+(,121/,1(

Citation: 54 Fed. Reg. 41218 1989 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Jul 9 15:22:09 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 81

[AD-FRL-3519-2]

RIN 2060-AC33

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

opportunity for public hearing,

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

revise the maximum allowable increases

(increments) for particulate matter

under the requirements for prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) in 40 CFR

51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. The revisions

being proposed would replace the

increments presently measured by the

total suspended particulate (TSP)

indicator with increments that are (1)

measured by an indicator that focuses

on particles with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PMo), and (2) generally

equivalent to the current TSP

increments.

The proposed increments would

define maximum allowable increases in

concentrations of PMlo as follows: 4

micrograms per cubic meter (ILg/mg)

(annual arithmetic mean) and 8 pg/m 3

(24-hour maximum) for Class I areas; 17

pg/m3 (annual arithmetic mean) and 30

gig/m 3 (24-hour maximum) for Class II

areas; and 34 pg/m s (annual arithmetic

mean) and 60 gg/m s (24-hour maximum)

for Class III areas. The EPA is proposing these changes

because it believes that the particulate

matter increments should be measured

by the same indicator as the revised

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter. The

NAAQS were revised to replace the TSP,

indicator with the new PMo indicator on

July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634).

Under this proposal, it is EPA's intent

to continue the existing PSD program for

particulate matter but to regulate

maximum allowable increases

expressed as concentrations of PMlo

rather than TSP For the purposes of

analyzing and tracking the consumption

of the PSD increments for particulate

matter, EPA is proposing to (1) retain all

existing consumption of the TSP

increments (to be recalculated as an

amount of PMio increment consumed),

and (2) require that all future

determinations of increment

consumption for particulate matter be

based on PM1o, beginning on the

implementation date of the PMo

increments. The TSP increments will

remain in effect until the implementation

date of the new PMo increments under

the applicable PSD requirements for

each State.

The EPA is also proposing revisions to

the PSD regulations to assure that the

existing PSD program for particulate

matter will continue in effect while

operating in accordance with the

proposed PM1o increments. The

proposed revisions would affect the PSD

requirements contained in 40 CFR parts

51 and 52. Part 51 establishes

requirements for the preparation,

adoption, and submittal of State

implementation plans (SIP's); part 52

sets forth the Administrator's approval

and promulgation of implementation

plans, and establishes the regulations

that operate in the absence of an

approved SIP

DATES: Comments on the proposed

regulations must be received before

December 4, 1989 a public hearing will

be held if requested; requests to present

oral testimony must be received on or

before October 26, 1989. The date and

time of the public hearing will be

announced in a subsequent Federal

Register notice. If no one has requested

an opportunity to present oral testimony

by October 26, 1989, then no hearing will

be held, Supporting information used in

developing the proposed rules is

contained in Docket No. A-88-19. This

docket is available for public inspection

and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30

p.m., Monday through Friday.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed (in duplicate if possible) to: EPA

Air Docket (LE-131), Attn: Docket No.

A-88-19, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall,

401 M Street SW Washington, DC

20460. The hearing, if requested, will be

held in the auditorium at the EPA's

Office of Administration, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan deRoeck at (919) 541-5593. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony should

contact Mr. deRoeck, in writing at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Air Quality Management

Division, Noncriteria Pollutant Programs

Branch, Mail Drop 15, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of today's preamble are listed

in the following outline:

I. Background

A. PSD program

B. Baseline dates and baseline areas C. PSD program status

D. Promulgation of PMo NAAQS and

implementation regulations

II. Establishing New Increments for

Particulate Matter

A. Existing section 163 particulate matter

increments

B. Legal authority to promulgate PMlo

increments

C. Section 107 area designations

D. Selecting equivalent PM~o increments

III Description of Approach For Developing

Equivalent PM1o Increments

A. Class II increments

B. Class III increments

C. Class I increments

D. Selecting the form for the PMlo increments

IV Implementation Issues

A. Geographic applicability of PMo

increments

B. Baseline dates and baseline areas

C. Source applicability

D. Implementation date

E. Grandfathering provisions

F Exclusions from increment consumption

G. Area source impacts

H. Prevention of significant deterioration

monitoring

V. Summary of Proposed Changes to the

Regulations

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Public hearing

B. Docket

C. Reference documents

D. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

review

E. Federalism implications

F Economic impact assessment

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. PSD program

In 1977 Congress amended the Clean

Air Act (Act), adding requirements for

the prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality as Part C of

Title I of the Act. Under the PSD

program, States are required to adopt a

preconstruction review permit program

for major new stationary sources and

major modifications of stationary

sources, and to prevent significant

deterioration of existing air quality

levels in areas that are in compliance

with the NAAQS.1

The PSD program mandated by

Congress is required to balance three

primary goals, as specified by section

160 of the Act. The first of these goals is

to protect public health and welfare.

The PSD requirements apply to areas classified

pursuant to section 107 of the Act as attainment or

unclassifiable. For pollutants for which no NAAQS

have been promulgated, and for pollutants not

subject to the section 107 area designation process,

the PSD requirements apply everywhere as long as

an area is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for at least one pollutant for which

NAAQS exist (i.e., for at least one "criteria"

pollutant).

41218
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

This goal includes the prevention of

significant deterioration of air quality in

all areas where the ambient pollutant

concentrations required by the NAAQS

are currently being achieved. The

second goal emphasizes the protection

of air quality in national parks,

wilderness areas, and similar areas of

special concern where air quality is

considered particularly important. The

third goal is to assure that economic

growth in- clean air areas occurs only

after careful deliberation of the impacts

of growth on air quality by the States

and local communities.

The PSD program enacted by

Congress is implemented in large part

through the use of "increments" and

area classifications that effectively

define "significant deterioration" for

individual pollutants. The program also

includes a requirement that major new

or modified sources of air pollution

employ the best available control

technology (BACT) for each pollutant

subject to regulation under the Act that

is emitted in significant amounts. 2 In

section 163 of the Act, Congress defined

numerical increments for particulate

matter and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as the

maximum allowable increases, above

baseline levels in the ambient

concentration of the pollutants in a PSD

area. Thus, the section 163 increments

limit the allowable.increase3 in the

ambient concentrations of particulate

matter and SO2 in any area that is in

compliance with the NAAQS.3 Congress

determined that the particulate matter

increment levels adopted in the Act

provide for both protection of air quality

and reasonable industrial and economic

expansion in PSD areas.

The Act's area classification scheme

for PSD establishes three classes of

geographic areas and applies increments

of different stringency to each class.

Congress established Class I for areas of

special national concern where the need

to prevent significant deterioration in air

quality is greatest. Consequently, the

most restrictive increments apply in

Class I areas. Class I areas include all

international parks as well as national

parks, national wilderness areas, and

national memorial parks exceeding

a The EPA has defined "significant" emissions

increases (in tons per year) for pollutants subiect to

regulation under the Act [see the PSD regulations at

40 CFR 51.166(23)(i) and 52.21(23)(i)]. Using these

significance levels. certain small modifications and

emissions of certain pollutants at new sources could

be exempted from PSD review on the grounds that

such emissions would be insignificant, i.e., "de

minmis.

3 The increments for particulate matter enacted

by Congress in 1977 and listed in section 153 were

based on the NAAQS for particulate matter, which

until last year used TSP as the unit of measurement

(indicator) for ambient levels of particulate matter.

certain sizes and existing on the

effective date of the 1977 amendments.

Section 162(a) prohibits the States or

EPA from redesignating these areas to

other classifications.

Less restrictive increments apply in

areas designated as Class II or Class III.

Class II areas are, initially, all PSD

areas that are designated as attainment

or unclassifiable with respect to the

NAAQS and that are not classified in

the Act as Class I areas. Class II areas

(except statutorily defined Class I areas)

may be redesignated by the States to

Class I or Class III under certain

circumstances. The Class III area

designation would permit more

deterioration in air quality in specific

areas designated by the States for higher

levels of industrial development and

emissions growth. There are as yet no

Class III areas.

B. Baseline dates and baseline areas

In an increment system, the "baseline

date" marks the date after which

increases in the emissions of a pollutant

from any source within a defined

geographical "baseline area" will be

counted in determining how much

increment is available for further

economic development, i.e., after this

date, increases in emissions "consume"

increment. Hence, both the baseline

date and the associated baseline area

are important factors. For the existing

particulate matter increments specified

in section 163 of the Act, the ambient air

quality on the baseline date is the

baseline concentration against which

increment consumption is measured. All

ambient concentrations resulting from

(1) actual emissions from sources in

existence on the baseline date, and (2)

allowable emissions from major

stationary sources permitted before

January 6, 1975, but not yet in operation

on the baseline date, are part of the

baseline concentration for particulate

matter.

The PSD definition of "baseline date"

provides two reference points for

purposes of determining increment

consumption: (1) The "major source

baseline date" and (2) the "minor source

baseline date. 4 The major source

baseline date is the date after which

emissions changes resulting from

construction at any new or modified

major stationary source affect the

The terms "major source baseline date" and

"minor source baseline date" were added to the

definition of "baseline date" when EPA

promulgated new PSD increments for nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) on October 17, 1988. These terms

clarified points to be used for major and minor sources. See preamble for final NO2 increment

regulations for further discussion of the adoption of

these terms (53 FR 40656).

amount of increment used. The Act

established January 6, 1975 as the major

source baseline date for the statutory

increments for particulate matter and

SO2 . The "minor source baseline",date

is the date after August 7 1977 on which

the first complete PSD application for a

major stationary source is submitted in

a PSD area. Starting on this date, all

emissions increases in the baseline area

(including those from minor sources)

affect the amount of increment available

for future growth. For particulate matter

and SO2 , the minor source baseline date

has already been established in many

PSD areas.

C. PSD program status

The PSD requirements have been

incorporated into the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) under both parts 51

and 52 of Title 40. In part 51, the PSD

regulations at section 51.166 set

minimum requirements for States for the

preparation, adoption, and submittal of

a PSD program as part of an approved

SIP In part 52, EPA promulgated PSD

requirements at § 52.21 for direct

implementation of a PSD program

involving the Administrator's

preconstruction review and approval of

new or modified PSD sources in the

absence of a State PSD program under

an approved SIP

Approximately one half of the States

have EPA-approved PSD programs for

particulate matter (pursuant to § 51.166)

incorporated into their SIP's. The

remaining States have not submitted

approvable programs. The EPA has

delegated its authority to issue PSD

permits under section 52.21 to most of

these States, but continues to issue PSD

permits directly for the remaining States.

D. Promulgation of PMo NAAQS and

implementation regulations

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the EPA

adopted final regulations that revised

the NAAQS for particulate matter. With

these revisions, EPA eliminated TSP as

the indicator for the NAAQS and

replaced it with the PMio indicator. Both

the primary and secondary standards

were revised taking into account the

most recent scientific information

available on the health and welfare

effects associated with particulate

matter, as well as the change in the

ambient indicator for particulate matter.

In the same Federal Register, EPA

adopted final regulations to implement

the revised standards. Included in these

final rules were amendments to the PSD'

requirements, in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52,

to address the new PMo indicator as a

regulated form of particulate matter. The

EPA did not, however, revise the PSD

41219
Federal Register ,/ Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

increments for particulate matter at that

time to account for the new PMo

indicator. Instead, EPA clarified that the

existing statutory particulate matter

increments were meant to be measured

in terms of TSP because that was the

indicator for the particulate matter

NAAQS when Congress adopted the "particulate matter" increments in 1977

The EPA also announced its intention to

promulgate increments based on the

new PMo indicator pursuant to section

166 of the Act (52 FR 24672).

The EPA had originally proposed to

adopt PMio primary NAAQS but to

retain the TSP indicator for the

secondary NAAQS [49 FR 10408]. The

EPA, therefore, suggested that it might

promulgate and implement new PMio

increments, and continue to require

implementation of the statutory TSP

increments as well [50 FR 13147]. The

EPA received numerous comments

expressing opposition to this "dual

increment system" and to the retention

of TSP as an indicator for measuring the

particulate matter increments. On the

other hand, comments received from

some State and local air pollution

control agencies and other commenters

urged EPA to retain the existing TSP

increments. Today's action proposes a

single set of increments for particulate

matter, which would be based on PMo.

In order to implement the PMo

increments and to maintain a single

Increment system, the Administrator

suggested that States could request

elimination of the area designations

within their jurisdiction, made under

section 107 of the Act ("section 107

areas") with respect to attainment status

relative to the old TSP NAAQS. Through

this measure, the existing Class II and

Class III particulate matter increments

would be rendered inoperative, 5 and the

increment program for particulate

matter in these areas would be governed

by the new PMo increments.

Unlike the Class II and III areas,

Federal mandatory Class I areas are

defined in the Act without reference to

the section 107 area designations.

Consequently. EPA cannot redesignate

or eliminate Federal mandatory Class I

areas in order to render the Class I TSP

increments inoperable. To avoid the

burdens inherent to a dual increment

Under section 163 of the Act, Class II increments

apply to Class ii areas, which are defined as areas

that have been designated attainment or unclassifiable under section 107 of the Act. The EPA

has previously indicated that section 107 areas are pollutant-specific (see 52 FR 24634, July 1, 1987; pp.

24701-2). Therefore, eliminating the section 107 area

designation for particulate matter for a particular

geographic area results in the existing particulate

matter increments being inapplicable to that

particular geographic area.

system, EPA therefore suggested that it

might develop PMio increments that are "equivalent in effect" to statutory Class

I TSP increments, and allow States to

use these new Class I PMo increments

as surrogates for the TSP increments (52

FR at 24685-24686).

II. Establishing New Increments for

Particulate Matter

A. Existing Section 163 Particulate

Matter Increments

In the 1977 Amendments to the Act, as

discussed above, Congress set

numerical PSD increments in section 163

for both particulate matter and SO 2. In

establishing the PSD increments for

these two pollutants, Congress used the

then existing NAAQS for each pollutant

as the benchmark for determining what

constitutes "significant deterioration. It

set the increments as percentages of the

NAAQS level for each pollutant, with

the same percentage, 25 percent and 50

percent, respectively, for Class II and

Class III. Congress also retained the

same averaging times and units of

measurement (jg/m} as the NAAQS.

Although section 163 does not expressly

define the particulate matter increments

in terms of a specific irndicator, EPA

reasoned that Congress' knowledge that

TSP was the indicator for the particulate

matter NAAQS, and that the TSP

standards were the starting point for the

increment levels when the increments

were established in 1977 meant that

TSP was also the appropriate measure

for the particulate matter increments in

section 163 (52 FR at 24700-24701). As a

consequence, EPA concluded that the

statutory particulate matter increments

could not simply be- administratively

redefined and considered to be PMjo

increments following the revision of the

particulate matter NAAQS; rather, EPA

decided that is must promulgate new

particulate matter increments,

expressed in terms of the new PMo

indicator.

B. Legal Authority To Promulgate PMe0

Increments

As previously described in the July 1,

1987 PMo notice, EPA believes that it

has the authority to promulgate new

Increments for particulate matter,

measured by the new PM1o indicator,

pursuant to s6ction 166 of the Act (52 FR

at 24700). Section 166(a) states that "[i]n

the case of pollutants for which national

ambient air quality standards are

promulgated after the date of enactment

of this part, [the Administrator] shall

promulgate such regulations [to prevent

the significant deterioration of air

quality]. Under this authority, EPA

recently promulgated PSD increments

and associated regulations for NO2 (53

FR 40656, October 17 1988). It is not as

clear from the face of the statute,

however, how Congress intended

section 166 to be applied to the

circumstances here, where the

particulate matter NAAQS and control

strategy are redirected to an entirely

new indicator (PMo). The EPA,

therefore, was faced with the questions

of whether section 166 applies to the

unique situation presented by PM10 and,

if so, how it applies.

The EPA has concluded that the

statute authorizes the Agency to

promulgate new increments for a

pollutant when it changes the NAAQS

to a new indicator and sets new levels,

as the July 1, 1987 revisions did. The

PMo NAAQS were not based on the

preexisting TSP NAAQS. Instead, they

represent a fundamental reexamination

of the present understanlding of the

health and welfare effects associated

with ambient particulate matter.

Selection of the PMo indicator was

based on an abundance of scientific

data demonstrating that those particles

small enough to penetrate to the

sensitive thoracic region of the

respiratory tract posed the greatest risk

to human health. In addition, EPA

determined that the new PMo standards

provide sufficient protection for relevant

welfare effects associated with ambient

particulate matter 6 (52 FR at 24646). In

short, the selection of a new indicator

and new levels for the standards

establishes a new NAAQS for

particulate matter for purposes of

section 166. The EPA, therefore, believes

that with the promulgation of the new

PM1o NAAQS, it has both the

responsibility and authority under

sections 166 and 301 of the Act to

promulgate new particulate matter

increments to be measured in terms of

PM1o.

The EPA could promulgate new PMo

increments and simply add them to the

existing TSP particulate matter

increments set forth in section 163 of the

Act. However, as indicated in the July 1,

1987 Federal Register notice, EPA

believes that the resulting dual

increment system would prove

unnecessarily burdensome and

cumbersome for permit applicants and

for States that would implement it (52

FR at 24701). In addition, retaining the

TSP increments after the transition

period would appear to make little

6 The EPA believes that large particles In

sufficient concentrations could present some welfare concerns, but that the PMo NAAQS as promulgated and the controls necessary to meet

such NAAQS will adequately address any such concerns (52 FR at 24645-4%. and 24700).

41220
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

sense, because (1) both the primary and

secondary particulate matter NAAQS

will now be measured exclusively by

the PMo indicator, and (2) PMo

increments can serve to prevent

significant deterioration of air quality

for particulafe matter as well as can

increments measured by the TSP

indicator. Thus, EPA believes that

promulgating PM10 increments to

replace, rather than supplement, the

statutory TSP increments represents the

most sensible approach.

C. Section 107 Area Designations

Section 107(a) of the Act required that

each State be divided into air quality control regions (AQCR's). Section

107(d), added by the 1977 Act

Amendments, directed each State to

submit a list specifying all AQCR's, or

portions thereof, as attainment areas

(areas in which the NAAQS had been

attained), nonattainment areas, or

unclassifiable on the basis of available

information. Together, these areas are

commonly referred to as "section 107

areas. The PSD provisions in part C of

the Act generally apply in all section 107

areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable (40 CFR 51.166(i)(3)).

With respect to the increments for

particulate matter, the existing Class II

TSP increments (and Class III

increments, if there were any) specifically apply to section 107 areas

designated as either attainment or

unclassifiable for TSP as long as such

areas are not classified as Class I PSD

areas.

Because of the importance of the

section 107 area designations to the

applicability of the TSP increments, the

EPA announced in the July 1, 1987

Federal Register its position to

temporarily retain the TSP area

designations beyond the date on which

EPA approves a State's revised PMo

SIP 7 This would protect the

applicability of the TSP increments until

a PMio increment system could be

established. The eventual replacement

of the TSP increments with PMo

increments that operate independently from the section 107 TSP area

When EPA adopted the final regulations under

40 CFR Part 51 for State implementation of the

revised PM~o NAAQS. States were encouraged to

request redesignation of their TSP nonattainment areas to "unclassifiable" when they submitted their

revised implementation plan for attaining the PMo

NAAQS (52 FR at 24682). The discussion in today's

Federal Register, concerning EPA's ultimate deletion

of all TSP area designations when States adopt the

PMo increments, presumes that Stateplan revisions

for attaining the revised PM~o NAAQS will have

already been submitted to EPA and approved. If this

is not the case, then deletion of the TSP

nonattamment area designations will necessarily be

delayed. See section IV.B for further discussion.

designations would finally negate the

need for EPA to require that these TSP

area designations be maintained.

Accordingly, in the same Federal

Register, EPA described an approach

whereby the Agency would approve

State requests to delete section 107 area

designations for TSP (in order to render

the Class II and III TSP increments

inoperable) simultaneously with its

approval to each State's plan revision

containing the PMo increments (52 FR at

24701, middle column).

In giving this approach further

consideration, EPA now believes that it

is not necessary for States to request the

deletion of their TSP designations.

Instead, with today's notice of PM 0

increments, EPA is proposing an

alternative approach, whereby it would

automatically delete the TSP

designations from the listing for each

State contained in subpart C of 40 CFR

part 81. The actual deletion by EPA of

the TSP designations for each State

would occur at the same time that EPA

either (1) approves a State's revised PSD

plan containing the PMo increments, (2)

approves a State's request for delegation

of PSD responsibility under 40 CFR

52.21(u), or (3) promulgates the PMo

increments into a State's SIP where a State chooses not to do so (see revised

subpart C, 40 CFR part 81).8 In all cases,

it is EPA's intent via this approach that

the TSP increments remain in effect until

the PMo increments replace them under

the applicable PSD program.

As already noted, once the section 107

designations for TSP are deleted for a particular State, the statutory Class II

and Class III TSP increments will no longer have any applicability, since

those increments by definition apply

only in Class II and Class III areas for

TSP respectively, i.e., section 107 areas

designated as attainment or

unclassifiable for TSP

The Class I statutory increments are not similarly affected by the deletion of

the section 107 area designations, since

mandatory Class I areas are defined in

the Act without reference to section 107 area designations. However, EPA

believes that it can use its authority

under sections 166 and 301 to develop

Class I PMo increments generally

equivalent to the statutory Class I TSP

increments, which could serve as surrogates for the statutory increments.

With the surrogate PMo increments in

place, the statutory TSP increments

It should be noted that while EPA intends to

delete the TSP area designations, it will not delete

the references to the defined geographic areas for

which the attainment status designations have been

made. This matter is discussed further in section

IV.B., Baseline dates and baseline areas.

would no longer be necessary, and

would be dispensed with as a regulatory

measure. Using the surrogate PMo

increments would provide generally

equivalent prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality m these

Class I areas while avoiding the

problems inherent to a dual increment

system.

D. Selecting Equivalent PMo

Increments

In addition to the goals which

Congress set forth for the PSD program,

section 166(d) of the Act requires any

increments or other measures that EPA

promulgates under section 166(a) to be "at least as effective as the increments

established in section 163" in preventing

significant deterioration of air quality.

The EPA has considered two

approaches for the selection of PMo

increments that it believes could be

considered to meet this test: (1) the "equivalent to statutory increments"

approach, and (2) the "percentage of

NAAQS" approach.

The increments derived by either of

the two approaches would be expressed

as numerical measures and could be

implemented similarly to the statutory

increments. Moreover, either set of

increments would provide clean areas of

the country with protection against

significant deterioration of air quality,

especially since both sets of increments

could be implemented by retaining the

baseline areas and baseline dates that

have already been established for the

statutory TSP increments (thereby

taking into account the amount of

increment already consumed under the

existing PSD increments for particulate

matter).

1. "Equivalent to statutory increments"

approach

One approach is to set PMo

increments which will be as nearly

equivalent as possible to the section 163

particulate matter increments in their

effect on TSP increment "consumption,

thereby retaining essentially the same

limitations on future deterioration of air

quality and economic growth as was

allowed under the statutory TSP

increments. The PMo increments

developed pursuant to this approach

could then be regarded as reasonable

surrogates for the statutory TSP

increments. For this approach, the

statutory TSP increments necessarily

serve as the benchmark for developing

new PM,o increments.

Accordingly, EPA considered the

amount of TSP increment "consumed"

by a sample population of PSDpermitted stationary sources since the

41221
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rulescommencement of the PSD system. The

EPA then determined the PMo

increment value, for each area

classification and averaging time, that

would provide an "equivalent" amount

of PMo increment consumed for the

particular population of sources

examined. 9 For example, if a source in a.

Class II area causes a 24-hour

concentration increase of 18.5 1.g/m3 of

TSP over the baseline concentration,

then that source consumes 50 percent of

the Class II 24-hour increment for TSP

'37 pg/m3). Then, by estimating the

ambient PMo concentrations that such

source would cause, a Class II, 24-hour

PMo increment could be selected that

would result in 50 percent of that new

increment being consumed.10

Because the annual increment levels

derived using this approach were

geometric mean values, a conversion

factor (1.12) was used to adjust these

increments to arithmetic mean values.

The proposed Class I PM1o increments

derived from this approach are 4 p$i/m

(annual arithmetic mean) and 8 jig/m

(24-hour). The proposed Class II

increments are 17 kg/im3 (annual

arithmetic mean) and 30 pg/m3 (24-

hour).

Class III increments were derived in a

different manner because currently

there are no Class III areas for

particulate matter. The EPA, therefore,

chose Class III PMo increments that are

double the levels of the Class II PMo

increments, using the precedent set by

Congress in selecting Class III

increments for particulate matter and

SO2 that were twice as large as the

respective Class II increments.1 I Thus,

the proposed Class III PMo increments

are 34 jig/m (annual arithmetic mean)

and 60 1.g/me (24-hour).

2. "Percentage of NAAQS" approach

A second approach would be for EPA

to establish PMo increments that bear

the same percentage relationship to the

new PMo NAAQS as the section 163

TSP increments bear to the TSP NAAQ

from which they were derived.12 Thus,

Because stationary sources emit particulate

matter with varying PM~o/TSP emissions ratios, it is

not possible to select PMo increments that

represent the same percentage of TSP increment

consumption for all stationary sources. 10 The actual derivation of PM,o increments for

Class I, II, and III areas using the "equivalent to

statutory increments" approach is described more fully in section III and in the docket for this

proposed action.

I Congress selected Class II increments that were 25 percent of the respective NAAQS. and

Class III increments that were 50 percent of the

respective NAAQS. 12 Unlike the PMo NAAQS. which provides for

the same levels for both the primary and secondary

standards, the TSP NAAQS has lower levels for the

the percentage of NAAQS approach

would define equivalent amounts of "significant deterioration" relative to the

standards from which the increments

are derived. The EPA considered this

approach because the legislative history

of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments

demonstrates that Congress selected the

various section 163 increment levels by

using such an approach [see H.R. Rep.

No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977),

reprinted in 3 A Legislative History of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

("Legislative History"), at 528-531; H.R.

Rep. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 153,

reprinted in 4 Legislative History, at

2620]. For both TSP and SO2, the two

pollutants for which PSD increments

were established in section 163,

Congress chose Class II increments that

were 25 percent of the lowest standard

and Class III increments that were 50

percent of the lowest standard. For

Class I areas, the TSP increments

selected were 6.7 percent of the lowest

standard, while the SOs increments

selected were 2.5 percent of the lowest

standard.

Congress established the original increment levels to provide an

appropriate balance between protecting

air quality and providing an adequate

margin for industrial growth. The PMo

increment levels that would result from

using this same percentage-based

approach would reflect a similar

balance, because industrial sources

typically would not be prevented from

constructing in an area where the full

Class II increment is available. Also,

since the new PM 0 NAAQS are based

on EPA s latest findings regarding harm

to health and welfare posed by

particulate matter, this approach reflects

an equivalent evaluation for PMo to that

used by Congress in choosing the

section 163 increments from the TSP

standards.

The PMo levels of both the primary

and secondary NAAQS are 50 Ag/m3 for

the annual standard; and 150 ig/im3 for

the 24-hour standard (40 CFR 50.6).

Using the "percentage of NAAQS"

approach, the Class I PMo increments

would be 3 pjg/m s (annual arithmetic

mean) and 10 pg/m 3 (24-hour. These

values are 6.7 percent of the annual and

24-hour standards, respectively. The

Class II PM,o increments would be 13

11g/Ms (annual arithmetic mean) and 37

jig/m (24-hour), i.e., 25 percent of the

secondary NAAQS. The section 163 particulate

matter increments were based on the lower

secondary level for the 24-hour concentration, but

relied on the annual primary value because the

lower value associated with the secondary

"standard" was regarded only as a guide for

attainment purposes.

respective standards. The Class III PMo

increments would be 25 jg/im (annual

arithmetic mean) and 75 pjg/m 3

(24-hour), i.e., 50 percent of the

respective standards.

3. Comparison of increment levels

The EPA compared the PM 0

increment levels derived from both the "equivalent to statutory increments"

and "percentage of NAAQS"

approaches. This comparison indicated

that, for the annual averaging time, PMo

increments derived from the "percentage

of NAAQS" approach would establish

lower maximum allowable increases in

concentrations of PMo than would PMio

increments derived from the "equivalent

to statutory increment" approach. The

difference between the levels for the

annual increments uting the two

independent approaches is lessened

somewhat by taking into account the

fact that the deterministic annual

increments would possess lower levels

if expressed as equivalent statistical

annual increments. 13

For the 24-hour averaging time, which

is typically the more critical averaging

time for source impact analyses, the

differences in the numerical levels were

more significant than were the annual

increment differences. The numerical

levels of the statistical PMo increments

(derived from the "percentage of

NAAQS" approach) are larger than the

levels of the deterministic PMo

increments (derived from the .,equivalent to statutory increment"

approach) and would appear to allow

for considerably greater increases in

concentrations of PMo. However, to

identify the actual difference between

the two sets of 24-hour increments, they

must be stated in the same form, i.e.,

either as statistical or deterministic

increments.

The EPA assessed the general

relationship between the statistical and

deterministic forms for the 24-hour

averaging time (Tikvart, 1989). Based on

this analysis, the level of a statistical

increment would be lower than the level

of its equivalent deterministic

counterpart. Thus, if the deterministic

24-hour increment levels derived from

the "equivalent to statutory increments"

approach were to be expressed as

equivalent statistical increments, they

.. In proposing the statistical form for the PM~o

NAAQS, EPA assessed the relationship between

statistical and deterministic forms of an annual

standard. Based on this analysis EPA found that, on average, the level of'an annual statistical standard

equivalent to deterministic standard would be

approximately 0.9 times the level of that

deterministic standard (49 FR 10408, March 20. 1984.

p. 10413).

41222
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

would have lower numerical values.

This would support the original finding

that the 24-hour increments derived from

the "percentage of NAAQS" approach

would allow for greater increases in

concentrations of PMo than would the

increments derived from the "equivalent

to statutory increments" approach.

The EPA has already used the

"percentage of NAAQS" approach, and

believes that it is an appropriate

approach to consider in general for

setting PSD increments. 4 This approach

is simple to implement and reflects the

methodology which Congress used to

establish the SO and TSP increments in

section 163 of the Act. However, EPA Is

today proposing to establish PMo

increments using the "equivalent to

statutory increments" approach because

it believes that PMo increments derived

from the statutory (TSP) increments

better match congressional intent in the

special case where the new increments

for particulate matter are Intended not

only to prevent significant deterioration

of PMo air quality, but also to replace

(rather than supplement) the existing

section 163 increments for particulate

matter.

Increments established under the

"equivalent to statutory increments"

approach preserve roughly the same

growth opportunites and limitations on

deterioration of air quality as that

established by Congress in section 163.

Although the numerical levels would be

established to reflect the PM~o

component of particulate matter this

approach would preserve to the greatest

extent possible the effects of the

increments established by Congress. In

other words, the new PMo increments

would attempt to mirror the statutory

paticulate matter increments and reflect,

in the aggregate, the level of increment

that would have been consumed if the

PMo increments (rather than TSP

increments) has been in place since

1977 Therefore, EPA is proposing PM~o

increments derived from the "equivalent

to statutory increments" approach under

today's notice.

The EPA solicits comment on today s

proposal concerning new PMo

increments which would replace the

existing TSP increments under section

163 of the Act. In particular, EPA invites

commenters to respond to the following

topics: (1) The rationale for proposing

PMo increments under the "equivalent

to statutory increments approach" (2)

4 The EPA followed the "percentage of NAAQS"

approach in developing the NO increments,

promulgated on October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40657). In

that case. however, there were no statutory

increments for nitrogen oxides from which new NO,

increments could be denved.

the rationale for not proposing PMo

increments under the "percentage of

NAAQS" approach. (3) the numerical

levels of the proposed PMo increments:

and (4) whether the proposed

increments would serve as adequate

surrogates for the TSP increments.

IlL. Description of Approach for

Developing Equivalent PMo Increments

This section describes the procedures

that EPA followed in developing PMo

increments that it believes are generally

equivalent to the statutory Class 11,

Class III, and Class I increments,

respectively. As described in detail

below, the development of these PMio

increments involved two Important

steps. The first step was to convert the

levels of the TSP increments to

equivalent PM~o levels. The second step

was to convert the resulting levels of the

equivalent PMo annual increments from

geometric means values (the basis for

the-TSP NAAQS) to arithmetic mean

values (the basis for the PM~o NAAQS).

A. Class II Increments

For Class II increment selection, EPA

based its proposed PMto increment

levels on Information in an existing new

source review (NSR) data base. The

NSR data base, developed by EPA,

consists of information from over 500

existing PSD/NSR permits issued

nationwide for criteria pollutant

emissions between 1977 and 1984. There

were 249 permits issued for particulate

matter emissions having sufficient

information to estimate PMo emissions

and, subsequently, PMo increment

consumption from each source. The

population of permits used is believed to

be representative of most PSD/NSR

applications.

First, EPA plotted a distribution of the

predicted air quality impacts of TSP

(taken directly from the NSR data base)

for each of the 249 sources. By plotting

the sources according to the magnitude

of their TSP impacts, EPA could

determine the number of sources

(expressed as a percentage of the total

number of sources) with predicted TSP

impacts at or below a given value. A

similar distribution of PMto air quality

levels was plotted using (1) the

projected TSP air quality levels reported

by the source, and (2) PMo emission

factors to estimate PMo emissions for

emission units at the source within the

249 sources. A detailed description of

the methodology is presented in a report

entitled "Technical ReportEquivalency of Alternative PMo

Increments" (Radian Corp., March,

1989). This document is available in the

docket for public inspection.

Based on the predicted ambient TSP

and PMio impacts, EPA calculated the

percent increment consumption (for the

annual and 24-hour averaging periods)

for each source based on the statutory

TSP increments and various trial PMo

increments. The trial PMo increment

levels were 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 Lig/M 3

(annual geometric mean); and 28, 30, 33,

and 37 pg/m3 (24-hour maximum).

A comparison of the TSP and PMo

increment consumption data provided

the basis for determining which of the

alternative PMio increment levels would

result in the same average percent

increment consumption as the existing

TSP increment consumption. This

comparison was performed by

calculating the area under the curves

representing the distributions plotted for

each increment alternative. For each

PMo increment alternative, EPA

calculated an "increment consumption

index. This index represents the

amount of PMio increment consumed on

a source-aggregated basis relative to the

amount of TSP increment consumed on

a source-aggregated basis. The

increment consumption index value for

each PMo increment alternative is

shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1-NATIONWIDE IMPACTS OF AL

TERNATIVE CLASS II AREA PMio INCREMENTS

Increment Alternative class It PMo Increments, consumption

(ug/m imdexb/mearf

24-Hour average:

PM ,o-28 .........................................

108

PMIo-30 .........................................

100

PMo-33 ........................................ 91

PM o-34 .........................................

88

PMo-37 .........................................

81

Annual average:

PM ,o-13 .........................................

118

PM io-14 .........................................

110

PM Io-15 .........................................

100

PMo-17 .........................................

90

PM 1-18 .........................................

. 8a

Mo-28 refers to a PM0 increment alternative

with a numerical value of 28 pg/m 3

The increment consumption index values are a relative indicator of nationwide increment consump- tion under the Class II increment PM,0 alternatives.

Each value is relative to the existing TSP increment

baseline value which is normalized to a value of 100.

I Based on the mean PM,0 air quality impacts distribution.

As Table 1 illustrates, the Class II

PMo increment levels of 15 jg/m3

(annual geometric mean) and 30 jg/m3

(24-hour maximum] are associated with

an increment consumption index of 100.

This means that these PMo increment

levels result in the same overall amount

of increment consumption as the TSP

increments on a source-aggregated

basis. Selection of these PMo

increments should provide air quality

41223
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

protection that is roughly equivalent to

the TSP increments.

The EPA recognizes, however, that

individual sources could be affected

differently with respect to the amount of "equivalent" PM1o increment that each

would consume, depending on localized

conditions and the PM~o emissions

fraction for emission units at a given

source. Consequently, EPA further

examined the equivalent Class II PMo

increments to determine their impacts

relative to several specific criteria.

These criteria included the following: (1)

The number of sources and source types

with PM10 increment consumption above

and below TSP increment consumption,

(2) the extent to which a source's PMio

increment consumption exceeds or falls

below TSP increment consumption, (3)

the availability of control technology to

bring new sources into compliance with

the proposed PMio increments, and (4)

the cost of bringing new sources into

compliance with the equivalent PMo

increments. The impacts associated with

the equivalent PM1o increment levels of

15 j1g/m 3 (annual geometric mean) and

30 pg/m 3 (24-hour maximum) are

discussed below.

The EPA examined the 249 sources in

the NSR data base in order to determine

the difference between TSP increment

consumption and PMo increment

consumption (based on the selected

equivalent PMo levels) for each

individual source. The results of this

analysis showed that some sources

consume more of the available

increment under the equivalent Class II

PMo increments than under the existing

TSP increments, and some sources

consume less. There was essentially no

difference in the percentage of

increment consumed (i.e., less than 5

percent difference) for about 91 percent

of the 249 NSR data base sources. A

detailed summary of this examination is

presented in the referenced Technical

Report available for public inspection in

the docket.

Of the 249 individual sources that

were examined, only four were

projected to exceed the equivalent PMo

increment levels. These sources

included: (1) A petroleum refinery

located at a synthetic fuels plant, (2) a

steel fabrication plant, (3) an electric

utility, and (4) a food processing facility.

This projection assumes that the sources

would apply the same level of control as

they applied to meet the TSP

increments. Upon closer examination of

these specific sources, EPA has

determined that exceedances of the

PMo increment by sources of these

types are not likely to occur. This

judgment was based on (1) The unusual

characteristics of three of the affected

sources relative to other sources of

these types (i.e., they were located in

complex terrain); and (2) the availability

of existing control technologies that

could be applied to ensure that similar

new sources would not exceed the PMo

increments.

For all four source types, control

technology is available that can bring

new sources of these types into

compliance with the proposed PM~o

increments. A cost and economic

evaluation of these sources was

performed as part of an impact

assessment (described m Section V of

this preamble). The evaluation showed

that no unreasonable economic impacts

would be imposed on future sources to

achieve compliance with the proposed

PMo increments. Details on the cost and

economic evaluation are presented in a

report entitled "Cost and Economic

Impact Assessment for PMio Increment

Options" (Radian Corp., April 1988).

This report is available in the docket for

public inspection.

B. Class III Increments

There are currently no Class III areas.

For selection of equivalent Class III

PMo increments, EPA also followed the

approach used by Congress to establish

Class III TSP increments when it simply

doubled the Class II increments. Using

this approach, EPA proposes to

establish the Class III PMlo increments

at twice the level of the Class II PM~o

increments. Consequently, the

equivalent Class III PMo increments

would be 30 t.g/m 3 (annual geometric

mean) and 60 gkg/m 3 (24-hour maximum).

C. Class I Increments

There have been relatively few major

sources constructed in the vicinity of

Class I areas, which emit significant

amounts of particulate matter.

Consequently, there is significantly less

information available on current

patterns of particulate matter increment

consumption for Class I areas than is

available for Class II areas. In selecting

Class I increments, EPA did not attempt

to compare the percentages of TSP

increment and PMo increment

consumed on an aggregated basis, as

was done for the Class II increment

analysis. Instead, EPA examined

directly the TSP and PMo impacts of 16

sources in the NSR data base, with

known Class I area TSP impacts.

For 12 of the 16 sources, EPA relied on

the Class I area TSP impacts reported in

the data base to estimate the maximum

Class I area PMo impacts. The

estimated PMo impacts were derived

from the TSP impacts after first

calculating a PMlo-to-particulate matter

emissions ratio for each source. The

resulting ratios were then applied to the

known TSP impacts. For the remaining

four sources, EPA modeled each one

based on particulate matter emissions

data and source characteristics

contained in the NSR data base to

project the TSP and PMo ambient

impacts. The referenced Technical

Report provides the details of this

analysis and is available for public

inspection in the docket for this

proposed rulemaking.

Based on its examination of the

percentage of increment consumed by

each of the 16 sources, the EPA believes

that PM1o increments of 4 Lg/m 3 (annual

geometric mean) and 8 tg/ms (24-hour

maximum) are the most appropriate

PMo levels to serve as surrogates for the

existing TSP increments. For several of

the sources, the selected PMio levels

would result in a greater portion of PMo

increment being consumed than of TSP

increment. In no case, however, would a

PMo increment violation be predicted.

Although EPA believes that these

PMo increment levels will afford Class I

area protection that is generally

equivalent to the protection provided by

the existing TSP increments, the relative

stringency of the increments could vary

by source type, depending on the PMoto-particulate matter emission ratios for

individual sources. For example, a

source that emits a small volume of

PMo relative to the entire volume of

particulate matter emitted conceivably

could comply with the PMo Class I

increments while still emitting more

total particulate matter than would be

allowed under the existing increment.

Recognizing the small data base that

was available to develop the equivalent

Class I PMo increments, EPA sought

another way to analyze the potential

impacts of other sources on the selected

PMo increment levels. For the purposes

of this additional analysis, it was

assumed that the 249 particulate matter

sources included in the NSR data base

were located near enough to Class I

areas so that the point of maximum

impact would occur in the Class I area;

although, In fact, this would only be true

of 16 of those sources. Through this

analysis, it was determined that only 2

of the 249 sources in the data base (or

less than I percent) would exceed the

existing Class I TSP increments while

complying with the equivalent Class I

PMo increments. Based on this larger

sample of sources, it would be expected

that the number of sources whose

impacts would potentially exceed the

existing Class I TSP increments while

complying with the PMio increments,

would be very small.

41224
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 1 Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

While EPA believes that the results of

this analysis help to demonstrate that

the selected PMo increments can

reasonably serve as surrogates to the

statutory TSP increments, it is also

important to recognize that, in Class I

areas, the increments have a special

function that does not apply to the

increments in Class II and Class III

areas. In Class I areas, increments are a

means of determining which party (the

applicant or the permitting agency) has

the burden of proof with respect to

demonstrating any specific adverse

impacts of a proposed PSD source

within a Class I area. Congress

recognized that Class I areas tend to

have unique air quality concerns and, in

section 165 of the Act, set forth

procedures to afford special provisions

beyond the use of Class I increments.

The mechanism created by Congress

for achieving the extra degree of

protection for Class I areas relies on the

authority vested in the Federal land

managers (FLM's) who oversee Class I

areas to review and comment on PSD

permit applications that may show

specific adverse impacts in a Class I area. Such specific adverse impacts are

determined relative to air quality related

values (e.g., visibility) which may be

defined by the FLM.

Through this special procedure set

forth by Congress, FLM's have the

authority to request that a permit

application for a new or modified source

affecting Class I areas be denied or that

additional controls be required, even if

the source demonstrates that it will not

cause or contribute to a violation of a

Class I increment.

D. Selecting the Form for the PMo

Increments

The levels of the equivalent PM1o

increments that result from the 0equivalent to statutory increments"

approach must initially bear the same

deterministic form as the statutory TSP

increments. This means that (1) for the

annual increments, the values are

expressed as mean concentrations

which cannot be exceeded in a single

year, and (2) for the 24-hour increments,

the values are 24-hour average

concentrations which cannot be

exceeded more than one time in a single

year. In addition, the annual increments

are stated as geometric mean values.

In contrast, the PMo NAAQS are

expressed in a statistical form. That is,

the PMo annual NAAQS is an expected

arithmetic mean concentration, while

the PM 0 24-hour NAAQS is a 24-hour

average concentration for which a single

expected exceedance per year is

allowed. In the statistical form, the

expected value is actually an average

value derived from several years of

data, against which the annual or 24-

hour NAAQS is compared. The

prescribed method for calculating these

expected values for the PMo NAAQS is

contained in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix K.

In order to be completely consistent

with the form of the PMo NAAQS, three

separate conversions, involving three

different conversion factors, would need

to be made. Two of these conversion

factors would be used to adjust the

annual and 24-hour increments to the

statistical form (each averaging time

requires its own independent

adjustment). The third conversion factor

would be used to adjust from an annual

geometric mean value to an annual

arithmetic mean value (for the annual

averaging time only).

The EPA believes that either the

deterministic or statistical form would

be acceotable as long as the numerical

levels of the increments could be

adjusted accordingly to retain their

equivalent relationship to the statutory

TSP increments. The EPA has decided to

propose the increments in the

deterministic form in order to eliminate

the need for applying two of the

conversion factors. This decision was

based primarily on the difficulty that

EPA would experience in attempting to

replicate the source-by-source

equivalency analyses which were

conducted using deterministic source

impact data in the NSR data base.

The EPA does believe, however, that

there is a practical need to establish the

annual PMio increments as arithmetic

mean values instead of the geometric

mean values. Current EPA models are

designed to compute arithmetic means,

rather than geometric means.

Furthermore, EPA believes that most

PSD applications received to date by the

States and EPA contain increment

analyses in which the modeled

predictions of annual increases in

concentrations of TSP are based on

arithmetic mean concentrations, rather

than geometric mean concentrations.

The use of an arithmetic mean value

in predicting source impacts on air

quality is generally acceptable, because

it tends to yield a more conservative

(higher] concentration estimate than the

geometric mean concentration derived

from the same set of data. However,

over time, unless EPA makes the

conversion to an arithmetic mean value,

PSD applications eventually will find it

necessary to calculate their predicted air

quality impacts as a geometric mean

concentration. That is, as less available

increment remains for additional

emissions growth, use of the more

conservative approach will no longer

suffice for making compliance

demonstrations.

To adjust to an arithmetic mean value.

EPA used information that was

developed from an analysis of 11,541

site-years of TSP data (1975-1978)

nationwide. The data were analyzed to

determine, on a single year basis, the

percent difference between the annual

arithmetic mean and the annual

geometric mean. The analysis indicated

that the typical ratio (at the 50th

percentile) was 1.12. In other words, the

annual arithmetic mean was typically 12

percent higher than the annual

geometric mean.

Accordingly, EPA is adjusting the

equivalent annual PMo increments,

derived from the statutory annual TSP

increments (geometric), to arithmetic

mean values using the 50th percentile

ratio of 1.12. The annual increments

expressed as arithmetic means (rounded

to the nearest whole number) are as

follows (with the equivalent PMo

increment expressed as geometric

means in parentheses): Class I--4 Lg/

m3 PM 0 annual arithmetic mean (5 pgI

m3 annual geometric mean); Class 1-

17 pjg/m3 PM1o annual arithmetic mean

(15 1AgJm 3 annual geometric mean);

Class 111-34 jLg/m3 PM0 annual

arithmetic mean (30 ig/m 3 annual

geometric mean).

IV Implementation Issues.

A. Geographic Applicability of PMo

Increments

On the applicable implementation

date (see section IV.D.), the proposed

PMio increments generally would apply

everywhere. This is in accordance with

40 CFR 51.166(i)(3) [see also § 52.21(i)(3)]

which stipulates that the PSD review

applied to any new major stationary

source or major modification that would

propose to locate in an area designated

as either attainment or unclassifiable for

any pollutant.15 Only in the case of an

area designated as nonattainment for all

pollutants would the PSD requirements

fail to apply to PMo. However, because

no such complete nonattainment area

status currently exists, EPA has chosen

not to propose revisions to the

regulatory framework applying PSD to

PM10 .

The EPA intends for the PM 0

increments to apply in a manner

consistent with the latest PSD area

15 In addition to the current area designations for

TSP States are required under section 107 of the

Act to identify the attainment status for other

criteria pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

dioxide, ozone, and carbon monoxide. The EPA

maintains a listing of all area designations in 40

CFR Part 81 Subpart C.

41225
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

classifications, i.e, Class 1, 11, and III,

which apply to the TSP increments

proposed to be replaced. However,

where an area was previously

designated as nonattainment for TSP

the Class II PM1o increments will apply

unless the area is designated as a Class

I area [see 40 CFR 51.166(e) and

§ 52.21(e)]. States may redesignate area

classifications for PMo in accordance

with the redesignation procedures set

forth under 40 CFR 51.166(g) [also

§ 52.21(g)].

B. Baseline Dates and Baseline Areas

Under today's action, EPA is

proposing its intention to retain the

existing baseline dates and baseline

areas that have already been

established for particulate matter. The

EPA believes that it is necessary to

provide continuity with respect to the

starting date for measuring the

particulate matter increments in order to

asure the "equivalence" concept that

EPA has selected for establishing the

new PMo increments. The major source

baseline date, therefore, will continue to

be January 6, 1975, and the minor source

baseline date will be the earliest date

after August 7 1977 on which the first

complete PSD application is submitted

by a major source with significant

particulate matter emissions.

The retention of existing baseline

dates and baseline areas for particulate

matter includes those established under

EPA-approved State PSD programs, as

well as the ones established under

EPA's 40 CFR part 52 PSD regulations.

Thus, once the new PMo increments are

approved by EPA as part of the States'

PSD SIP's, the amount of PMo increment

already used (if the baseline date has

already been established for TSP) must

be calculated in accordance with the

baseline date established under the

original TSP increments. An established

baseline date for TSP would remain in

effect even if the PSD source would not

have triggered such date based on its

potential PMio emissions [see proposed

new paragraph (b)(14)(iv) under 40 CFR

51.166 and § 52.21].

Where the baseline date for

particulate matter has not yet been

established, it will be the date after the

applicable PMo increment

implementation date on which the first

complete PSD application is submitted

by a major new source or major

modification having the potential for

significant amounts of PMo emissions.

That is, EPA's policy will be to require

that any new baseline dates for

particulate matter under the PMio

increments be established when the

source or modification would have the

potential to emit as least 15 tons per

year or more of PMo emissions, (i.e., the

significant emission rate defined for

PM~o), rather than 25 tons per year or

more of particulate matter emissions.

See further discussion of how the two

different significant emission thresholds

will be applied m the following section,

"Source applicability.

Baseline areas that are established

after the implementation date for the

new PM1o increments must include the

"PSD area" in which the proposed

source or modification would be located

and any other "PSD area" ifi which the

source or modification would have an

ambient PMo impact of at laest ljtg/m3

(annual average). The PSD areas

referred to would iritally be

circumscribed by the geographic

boundaries which the States set forth to

define the section 107 attainment

designation status (including

nonattainment) for TSP These

boundaries are listed as the "designated

area" under Subpart C of 40 CFR part 81.

As mentioned earlier in this preamble,

EPA plans to automatically delete the

applicable attainment status

designations for TSP when the

equivalent PMo increments are in place

in a State's SIP In doing so, EPA will

retain references to the geographic

boundaries ("designated areas")

associated with the designations. These

"designated areas, including the ones

previously holding a TSP nonattainment

designation, will then be listed in

Subpart C as PSD areas for PMo. It

should be noted, however, that the

"automatic" deletion of an area's TSP

designation from 40 CFR part 81 will

occur only after a PM,o SIP providing for

implemention of the PMo NAAQS has

been approved, or EPA promulgates a

substitute Federal plan. If such a revised

PM*o 1 SIP has not been approved, EPA

will need to retain the TSP area

designation, even though it is revising

part 81, as described above, to list the

area boundaries for purposes of

identifying PMo baseline areas.

Ultimately, EPA anticipates that all TSP

area designations will be removed and

the "designated areas" associated with

them will become PSD areas for

determining PMo increment baseline

areas.

The EPA is also proposing to revise

the definitions of "baseline area" and

"baseline date" in parts 51 and 52 to

account for the new PSD area listings

for PMo. Since the PSD areas for PMio

will have no direct linkage to the section

107 area process, language is proposed

to be added to the definitions of

"baseline date" and "baseline area" to

refer specifically to the PSD areas for

PMio as they are listed in Subpart C of

40 CFR part 81 [see proposed revisions

to 40 CFR 51.166(b) (14) and (15), and

§ 52.21(b) (14) and (15)].

C. Source Applicability

Only "major stationary sources" and

"major modifications" (i.e., major

stationary sources incurring a significant

net increase in emissions) are subject to

PSD review. A major stationary source

is defined in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i) as

any stationary source that emits, or has

the potential to emit, a threshold amount

of pollution for "any pollutant subject to

regulation under the Act. For sources in

any one of 28 specified source

categories, that threshold is 100 tons or

more per year; for all other sources, the

threshold is 250 tons or more per year.

The EPA believes that the

determination of whether a source is a

major stationary source should continue

to be based on potential "particulate

matter emissions, 16 since particulate

matter emissions continue to be

regulated under a variety of section 111

new source performance standards. (See

40 CFR part 60 et seq.) For the reason,

EPA does not intend to change the way

in which a new source is determined to

be "major" for particulate matter.

Similarly, EPA does not intent to

make any changes to the emission rates

which define "significant" for

particulate matter. That is, significant

amounts of particulate matter will

continue to be calculated in terms of

both particulate matter emissions and

PMo emissions. Accordingly, a new

stationary source which has the

potential to emit any pollutant in major

amounts will be subject to PSD for

particulate matter, if such major

stationary source would emit significant

amounts of either particulate matter

emissions (25 tons per year) or PMo

emissions (15 tons per year). An existing

major stationary source will also be

subject to PSD review if, after

accounting for creditable emissions

increases and decreases caused by a

modification, a significant net emissions

increase of either particulate matter

emissions or PMo emissions is

determined to result.

Under today's proposal, it will be

EPA s policy to require any PSD source

which would have the potential to emit

significant amounts of either particulate

matter emissions or PMo emissions to

undergo PSD review. However, in

16 "Particulate matter emissions" are defined as

all finely divided solid or liqmd material, other than

uncombined water, emitted to the ambient air as measured by applicable reference methods, or an

equivalent or alternative method, specified by EPA

or by a test method in an approved SIP [40 CFR

51.100 (pp)].

41226
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

completing this review, a PSD applicant

would only be required to perform an

ambient impact analysis (NAAQS and

PSD increments) for particulate matter

when the proposed new source or

modification would have the potential to

emit PMo emissions in significant

amounts.

D. Implementation Date

There are several important time

periods specified by section 166(b) of

the Act that will affect the

implementation of the increments for

PMo. First, 'a 1-year time period is

required by section 166(b) between the

date of promulgation of section 166

regulations and the effective date of

such regulations. Second, section 166(b)

of the Act also provides States up to 9

months following the effective date of

promulgation of the new regulations to

prepare necessary amendments to SIP's,

and an additional 4 months (13 months

total) for EPA to review the proposed

SIP revisions prior to determimng their

approvability. Consequently, a period of

up to 25 months (12 months from

promulgation to the effective date, plus

13 months for SIP approval) could

elapse between the promulgation of

these increments and their

implementation. Until the actual

implementation date of the new PMlo

increments in any State's PSD SIP the

TSP increments will continue to apply.

The actual'time that elapses between

promulgation and implementation

depends on two factors: (1) The

mechanism by which the PSD program

is implemented in an area, and (2) the

action a State or area takes to enable it

to implement the program. There are

three mechanisms by which the PSD

program is implemented. First, a State

can have its own PSD permitting

procedures that have been approved by

EPA as meeting the requirements of 40

CFR 51.166; this is termed an EPAapproved PSD SIP program. Second, a

State can receive a delegation of EPA's

authority to issue PSD permits in

accordance with the Federal PSD

regulations in 40 CFR 52.21; this is

termed a delegated PSD program.

Finally, in a few areas of the country

where States have neither submitted an

approvable PSD SIP nor sought a

delegation, and in Indian lands where

States lack authority to administer the

PSD requirements, EPA Regional Offices

issued PSD permits pursuant to 40 CFR

52.21.

For EPA-approved programs, section

166(b) of the Act contemplated a 40 CFR

51.166 rule that would take effect 12

months after promulgation and allow

States 9 months after that (21 months

after promulgation) to submit revised

SIP's incorporating the increments. The

EPA was then expected to approve or

disapprove the SIP revision within 4

months, so the maximum time

anticipated for implementation in SIPapproved areas is 25 months. The EPA

will follow this schedule for the PMo

increments. Each State or area with an

EPA-approved PSD program will have

until 21 months after promulgation of the

increments to submit to EPA a SIP

revision implementing them. Revised

SIP's may, of course, be submitted

earlier,' but EPA cannot approve any

such revisions until 12 months after the

date of promulgation of the PMo

increments under § 51.166.

For States that currently lack

approved PSD plans, and for Indian

lands, EPA proposes a similar

implementation schedule for the PMo

increments and associated regulations.

The EPA believes that it should follow

the language of section 166 to the

greatest extent possible in establishing

implementation dates for these areas.

Specifically, section 166(b) provides up

to 21 months from the date of

promulgation of section 166 regulations

for States to submit SIP revisions to EPA

for approval. The EPA believes it

appropriate to provide each State an

opportunity to develop an EPAapproved PSD SIP program. For this

reason, every State will be provided 21

months in which to develop and submit

a revised SIP for PSD, including any

PMo increments ultimately promulgated

pursuant to today's proposal. This

approach should also minimize

differences in implementation dates

between the States due to differences in

PSD program mechanisms. The EPA

proposes to establish a general effective

date of 25 months after publication of

the final notice for the PMlo increments

and associated regulations promulgated

pursuant to § 52.21.

It should be noted, however, that as

events actually unfold over that 25-

month period, the implementation date

for the PMo increments could occur in

some SIP's at times other than the

generally applicable effective date. First,

a State might adopt and submit the

necessary SIP revisions (perhaps as part

of a comprehensive PSD permitting

program), and EPA might approve them,

all between the 12-month and 25-month

points. Second, EPA might advance the

general effective date in the case where

a State stipulates, in writing, that it does

not intend to submit the necessary SIP

revisions (thereby rejecting the 21-

month SIP development time provided in

the Act), and requests that EPA delegate

to it (i.e., the State) the administration of

the PMo increments in lieu of the TSP

increments currently contained in

§ 52.21.

Similarly, if an Indian tribe requests in

writing an earlier effective date, EPA

will consider advancing the effective

date in accordance with the tribe's

wishes. The EPA will make a case-bycase judgment based on all of the

circumstances at the time of the request.

The EPA would in no event make those

amendments effective any earlier than

the 12-month point established for the

amendments to § 51.166.

E. Grandfatherng Provisins

The EPA anticipates that the Agency

and the States will receive numerous

PSD permit applications, which contain

a TSP increment analysis, before the

applicable implementation date of the

PMo increments. In cases where these

applications are considered to be

complete based on the existing

requirements on the date that they were

submitted, yet a permit has not yet been

issued by the reviewing authority, EPA

believes that it would be appropriate to

exempt the applications from any PMo

increment analysis and requirements. In

order to provide for such exemptions,

EPA is proposing to add grandfathering

provisions to the PSD regulations under

both part 51 and part 52. The new

provision would apply only as to

consideration of the PMo increments.

Any SIP requirements already in effect

for PMo (e.g., PMlo NAAQS

compliance), before the implementation

date of the PMo increments must be met

as provided for in the existing PSD

program.

For applications submitted under

EPA's part 52 PSD regulations, the

Agency is proposing a grandfathering

provision at § 52.21(i)(13). This

paragraph states that the amendments

requiring a PMo increment analysis

would not apply to any project for which

a complete application has already been

filed, including a project that has

already received a permit before the

implementation date of the relevant

amendments to § 52.21, Instead, such

projects would be reviewed only for

their ability to demonstrate compliance

with the original TSP increments.

The EPA is also proposing to add a

parallel grandfathering provision under

part 51 that would allow a State to enact

a similar exemption under it's SIPapproved program. In the case of a

State's own PSD requirements, the

exemption would be based on the

submission of a complete PSD permit

application before the State's

implementation date for the PMo

increments [see proposed new,

paragraph (i)(12) under § 51.166]. Of

course, a State would be free to have a

more restrictive exemption, or no

41227
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

exemption at all, if it deemed any such

alternative course of action more

appropriate.

F. Exclusions from Increment

Consumption

Section 163(c)(1) of the Act provides

that States With EPA approved PSD

plans may "issue orders or promulgate

rules" to exclude concentrations from

certain emission-related activities in

determining compliance with the PSD

increments. When States revise their

SIP's to adopt the new PMo increments,

they may adopt exclusions for certain

concentrations of particular matter,

which had not been previously

considered for the TSP increments [see

40 CFR 51.166(0 ]. "Prescribed burning"

is an example of the types of activities

for which an exclusion might be sought.

"Prescribed burning" is a term for a

wide variety of silvicultural,

agricultural, industrial, and commercial

practices involving the burning of

vegetative materials. Prescribed burning

is done for a variety of reasons,

including wildlife and vegetation

management; fire suppression; disposal

of logging, agricultural, and other

wastes; site preparation; land clearing;

timber stand management; and range

(forage] management. Certain of these

activities, such as the burmng of debris

to construct a highway (land clearing),

might be considered to be temporary in

that the emissions would only degrade

air quality in any affected area for a

short time (the duration of the

construction project). However, certain

other activities, which may represent

common and routine practices, might not

be considered to be temporary since

they contribute to measured air quality

levels on a regular basis. Such periodic

burning might be considered an

intermittent, but not necessarily

temporary, activity.

Section 163(c)(3) of the Act calls for

an EPA determination that any State

rule or order providing for the exclusion

of certain pollutant concentrations from

PSD increment consumption complies

with the statutory exclusion provisions.

The EPA will give serious consideration

to a State exclusion provision for

specific temporary PM1o emissionrelated activities from PMo increment

consumption, provided that any such

provision would not result in permanent

or long-term deterioration of air quality

in any affected area. For example, some

logging, agricultural, and silvicultural

activities could better be described as

"itinerant" activities in that they mav be

temporary at a specific location. but

move to nearoy locations and still' affect

the air quality within the same air shed.

The EPA is also soliciting comments

regarding (1) whether exclusions should

be contingent upon the use of specific

mitigation measures as "best

management practices"- (2) what, if any,

accountability measures should be

required regarding the temporary nature

of air quality deterioration resulting

from excluded activities; and (3)

whether excluded activities should be "coordinated" or "scheduled" when

occurring in a common air shed to

minimize the ambient impact from all

excluded activities on a given day.

As stated above, the Act allows only

those States with approved PSD plans to

establish certain exclusions from

increment consumption. While the types

of exclusions that States may establish

are described under paragraph (f) of

§ 51.166, EPA's current part 52 PSD

Regulations also contain similar

exclusion provisions [see § 52.21(f)]. The

EPA originally allowed States to request

the use of the exclusion provisions

underEPA's part 52 PSD program while

States were developing their own initial

PSD regulations. But the EPA indicated

that, after May 7, 1981, the exclusions

would be unavailable unless a State

submitted an approvable PSD plan to

EPA (see 45 FR 52676, August 7 1980; p.

52719). Paragraph (f) of § 52.21 is

superfluous, since States may no longer

request the exclusion of certain

particulate matter concentrations from

the PM1o increments under EPA's part 52

PSD regulations. Consequently, EPA

plans to eliminate paragraph (f)

altogether to avoid any confusion as to

its future use by States without EPAapproved PSD plans. Accordingly, EPA

is proposing to delete and reserve

paragraph (f) of § 52.21.

EPA is also proposing to delete

paragraph (f0(3) of § 51.166 which states:

"No exclusion under paragraph (f) of

this section shall occur later than 9

months after August 7 1980, unless a SIP

revision meeting the requirements of 40

CFR 51.166 has been submitted to the

Administrator. The original purpose of

this provision was to restrict the use of

the exclusion provisions under EPA s

Part 52 PSD regulations beyond May 7

1981. Therefore, in order to avoid any

confusion concerning the States'

continuing authority to adopt new

exclusion provisions pursuant to section

51.166, EPA is today proposing to delete

paragraph (f)(3) of that section.

G. Area source impacts

After the baseline date, emissions

from area sources must be considered in

the increment consumption calculations.

An analysis was conducted to determine

the potential impact of emissions from

area sources on the consumption (or

expansion) of PMo increments. A

detailed report is provided in the docket

for public inspection. Basically, this

analysis focused on emissions from

motor vehicles and residential wood

combustion (RWC) in high growth urban

areas. The potential impacts of other

area sources on PMo increments were

determined to be less than their

potential impact on the existing TSP

increments, because their ratios of PMio

emissions to particulate matter

emissions were sufficiently low.

If area sources make a significant

contribution to ambient PMo

concentrations after the establishment

of the baseline date, these sources

would consume the PM~o increment and,

consequently, constrain new or modified

source growth in PSD areas. If, on the

other hand, emission controls on area

sources result in reductions in emissions

of PM10 , these controls may effectively

expand the increment and reduce the

constraints posed by the PSD

regulations on new and modified source

growth.

H. Prevention of significant

deterioration monitoring

In conjunction with EPA s proposed

deletion of the TSP-based increments,

EPA is also proposing to eliminate the

requirement that PSD applicants submit

preapplication monitoring data for TSP

as part of their permit applications. This

would be accomplished through the

deletion of the significant ambient

concentration defined for TSP [see

revised paragraph (i)(8)(i)(c) of 40 CFR

51.166; also § 52.21(i)(8)(i)]. The existing

significant ambient concentration of 10

pg/m3 of TSP 24-hour average, was

originally established to help determine

when a proposed PSD source must, prior

to the submittal of its PSD application,

collect and evaluate ambient TSP data

in accordance with paragraph (in) of the

PSD requirements under §§ 51.166 and

52.21.

When EPA amended the PSD

requirements on July 1, 1987 to account

for the revised PMo NAAQS, it added a

significant ambient concentration for

PMo (10 j.g/m s 24-hour average). This

significant ambient concentration is

used to help determine when application

monitoring data for PM1o must be

gathered. The EPA indicated, however,

that TSP monitoring would continue to

be required under the PSD program (52

FR 24686). Once the TSP increments are

deleted in accordance with the

applicable, implementation date for the

PMo increments, PSD programs will no

longer require the regulation of TSP as

an ambient indicator for particulate

matter. Consequently, EPA will not

41228
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

require PSD applicants to submit

preapplication monitoring data for TSP

when today's proposed amendments

become effective under the Part 52 PSD

regulations; only PM10 monitoring data

will be required where applicable. When

today's proposed amendments become

effective under 40 CFR part 51, the

requirement for preapplication

monitoring data for TSP will no longer

exist in the Federal SIP requirements for

PSD.

V Summary of Proposed Changes to the

Regulations

In order to incorporate the PMo

increments and other changes discussed

above into the PSD regulations, EPA is

proposing amendments to several

provisions of the CFR. Most of the

changes are to existing provisions under

both part 51 and part 52 of Chapter 40 of

the CFR, pertaining to requirements for

State and Federal administration of the

PSD program, respectively. The EPA is

also proposing to add a new Subpart C

under part 81 of Chapter 40, as further

described below.

One important proposed revision to

the PSD regulations is the establishment

of PMo increments and the deletion of

the existing TSP increments. In

accordance with today's proposal the

PMo increments would be added to the

tables in §§ 51.166(c) and 52.21(c) which

define increments for Class I, II, and III

areas. Similarly, EPA proposes to amend

the tables in 40 CFR 51.166(p) and

§ 52.21(p) by adding new increments for

PMo. The increments contained in these

latter tables apply in situations where

the FLM determines that a source will

exceed the PMo Class I increments (in a

Class I area) without adversely affecting

the area's air quality-related values. In

all of these tables, the TSP increments

would be deleted upon the effective date

of the amendments to the increments for

particulate matter. Other changes to the

PSD regulations are necessary to

account for the new PMio increments

and the deletion of the TSP increments.

First, a sentence is proposed to be

added to §§ 51.166(b)(3)(iv) and

52.21(b)(3)(iv) to make it clear that only

reductions in PM10 can be used to offset

new emissions of PMo in determining

the net emissions increase created by a

new or modified facility subject to the

PSD program.

Second, EPA proposes to modify the

definitions of "baseline date" and

"baseline area" to make it clear that

baseline dates and baseline areas will

be retained under the PMio program, just

as they existed under the existing

particulate matter PSD regulations. That

is, if an area has a baseline date under

the existing particulate matter (TSP)

increment, that same area and baseline

date will be applicable to the PM1o

regulations. If an area has no existing

baseline date for particulate matter, the

first complete PSD application with

significant PMo emissions filed with the

appropriate reviewing authority after

the implementation date of the new

PMio increments will trigger the baseline

date. Also, because requirements for

designating area attainment status

pursuant to section 107 of the Act do not

apply to PM~o, the definitions of

"baseline date" and "baseline area" are

proposed to be amended to refer to the

PSD areas for PMio that will be listed in

subpart C of 40 CFR part 81.

Paragraph (f)(3) of § 51.166 is proposed

to be deleted and reserved in order to

avoid confusion as to a State's authority

to develop and request EPA approval for

new exclusion procedures for PSD

increments. The elimination of

paragraph (f)(3) will clarify EPA's

position that any State with an EPAapproved PSD plan may request

exclusions. Also, the entire paragraph (f)

of section 52.21 is proposed to be

deleted and reserved because States are

no longer able to request the exclusion

of certain concentrations in determining

compliance with the PSD increments

under § 52.21.

The PSD requirement for

preapplication monitoring for TSP is

proposed to be eliminated by deleting

the significant ambient concentration for

TSP from the list of pollutants contained

in § § 51.166(i)(8)(i) and 52.21(i)(8)(i).

Thereafter, the PSD monitoring

requirement for particulate matter will

apply only to the PMio indicator.

A new grandfathering provision is

being proposed under § § 51.166(i)(12)

and 52.21(i)(13) to enable certain permit

applications, if submitted before the

effective date of the amended

regulations, to be exempted from the

new requirement for a PM10 increment

analysis.

Finally, Subpart C to 40 CFR part 81 is

proposed to be amended. A new

paragraph will be added to explain how

the section 107 TSP area designations

will be deleted from each State listing so

that PMo baseline areas can be

established when the PMio increments

become operative In each SIP

VI. Admimstrative Requirements.

A. Public Hearing

If requested, a public hearing will be

held to discuss the proposed regulations

in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of

the Act. Persons wishing to make oral

presentations should contact EPA at the

address given in the ADDRESSES section

of this preamble. If necessary, oral

presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each. Any member of the public

may file a written statement with EPA

before, during, or within 30 days after

the hearing. Written statements should

be addressed to the Air Docket address

given in the ADDRESSES section of this

preamble.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and written statements will be available

for public inspection and copying dunng

normal working hours at EPA's Air

Docket in Washington, DC (see

ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket for this regulatory action

is A-88-19. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed rulemaking. The principal

purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow

interested parties a means to identify

and locate documents so that they can

effectively participate in the rulemaking

process, and (2) to serve as the record in

case of judicial review (except for

interagency review materials). [see

section 307(d)(7)(A)]. The docket is

available for public inspection at EPA's

Air Docket, which is listed under the

ADDRESSES section of this notice.

C. Reference Documents

1. Radian Corporation. Technical ReportEquivalency of Alternative PMo Increments.

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.

March, 1988.

2. Radian Corporation. Cost and Economic

Impact Assessment for PM1o Increment

Options. Prepared for U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle

Park. NC. April, 1988.

3. Shumaker, J.L, Radian Corporation

(1988). Evaluation of Source Impacts

Associated with PMo Increment Options.

Memorandum to Daniel J. deRoeck. Feburary

15. 1988.

4. Pandullo, R.F. Radian Corporation (1988).

Protection Against Adverse Class I TSP

Impacts Afforded by PM1o Increments.

Memorandum to Daniel J. deRoeck.

September 28,1988.

5. Frank, Neil H., U.S. EPA, Monitoring and

Reports Branch. Difference Between

Arithmetic Mean and Geometric Mean TSP

Memorandum to lohn Bachman and Henry

Thomas. June 2,1980.

6. Frank, Neil L, U.S. EPA, Data Analysis

Section (1984) Update on the Difference

Between Arithmetic and Geometric Means

for TSP Memorandum to John Bachman.

September 1, 1983.

7 Tikvart, Joseph A., U.S. EPA, Source

Receptor Analysis Branch (19891. Comparison

of Model Estimates for Deterministic vs. Statistical Standards. Memorandum to

Edward J. Lillis. April 4, 1989.

41229
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

8. Radian Corporation. PM 0 Area Sources

Paper. Prepared for U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle

Park, NC. February 1988.

9. Revisions to the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (52

FR 24634).

10. Air Programs. Review of the National

Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

for Particulate Matter (52 FR 24670). July 1,

1987

11. Regulations for Implementing Revised

Particulate Matter Standards [52 FR 24672).

July 1, 1987

12. Proposed Regulations for Implementing

Revised Particulate Matter Standards (50 FR

13130). April 2, 1985.

13. Proposed Revisions to the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter (49 FR 10408).

14. Regulations for the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (45

FR 52676). August 7 1980.

D. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Review

Under Executive Order 12291 (E.O.

12291), EPA must judge whether a

regulation is "major," and therefore

subject to the requirement of a

Regulatory Impact Analysis. The EPA

performed an economic impact

assessment using conservative costing

assumptions to assess whether the

proposed PMo increments would

constitute a major rule. The results of

this assessment indicate that the

proposed regulation is not major,

because it would result in none of the

adverse economic effects set forth in

section I of E.O. 12291 as grounds for

finding a regulation to be major. The

annualized costs in the fifth year after

the proposed regulations would go into

effect would be $5 million, well under

the $100 million threshold established as

the first criterion for a major regulation

in E.O. 12291. Estimated price increases

of 0.3 to 1.5 percent associated with the

proposed regulations would not be

considered a "major increase in costs or

prices" specified as the second criterion

in E.O. 12291. The economic analysis of

the proposed regulations' effect on the

industry did not indicate any significant

adverse effect on competition,

investment, productivity, employment,

innovation, or the ability of U.S. firms to

compete with foreign firms [the third

criterion of E.O. 12291).

This regulation was submitted to

OMB for review as required by E.O.

12291. Any written comments from OMB

to EPA. and any EPA responses to those

comments, will be included in Docket

A-88-19.

No additional reporting and

recordkeeping requirements will occur

as a result of today's proposed

regulatory revisions. The EPA

previously addressed significant

changes to the recordkeeping and

reporting-requirements, which resulted

from new requirements for PMlo in the

Federal PSD and NSR regulations,

amended July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672).

Those changes were submitted to OMB

for approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq. Today's proposed revisions focus

primarily on the replacement of the

existing TSP increments with equivalent

PM 0 increments for the prevention of

significant deterioration. There will not

be a time when both sets of increments

will be federally required

simultaneously.

E. Federalism Implications

Under Executive Order 12612 [E.O.

12612), EPA must determine if a rule has

federalism implications. Federalism

implications refer to substantial direct

effects on the States, on the

relationships between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels

of government. For those rules which

have federalism implications, a

federalism assessment is to be made.

E.O. 12612 also requires that agencies,

to the extent possible, refrain from

limiting State policy options, consult

with States prior to taking any actions

that would restrict State policy options,

and take such actions only when there is

clear constitutional authority and the

presence of a problem of national scope.

E.O. 12612 provides for preemption of

State law, however, if there is a clear

congressional intent for EPA to do so.

Any such preemption, however, is to be

limited to the extent possible.

The development of section 166

regulations for PMo is a statutory,

nondiscretionary duty. However, States

may adopt strategies other than

increments for PMo under section 166, if

the strategies, taken as a whole,

accomplish the statutory purposes. In

addition, the regulations that EPA is

proposing will allow States a full

opportunity to develop their own

approvable methods of implementing

the proposed increments. Finally, the

EPA will implement its own regulations

only for those States that do not develop

their own approvable regulations.

Congressional intent for preemption of

State law is clear in such cases.

State comments on the proposal will

be fully considered prior to

promulgation of final rules. For these

reasons, a federalism assessment has

not been prepared.

F Economic Impact Assessment

Section 317 of the Act requires the

Administrator to prepare an economic

impact assessment for any regulations

under part C of Title I [relating to PSD of

air quality). An economic impact

assessment was prepared for the

proposed PM1o increment levels and also

for other alternative levels. The

requirements of tins section were

considered in the formulation of the

proposed increments to ensure that they

would represent the best system for the

prevention of significant deterioration of

air quality, considering costs. The

economic impact assessment is included

in the docket.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Compliance

Pursuant to the provisions of U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small business entities (see

46 FR 8709).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Total suspended particulate,

PM3o.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(44 U.S.C. 35.01 et seq) Federal Agencies

must obtain OMB clearance for

collection of information from ten (10) or

more non-federal respondents. This rule

does not contain any collection

information requirements.

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Particulate

matter, Total suspended particulate,

PM1o.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: September 22, 1989.

William K. Reilly,

Administrator.

PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, it is proposed that part 51,

Chaper I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 101(b)(1), 110, 160-169,

171-178. and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act; 42

41L230
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 192 / Thursday, Oct6ber 5, 1989 / Proposed Rules

U.S.C. 7401(b)(1), 7410, 7470-7479, 7501-7508,

and 7601(a).

2. In § 51.166, paragraphs (b)(3)(iv),

(b)(14)(iii)(a), and (b)(15)(i), the first part

of paragraph (b)(15)(ii) ending with the

word "which, paragraph (i){8)(i)(c), the

tables in paragraph (c) and paragraph

(p)(4) are revised; paragraph (f)(3) is

removed and reserved; and paragraphs

(b}{14)(vi), (b)(15)(iii), and (i)(12) are

added to read as follows:

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality.

(b)

(3)

(iv) An increase or decrease in actual

emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate

matter, or nitrogen oxides, which occurs

before the applicable minor source

baseline date is creditable only if it is

required to be considered in calculating

the amount of maximum allowable

increases remaining available. With

respect to particulate matter, only PMo

emissions can be used to evaluate the

net emissions increase for PM1e.

(14)

(iii)

(a) The area m which the proposed

source or modification would construct

is designated as attainment or

unclassifiable for sulfur dioxide or

nitrogen dioxide under section

107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the Act, or is listed

for PMo under 40 CFR part 81 Subpart

C, on the date of its complete

application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under

regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR

51.166; and

(iv) Any baseline date established for

an increment for particulate matter shall

remain in effect and shall apply to any

change in the applicable ambient

indicator for particulate matter.

(15)(i) "Baseline area" means any

intrastate area (and every part thereof)

either designated as attainment or

unclassifiable for sulfur dioxide or

nitrogen dioxide under section 107(d)(1)

(DI or (E) of the Act, or listed for PMo

under 40 CFR pai 81 Subpart C, in

which the major source or major

modification establishing the minor

source baseline date would construct or

would have an air quality impact equal

to or greater than ug/m3 (annual

average) of the pollutant(s) for which

the baseline date is established.

(ii) The redesignation of an attainment

or unclassifiable area for sulfur dioxide

or nitrogen dioxide under section

107(d)(1) (D) or (E) of the Act, or of an

area listed for PMo under 40 CFR part

81 Subpart C, cannot cause such

redesignated area to intersect or be

smaller than the area of impact of any

major stationary source or major

modification which:

(iii) Any baseline area established for

an increment for particulate matter shall

remain in effect and shall apply to any

change in the annlicable ambient

indicator for particulate matter, except

that Auch area may be redesignated in

accordance with paragraph (b)(15)(ii) of

this section.

(c)

Maximum

allowable

increase

Pollutant (micrograms per cubic

meter)

Class I:

Particulate matter:

PM0, annual arithmetic mean ........... 4

PM,0, 24-hr maximum ......................... . .

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean .................. . 2

24-hr maximum .................................... 5

3-hr maximum ..................................... 25

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean ...................... 2.5

Class II:

Particulate matter.

PMo, annual arithmetic mean .......... 17

PM o, 24-hr maximum ........................ 30

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean .................... 20

24-hr maximum ................................... 91

3-hr maximum ...................................... 512

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean .................... 25

Class III:

Particulate matter:

PMo, annual arithmetic mean ........... 34

PMI0, 24-hr maximum ........................ 60

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean .................... 40

24-hr maximum ................................... 182

3-hr maximum ...................................... 700

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean .................... 50

(f)

(3) [Reserved]

fi}

(8)

(i)

(c) Particulate matter-10 jg/m3 of

PMo, 24-hour average.

(12) The plan may provide that the

permitting requirements equivalent to

those contained in paragraph (k)(2) of

this section shall not apply to a

stationary source or modification with

respect to any maximum allowable

increase for PMo if

(i) the owner or operator of the source

or modification submitted an application

for a permit under the applicable permit

program approved under the Act before

the provisions embodying the maximum

allowable increases for PMo took effect

as part of the plan, and

(ii) the permitting authority

subsequently determined that the

application as submitted before that

date was complete.

Instead, the applicable requirements

equivalent to paragraph (k)(21 of this

section shall apply with respect to the

maximum allowable increases for TSP

as in effect on the date the application

was submitted.

(p)

(4)

Maximum

allowable

increase

Pollutant (micrograms per cubic

meter)

Particulate matter.

PM,, annual arithmetic mean ............... 17

PM,0, 24-hour maximum ....................... 30

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean ........................ 20

24-hr maximum ....................................... 91

3-hr maximum .........................................

325

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean ........................ 25

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, it is proposed that Part 52,

Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

2. In § 52.21, paragraphs (b)(3)(iv),

(b)(14)(iii)(a), (b)(15)(i), the first part of

paragraph (b)(15)(ii) ending with the

word "which, the tables in paragraph

(c) and paragraph (p)(5), and the third

item in paragraph (i)(8)(i) are revised;

paragraph (f) is removed and reserved;

and paragraphs (b)[14)(iv), (b)(15)(iii),

and (i)(13) are added to read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality.

(b)

(3)

(iv) An increase or decrease in actual

emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate

matter, or nitrogen oxide, which occurs

I I

41231