Georgia Department of Revenue Proposes Conservation Tax Credit Rule Changes

The Georgia Department of Revenue Income is proposing a change to the Tax Division Rule on conservation tax credits. Interested parties seeking to comment on the proposed Rule should review the notice for further guidance. The notice and an exact copy and synopsis of the proposed Rule may be found on the Department’s website at:

https://etax.dor.ga.gov/inctax/newregs/10-16-12__Rule_560-7-8-_50_Conservation_Tax_Credit.pdf

 

For more information on environmental law topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

Land Protection Brand of Georgia EPD Organizational Changes

The Land Protection Branch of Georgia EPD recently announced several organizational changes. The reorganization became effective on August 1, 2012.

Included among the Branch reorganization are:

• The position of Assistant Branch Chief has been established and is held by Jeff Cown

• A new Special Projects role for data management and work process improvements is held by Renee Hudson Goodley

• Response and Remediation Program now includes the Brownfields Unit. Derrick Williams has assumed the role of Program Manager, moving from the Underground Storage Tank Program

• The new Program Manager for the Underground Storage Tank Program is Lon Revall

• Acting Manager of the Solid Waste Program, pending selection of a permanent program manager, is Melanie Henry

• Jan Simmons heads the Hazardous Waste Management Program, under which the Hazardous Waste Compliance Program and the Lead and Asbestos Unit have been consolidated

• Jim Brown leads the Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Program, and part of the Hazardous Waste Management remediation projects and associated staff now fall under that Program

• The Waste Reduction and Scrap Tire Units are being consolidated into the Solid Waste

Program.

 

For more information on environmental law topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

 

Approaching Compliance Dates: Stationary Engines

Compliance dates for the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ, for existing sources are soon approaching. In 2010, EPA expanded the applicability of this rule to control hazardous air emissions not only from new engines but also existing engines, regardless of whether those engines are located at major source or area (minor) sources of HAPs.

Types of engines covered include non-emergency engines used for power generation (including peak shaving), emergency backup power generators, and emergency fire pumps.  Many of these engines are exempt from air quality permitting but are still subject to the RICE NESHAP.

Diesel fueled engines have a compliance date of May 3, 2013, and natural gas and gasoline fueled engines have a compliance date of October 19, 2013.

Key requirements of the RICE NESHAP include:

• Emissions control requirements for certain types of non-emergency engines.

• Operation and maintenance (O&M) and work practice requirements for emergency engines and certain types of non-emergency engines.

• Limits on non-emergency running hours for emergency engines.

• Record keeping requirements.

For more information on environmental law topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

D.C. Circuit Vacates EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

On August 21, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, F.3d (D. C. Cir. 2012), vacated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, also known as the “Transport Rule”) and remanded the rulemaking proceeding to EPA. The D.C. Circuit directed EPA to continue to administer the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) “pending implementation of a valid replacement”.

Judge Brett Kavanagh wrote for the Court:

Here, EPA’s Transport Rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority in two independent respects. First, the statutory text grants EPA authority to require upwind States to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. But under the Transport Rule, upwind States may be required to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA’s Transport Rule violates the statute. Second, the Clean Air Act affords States the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But here, when EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the States the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders. Instead, EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed Federal Implementation Plans, or FIPs, to implement those obligations at the State level. By doing so, EPA departed from its consistent prior approach to implementing the good neighbor provision and violated the Act.

For more information on environmental law topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

5th Circuit SIP Decision May Have Broader Applicability

On August 13, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in State of Texas v. EPA, No. 10-60614 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2012), affirming Texas’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) allowing for “flexible permits.” Under Texas’s Flexible Permit Program, a facility may make modifications without agency review so long as aggregate emissions do not exceed an emissions cap for the facility. The case could have broader implications across the country, if other courts adopt the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning to allow increased flexibility in state air permitting programs. In this case, the Court determined that if a SIP meets the statutory criteria of the Clean Air Act, then the EPA must approve the SIP.  Rejection based on non-statutory preferences is not allowed.

For more information on environmental law topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.