Guard may issue a waiver when extenuating circumstances exist that warrant special consideration. See 46 CFR 10.215(g).

In NVIC 04–08, the Coast Guard states that anti-tachycardia devices and ICDs are generally not waiverable. Since the issuance of NVIC 04–08 on September 15, 2008, a number of mariners havesought and received waivers for antitachycardia devices or ICDs in accordance with 46 CFR 10.215(g). However, because NVIC 04–08 does not identify waiver criteria associated with anti-tachycardia devices or ICDs, it has been difficult for Coast Guard personnel to consistently evaluate merchant mariners with anti-tachycardia devices
or ICDs and assess whether an applicant’s medical condition warrants granting a medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.215(g). Accordingly, the Coast Guard is considering whether to change itspolicy regarding waivers for antitachycardia devices or ICDs, and under what criteria a mariner may be eligible
for waiver consideration.

The Coast Guard intends to consider public input as well as the
recommendations of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, established under the authority of 46