55168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

critical engine part remaining in service 

beyond its fatigue life because the current life 

limit is based on hours time-in-service (TIS) 

instead of fatigue cycles. This condition 

could result in fatigue failure of an engine 

rotor part, engine failure, and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(d) Required Actions 

(1) Before further flight, insert into the 

airworthiness limitation section of the 

maintenance manual or instructions for 

continued airworthiness the low cycle fatigue 

(LCF) limit diagrams shown in Figures 2 

through 7 (pages 9 through 14) of GE T700 

Turboshaft Engine Service Bulletin (ESB) No. 

T700 S/B 72–0041, dated August 21, 2009, 

for helicopters with the GE T700–GE–401C 

engine, or Figures 2 through 4 (pages 10 

through 12) of GE T700 Turboshaft ESB No. 

T700 S/B 72–0038, dated October 1, 2008, for 

helicopters with the GE T700–GE–701C 

engine. The diagonal line on each diagram 

represents the new cycle life limit (a 

combination of full low cycle fatigue events 

(LCF1) and partial low cycle fatigue events 

(LCF2) as those terms are defined in the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

3.A.(1) and 3.A.(2) of each ESB) for each gas 

generator turbine (GGT) rotor part. A 

combination of LCF1 and LCF2, which 

results in a number below the diagonal line 

of the applicable diagram for each engine, 

indicates that the part has not reached its 

fatigue life limit. 

(2) Before further flight: 

(i) Obtain the actual LCF1 and LCF2 count 

from the engine ‘‘history recorder’’ (HR); 

(ii) Calculate the LCF1 and LCF2 fatigue 

retirement life for each GGT rotor part as 

follows: 

(A) Determine the actual LCF ratio by 

dividing the total actual LCF2 cycle count 

obtained from the HR by the total actual 

LCF1 cycle count obtained from the HR. Add 

to the actual counts from the HR any actual 

additional fatigue cycle incurred during any 

period in which the HR was inoperative. 

(B) Determine the LCF1 retirement life by 

dividing the maximum number of LCF2 

events obtained from the applicable diagram 

for each engine by the sum of the actual LCF 

ratio obtained by following paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD plus the quotient of 

the maximum number of LCF2 events from 

the applicable diagram for each engine 

divided by the maximum number of LCF1 

events from the applicable diagram for each 

engine. 

(C) Determine the LCF2 retirement life by 

multiplying the actual LCF ratio obtained by 

following paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD 

times the LCF1 retirement life determined by 

following paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD. 

(iii) Replace each GGT rotor part that has 

reached the new fatigue cycle life limit with 

an airworthy rotor part. 

(3) For helicopters with the GE T700–GE– 

401C engine, if you cannot determine the 

number of low cycle fatigue events manually 

from the HR or by combining both manual 

and HR counts, then the life limit for the 

GGT rotor part is the hours TIS for the part 

as shown in Table 1 of ESB No. T700 S/B 72– 

0041, dated August 21, 2009. 

(4) Before further flight, begin or continue 

to count the full and partial low fatigue cycle 

events and record on the component card or 

equivalent record that count at the end of 

each day for which the HR is inoperative. 

(e) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits will not be issued to 

allow flight in excess of life limits. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Michael Davison, Flight Test Engineer, New 

England Regional Office, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: (781) 238–7156; fax: (781) 

238–7170; email: michael.davison@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR 

part 119 operating certificate or under 14 

CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you 

notify your principal inspector, or lacking a 

principal inspector, the manager of the local 

flight standards district office or certificate 

holding district office before operating any 

aircraft complying with this AD through an 

AMOC. 

(g) Additional Information 

For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 

Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical 

Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT, telephone (800) 562–4409, 

email address tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a 

copy of the referenced service information at 

the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 7250: Turbine Section. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 30, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22064 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0926; FRL–9725–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Permits for Major Stationary Sources 

and Major Modifications Locating in 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Areas and Permits for Major Stationary 

Sources Locating in Nonattainment 

Areas or the Ozone Transport Region 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ). These revisions propose to 

allow the terms and conditions of 

various elements of the preconstruction 

program in Virginia to be combined into 

a single permit, establish limitations for 

issuance of Plantwide Applicability 

Limits (PALs), and provide an 

exemption to Virginia’s New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for the use of 

alternate fuels. 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–2011–0926 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–2011–0926, 

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 previously 

listed 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–2011– 

0926. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55169 

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 Virginia submittal are 

available at the VADEQ Office, 629 East 

Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23218. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814–2084, or by 

email at duke.gerallyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On September 27, 2010, VADEQ 

submitted revisions to its SIP that 

would allow terms and conditions from 

multiple preconstruction permits issued 

to a single stationary source to be 

combined into a single permit. The SIP 

revision also establishes state operating 

permits for major sources as the 

mechanism for issuing PAL permits. It 

also provides an exemption in Virginia’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and nonattainment NSR programs 

for the use of alternate fuels, and makes 

certain minor administrative revisions 

to the current SIP. 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to have a a 

preconstruction permit program for both 

major and minor sources. More 

specifically, SIPs must have the permit 

programs required under subparts C and 

D of title I (i.e., PSD and nonattainment 

NSR) and the SIP must have a minor 

preconstruction program that assures 

that the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) are achieved. The 

current Virginia SIP implements these 

requirements by issuing separate 

permits under each program. 

Consequently, a single project at a 

stationary source may require multiple 

permits depending on the type and 

amount of pollutants to be emitted. 

Virginia has found that maintaining 

multiple permits for major stationary 

sources has resulted in a significant 

workload burden and causes confusion 

as to where permit conditions reside, 

leading to compliance issues. 

The proposed SIP revisions will allow 

preconstruction permits for major 

stationary sources to be combined into 

one permit with certain restrictions and 

conditions. Permit terms and conditions 

at major sources may be combined into 

one permit at the request of the Virginia 

State Air Pollution Control Board or by 

the permittee. Actions to combine 

permit terms and conditions must 

include a statement referencing the 

origin of the term or condition, its 

effective date and whether it is state 

and/or federally enforceable. All terms 

and conditions of contributing permits 

must be included in the combined 

permit without change and the 

combined permit will supercede the 

contributing permit. Redundant terms 

and conditions may be removed from 

the combined permit but the regulatory 

basis of the removed term or condition 

must be included. The state may also 

streamline permit conditions where two 

or more terms or conditions apply to the 

same unit and one is substantially more 

stringent. 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the 

CAA’s PSD and nonattainment NSR 

programs that are collectively known as 

NSR Reform. These changes included 

provisions that would allow major 

stationary sources to comply with a PAL 

to avoid having a significant emissions 

increase that triggers the requirements 

of the major NSR program. EPA granted 

limited approval of Virginia’s NSR 

Reform regulations on October 22, 2008 

(73 FR 62897). In the current version of 

the Virginia SIP, PALs may be 

implemented through a major NSR 

permit, a minor NSR permit or a state 

operating permit. This is consistent with 

the federal rules at 40 CFR 

51.165(f)(2)(ix) and 51.166(w)(2)(ix) 

with respect to the definition of ‘‘PAL 

permit.’’ All three permitting 

mechanisms in the Virginia SIP are 

acceptable means for establishing a 

PAL. The proposed SIP revision would 

limit establishing PALs to state 

operating permits. States have 

discretion in choosing among the 

enforceable mechanisms provided in the 

definition of ‘‘PAL permit’’ and 

Virginia’s selection of a state operating 

permit is consistent with the options 

provided in the federal rules. 

In 2008, the Virginia General 

Assembly amended Va. Code Sec. 

10.1322.4 to allow exemptions for 

alternative fuels and raw materials from 

permit requirements. The proposed SIP 

revision is intended to ensure that there 

are no conflicts between the Virginia 

Code and Federal regulations, including 

the SIP. On March 24, 2011, the Director 

of the Air Division at VADEQ issued Air 

Guidance Memo No. APG–308 which 

clarified that the exemption from 

permitting for the use of alternative 

fuels does not allow a source to bypass 

NSR for major sources or any other 

federal law or regulation. This 

document is included in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The amendments submitted by 

VADEQ for approval into the SIP were 

adopted by the State Air Pollution 

Control Board on June 8, 2009 and 

became effective on July 23, 2009. They 

include revisions to the VADEQ 

regulations at 9VAC5 Chapter 80, 

Article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary 

Sources and Major Modifications 

Locating in Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Areas) and Article 9 

(Permits for Major Stationary Sources 

and Modifications Locating in 

Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone 

Transport Region). The following 

regulations under Article 8 are revised: 

Regulation 5–80–1615 (Definitions), 

Regulation 5–80–1625 (General), 

Regulation 5–80–1695 (Exemptions), 

Regulation 5–80–1925 (Changes to 

permits), Regulation 5–80–1935 

(Administrative permit amendments), 

Regulation 5–80–1945 (Minor permit 

amendments), Regulation 5–80–1955 

(Significant amendment procedures), 

and Regulation 5–80–1965 (Reopening 

for cause). Under Article 9, Regulation 

5–80–2010 (Definitions), Regulation 5– 

80–2020 (General), Regulation 5–80– 

2140 (Exception), Regulation 5–80–2200 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(Changes to permits), Regulation 5–80– 

2210 (Administrative permit 

amendments), Regulation 5–80–2220 

(Minor permit amendments), and 

Regulation 5–80–2230 (Significant 

amendment procedures) are amended. 

Under Article 8, Regulation 5–80–1915 

(Actions to combine permit terms and 

conditions) is added and under Article 

9, Regulation 5–80–2195 (also called 

‘‘Actions to combine permit terms and 

conditions’’) is added. 

We are proposing approval of 

Virginia’s SIP submission dated 

September 27, 2010 that consists of the 

following actions that pertain to 

Virginia’s PSD and nonattainment NSR 

Programs: (1) Adding provisions to 

allow the terms and conditions of the 

various elements of the NSR Program to 

be combined into a single permit; (2) 

limiting the issuance of PALs to the 

state operating permit program; (3) 

providing certain exemptions from 

permitting for alternative fuels unless 

required by federal law or regulation; 

and (4) making minor administrative 

amendments. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information: (1) 

That are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval,’’ 

since Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts. * * * ’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

and NSR programs consistent with the 

Federal requirements. In any event, 

because EPA has also determined that a 

state audit privilege and immunity law 

can affect only state enforcement and 

cannot have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Based upon EPA’s review of the 

September 27, 2010 submittal, we find 

the regulations are consistent with their 

Federal counterparts. EPA is proposing 

to approve the Virginia SIP revisions 

which add provisions to allow the terms 

and conditions of the various elements 

of the PSD and nonattainment NSR 

Programs to be combined into a single 

permit; limit the issuance of PALs to the 

state operating permit program; provide 

exemptions from permitting for 

alternative fuels; and make minor 

administrative changes. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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

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 CO2 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 (CO2) 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS