+(,121/,1(

Citation: 52 Fed. Reg. 24672 1987 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Oct 23 11:31:00 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.
24672 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, :1987 / -Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parti51 and 52

fAD-FRL-3141-9(c)]

Regulations for Implementing Revised

Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: To implement revised

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter,

proposed March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10408),

EPA proposed revisions to 40 CFR Parts

51, 52, and 81 on April 2, 1985 (50 FR

13130). Part 51 establishes requirements

for preparation, adoption, and submittal

of State implementation plans (SIP's);

Part 52 sets forth the Administrator's

approval and promulgation of

implementation plans; and Part 81 sets

forth air quality planning area

designations. Today's action

promulgates revisions to Parts 51 and 52

as of July 31, 1987 and announces EPA's

final policies for revising SIP's to

account for the revised NAAQS for

particulate matter. The proposed

revisions to Part 81 area designations

are withdrawn.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

July 31, 1987.

ADDRESSES: Material relevant to the SIP

policies, guidance, and regulations being

promulgated today can be found in

Public Docket No. A-82-38. This docket

also includes material relevant to the

retention of total suspended particulate

(TSP) increments and other components

of the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program originally

submitted to Docket No. A-83-48 and

other dockets listed below. Material

pertinent to related revisions being

promulgated today are contained in the

following dockets:

a. The particulate matter standards in

40 CFR Part 50, Docket No. A-82-37;

b. Ambient air monitoring reference

and equivalent methods in 40 CFR Part

53, Docket No. A-82-43;

c. Ambient air quality surveillance for

particulate matter in 40 CFR Part 58,

Docket No. A-83-13.

The dockets are located at the U.S.

EPA Central Docket Section in South

Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M

Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The

docket may be inspected between 8:00

a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, and a reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Availability of Related Information

The EPA prepared the following

guidelines to assist States in revising

their SIP's in response to the revised

particulate matter NAAQS.

* PMo SIP Development Guideline,

EPA 450/2-86-001.

* Procedures for Estimating

Probability of Nonattainment of a PM o

NAAQS Using Total Suspended

Particulate or PMo Data, EPA 450/4--

017;

* Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD). EPA 450/4-87-007.

Copies of these guidelines are being

sent to State and local air pollution

control agencies. They are available for

inspection and copying at:

* State Air Programs Branch, EPA,

Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts 02203.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New

York 10278.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

IV, 345 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta,

Georgia, 30365.

* Air and Radiation Branch, EPA,

Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

9 Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

VI, Allied Bank Tower 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas. Texas 75202-2733.

* Air Branch, EPA, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA,. Region

VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 1300 Denver,

Colorado 80202-2413.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

o Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

X, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

A limited number of copies can be

obtained from the EPA library (MD-35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541-2777 (FTS

629-2777). Copies can also be obtained

from the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Emission factors for stationary and

mobile sources have been published in

the following documents:

a Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors, Volume I, Stationary

Point And Area Sources, AP-42, Fourth"

Edition, 9/85, Stock #005-000-00251-7.

* Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors, Volume I, Mobile

Sources, AP-42, Fourth Edition, 9/85,

Stock #005-000-00252-5.

* AP-42 Supplement A, October 1986.

These reports are available from the

Superintendent of Documents,-

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Woodard regarding the SIP

program at (919).541-5351 (FTS 629-

5351] and Daniel deRoeck regarding the

PSD/new source review (NSR) programs

at (919) 541-5593 (FTS 629-5593) or write

to them at Standards Implementation

Branch (MD-15), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

References in this notice are indicated

by superscript, lower case letters and

are listed at the end of the preamble.

Table of Contents

I. Background.

I1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements.

A. Statutory Background.

1. State Implementation Plans.

a. Section 110.

(1) Timing.

(2) Content of State implementation plans.

(3) Consequences of failing to submit a State

implementation plan.

b. Part D and Associated Amendments.

(1) Identification of air quality problems.

(2) Content and timing of plan revisions.

(3) Consequences of failing to submit a plan.

c. Part C and Associated Amendments.

(1) The increment system.

(2) The preconstruction review program.

2. New Source Performance Standards.

B. Regulatory Background.

1. Implementation of Particulate Matter

Standards. a. Section 110 State implementation plans.

b. Part D State implementation plans.

(1) Section 107(d) designations.

(2) Guidance for Part D SIP revision:

"Reasonably Available Control

Technology plus studies" policy.

(3) New source review rules.

(4) EPA action on Part D plans: construction

bans, conditional approvals, and policy

for correcting deficient Part D plans.

2. Implementation of Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Requirements.

3. Implementation of New Source

Performance Standards.

4. Regulatory Precedents: EPA Actions on

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

since 1977.

III. Interpretation of Clean Air Act

Requirements.

A. Legal Interpretation.

1. Conflict in the Literal Language of the

Clean Air Act.

2. Resolution of the Conflict.

B. Comparison of Revised and Prior

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air

Quality Standards.

C. The Clean Air Act's Applicability to the

Revised National Ambient Air Quality

Standards.

IV. Requirements for State Implementation

Plans.

A. Transition Policy.

B. Technical Support for State

Implementation Plans Development.

1. Ambient Data Base.-
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

2. Technical Guidance.

C. State Implementation Plans Deveiopment

Policy.

1. Area Grouping Procedures.

2. Area Designation Policy.

3. Fugitive Dust Policy.

4. Emission Trading (Bubble) Policy;.

5. Sanctions Policy.

D. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/

New Source Review. Program.

1. Revised PSD Program for Particulate

Matter. a. Transition.

b. Source Applicability. c. Geographic Applicability.

d. Best Available Contr6l Technology. e. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Analysis.

f. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Increments for Particulate Matter.

g. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Monitoring.

2. Revised New Source Review. Requirements

for Particulate Matter.

V. Revised Regulations..

A. Revisions to Part 51.

1. Regulatory Reform.

2. Basic State Implementation Plans

Requirements.

3. Section 51.100, Definitions.

4. Section 51.151, Significant Harm Levels.

5. Section 51.165. Permit Requirements.

6. Section 51.166, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of Air Quality.

7. Section 51.322 and 51.323, Annual Source

Emissions Reporting.

8. Revisions to Appendix L.

9. Revisions to Appendix S.

B. Revisions to Part 52.

1. Section 52.21, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of Air Quality. 2. Section 52.24. Statutory Restriction on New

Sources.

VI. Public Participation.

A. Comments on Legal Issues.

1. Comments Favoring an Exclusive Section

110 Pathway.

2. Comments Favoring an Integrated Section

110 and Part D Pathway.

B. Comments on Use of the Probability

Guideline.

C. Comments on the SIP Development Policy.

1. Area Grouping Policy.

2. Fugitive Dust Policy.

3. Emission Trading (Bubble) Policy.

D. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/

New Source Review Program.

1. Revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program for Particulate

Matter. a. Effective Date of the Part 52 Federal

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Regulations.

b. Source.Applicability. c. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Geographic Applicability. ,

d. Best Available Control Technoloy (BACT). e. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Analysis.

f. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Increments for Particulate Matter.

g. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Monitoring.

h. Transition Provisions.

2. Nonattainment New Source Review

Requirements. -E. Comments on Technical Issues.

1. Preparing an Emission Inventory.

2. Emission Factors.

•3. Receptor Modeling.

4. Dispersion Modeling.

5. Source Sampling Devices and Procedures.

6. Data Reduction.

F. Comments on Miscellaneous Issues.

1. Impact on New Source Performance

Standards Program.

2. Economic Impact.

.3. Annual Source Emissions Reporting.

G. Comments on Procedural Issues.

1. Extension of the Comment Period and

Public Hearing.

2. Reproposal.

VII Regulatory and Environmental Impacts. A. Regulatory Impact Analysis.

B. Impact on Small Entities.

C. Impact on Reporting Requirements.

L Background

Today's- final rules for implementing

revised particulate matter standards are the culmination of several actions taken

in accordance with sections 108 and 109

.of the Clean Air Act (Act). The EPA has

reviewed and revised the criteria upon

which the original primary and

secondary particulate matter standards

are based. As a result of its review and

revision of the health and welfare

criteria, EPA proposed revisions to the

particulate matter standards on March

20, 1984 (49 FR 10408). The EPA also

proposed at the same time to (1) adopt a

new Federal Reference Method

(Appendix J to 40 CFR Part 50) for

measuring particulate matter with an

aerometric diameter of a nominal 10

micrometers or less (PMo) in the

ambient air, (2) adopt a new Appendix

K to 40 CFR Part 50 to provide guidance on the statistical nature of the revised

standards, and (3) revise the regulations

concerning Ambient Air Quality . Surveillance (40 CFR Part 58). Notices of

finalfrulemaking on those proposed

revisions are published elsewhere in

today's Federal Register. The

Administrator's final decision with

respect to the specific levels of revised

standards for particulate matter include:

(1) Changing the indicator for both the

primary and secondary standards from

TSP to PM1o, (2) changing the level of the

24-hour primary standard to 150

- micrograms per cubic meter ([g/m3 )

measured as PMo and replacing the

deterministic form of the standard with a statistical form, (3) changing the level

and form of the annual primary standard to 50 ikg/m s expected annual arithmetic

mean measured as PMo, (4) establishing

"secondary 24-hour and annual standards

that are identical in level and form to

the primary standards.

'On April 2, 1985, EPA proposed (50 FR

13130) to revise its regulations governing

SIP programs to account for revisions to

the particulate matter standards. In

particular, EPA (1) set forth the policy it

proposed to follow regarding revisions

to SIP's to account for the revised

.standards;'(2) proposed to amend the

significant'harm and air pollution

episode levels for particulate matter: (3)

proposed amendments to the regulations

for preconstruction review of new and

modified sources (new source review) in

nonattainment areas and in regulations

for PSD; and (4) proposed amendments

to Part 81, Designation of Areas.

.The remaining sections of this

preamble describe EPA's resolution of

the issues raised during the rulemaking

process. Section II outlines the relevant

statutory and.regulatory requirements.

Section III describes EPA's legal

interpretation of the Act's requirements.,

Section IV sets out the final policies for

implementing the revised NAAQS under

EPA's SIP program, NSR/PSD programs,.

and new source performance standards

(NSPS) program. Section V summarizes

the revised regulations. Section VI

presents the major public comments

received on the proposal. and EPA's

response.to those comments. The EPA's

response to comments not covered

herein is included in Docket No. A-82-

38.

II.-Statutory and Regulatory

Requirements

A. Statutory Background

1. State Implementation Plans

In 1970 Congress comprehensively

amended the Act to establish a joint

State and Federal program to control air

pollution.,Under sections 108 and 109,

EPA is responsible for issuing air quality.

criteria and proposing and promulgating

NAAQS. The States then haveprimary

responsibility for implementing the

NAAQS. In broad outline, each State

must develop and submit to EPA a plan

that provides for attainment and

maintenance of each NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicablewithin

certain time limits. The EPA must

review each plan, termed SIP, and

approve or disapprove its provisions. If

a State fails to submit a plan, or submits

a plan which EPA finds inadequate, EPA

may, and in some cases must,

promulgate whatever measures are

necessary to fill the gap.

a. Section 110. (1) Timing. Under

section 110(a)(1), each State must adopt

and submit a SIP ". . . within 9 months

after, the promulgation of a national..

primary ambient air quality standard (or

any revision thereof]. ... Section

110(a)(1) also sets a 9-month deadline

for submittal of SIP's for new and -

24673
-24674 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 1 Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

revised secondary NAAQS; however,

section 110(b) authorizes the

Administrator to extend that deadline

for up to 18 months where "necessary."

Under section 110(a)(2)(A), SIP's must

provide for attainment of any primary

NAAQS ". . . as expeditiously as

practicable but [subject to subsection

(e)] in no case later than 3 years from

the date of approval of such plan (or any

revision thereof to take account of a

revised primary standard). ... The

SIP's for secondary NAAQS must

provide for attainment within a "reasonable time."

Section 110(e) allows the

Administrator to extend the attainment

date for the primary NAAQS for 2 years, if he finds that sources will not be able

to comply with their emission

limitations within the 3-year deadline

because needed technology will not be

available. The plan, however, must

provide for interim control of the

noncomplying sources and controls on

all other sources of the same pollutant in

the same air quality control region.

(2) Content of state implementation

plans. A core requirement of section 110

is that each SIP must include:

... emission limitations, schedules and

timetables for compliance with such

limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and

maintenance of such primary or secondary

standard .... [section 110(a](2)(B)l]

The remaining subsections of section

110(a)(2) elaborate on this general

framework. Specific to today's

promulgation:

* Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires the

plan to provide for operation of a system

that collects and analyzes air quality

data.

* Section 110(a)(2)(D) states that each

SIP must provide a preconstruction

review program consisting of ". .. a

permit or equivalent program for any

major emitting facility, within such

region as necessary to assure (i) that the

national ambient air quality standards

are achieved and maintained ... ,."

e Section 110(a)(2)(F) provides that

plans must require owners or operators

of stationary sources to monitor and

report on emissions from their sources.

a Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires each

plan to contain a self-correction

mechanism in case the plan proves

unsatisfactory. The plan must contain

provisions that the State will revise the

plan:

* . .from time-to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national

primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or

more expeditious means of achieving such

primary or secondary standard: or

... whenever the Administrator finds on the

basis of information available to him that the

plan is substantially inadequate to achieve

the national ambient air quality primary or secondary standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional

requirements established under the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1977 ....

a Section 110(c)(1)(C] authorizes the

Administrator to notify a State that it

needs to revise its plan in accordance

with the section 110(a)(2)(H)

requirements for self correction and to

set a deadline for submitting the

revision. The deadline must be at least

60 days after the notification, but may

be later at the Administrator's

discretion.

* Section 110(a)(2)(F)(v) provides that

SIP's must contain contingency plans for

immediate emission reductions where

pollution levels increase to the point of

presenting an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health.

(3) Consequences of failing to submit

a state implementation plan. Section 110

provides for Federal intervention if a

State fails to submit an adequate SIP.

Under section 110(c)(1), EPA must

promulgate plan provisions for a State if

the State fails to submit a plan at all,

submits a plan that does not meet the

section 110 requirements, or fails to

comply with a notification under section

110(c)(1)(C)-i.e., a call for a plan

revision under the provisions of section

110(a)(2)(H). The EPA must promulgate

a substitute plan unless the State in the

interim adopts and submits a plan that

EPA finds adequate.

Other sections of the Act provide

financial incentives for State

participation in the SIP development

process such as section 105(b), which

gives EPA general authority to impose

conditions on its grants to air pollution

control agencies. Thus, EPA may

condition grants on the submittal of

satisfactory SIP's or SIP revisions.

Beyond that, section 176(b) prohibits

EPA from making any grants in any area

where the responsible State or local

authority ". . . is not implementing any

iequirement of an approved or

promulgated plan under section

110 . . . ." This prohibition would apply

if a State failed to implement the SIP

provision that requires the State to

revise its plan under the circumstances

stipulated in section 110(a)(2)(H). Thus,

if a State fails to respond to a call for a SIP revision under section 110(c)(1)(C),

the section 176(b) grant prohibition is

applicable.

b. Part D and Associated

Amendments. In many areas of the

country, the original SIP's that were

approved and promulgated in the early

1970's failed to bring about attainment

within the statutory deadlines. When

Congress revised the Act in August 1977,

it added a new Part D and amendments

to sections 107 and 110 to address this

nonattainment problem.

(1) Identification of air quality

problems. Congress first instructed the

States and EPA to identify all areas of

the country that were experiencing

violations of the NAAQS. A new section

107(d) required each State to list for EPA

by early December 1977 those areas that

were experiencing violations

(nonattainment areas), those areas that

were meeting the standards (attainment

areas), and those areas that could not be

classified for lack of air quality data

(unclassifiable areas). It then required

EPA to review the lists, make necessary

modifications, and promulgate them all

by early February 1978. Section 107(d)(5)

allows States to modify a list even after

promulgation:

... [a] State may from time to time review,

and as appropriate revise and resubmit, the

list required under this subsection. The

Administrator shall consider and promulgate such revised list in accordance with this

subsection.

(2) Content and timing of plan

revisions. Congress then added section

110(a)(2)(I) which required each SIP to

contain a provision that would ban the

construction or modification after July

30, 1979, of any major stationary source:

• . . in any nonattainment area [as defined In

section 171(2)] to which such plan applies, if

the emissions from such facility will cause or

contribute to concentrations of any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard is exceeded in such area, unless, as

of the time of application for a permit for

such construction or modification, such plan

meets the requirements of Part D (relating to

nonattainment areas).

Congress then specified other new

requirements for SIP content in Part D.

In essence, Part D relaxed attainment

dates but tightened control requirements

for both new and existing sources.

In section 172(a)(1), Congress directed

the States to adopt plans that provided

for attainment of all of the primary

standards as expeditiously as

practicable, and, except for ozone and

carbon monoxide, no later than

December 31, 1982. Plans were also to

provide for all emission reductions

available from applying "reasonably

available control technology" (RACT).

Each plan also had to establish a permit

program under section 173 for the

construction and modification of major

stationary sources.

Congress directed each State to adopt

whatever provisions would be

necessary to meet these Part D

requirements, and submit them to EPA,
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

by January 1, 1979. See Pub. L. 95-95,

section 129(c) (uncodified). Congress required the States to follow EPA's 1976

interpretive ruling on new source

construction and modification in the

period before the new plans were to

come into effect. See Pub. L. 95-95,

section 129(a) (uncodified).

(3) Consequences of failing to submit

a plan. All of the consequences of failing

to submit a SIP described above under

section 110 potentially apply to States

that fail to submit Part D SIP's. In

addition, after July 1, 1979, the

mandatory construction ban required by section 110(a)(2)(I) was to apply in any nonattainment area that lacked a

revised plan that met the Part D

requirements. Further, if a State failed to

implement its SIP in a nonattainment

area, which includes not complying with

a call for a SIP revision under section

110(c)(1)(C), the nonattainment area

would be subject to a construction ban

required by section 173(4).

c. Part C and Associated

Amendments. The 1977 amendments

also added to the Act as Part C to Title I

a third set of SIP requirements aimed at

the PSD of air quality in attainment and

unclassifiable areas. New section

110(a)(2)(J) generally requires each SIP

to satisfy the requirements of Part C.

Revised section 110(a)(2)(D) specifically requires each SIP to meet Part C's

requirements for a preconstruction

review program for major new sources

and major modifications. Section 161 of

the new Part C requires that:

... each applicable implementation plan contain emission limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as determined under regulations promulgated under this part, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region (or

portion thereof) identified pursuant to section

107(d)(1) (D) or (E) of this title .. .[i.e., the

attainment and unclassifiable areas].

The remaining Part C provisions limit

deterioration by establishing maximum

allowable increases in pollution, commonly called "increments," and by requiring preconstruction review of

major new stationary sources and major

modifications.

(1) The increment system. For sulfur

dioxide and "particulate matter,"

section 163(a) requires that each plan

" ...contain measures assuring that

maximum allowable increases over

baseline concentrations of, and

maximum allowable concentrations of,

such pollutant shall not be

exceeded. ... Section 163(b)

establishes three sets of "maximum

allowable increases" for these two

pollutants. The most restrictive

increments apply in Class I areas, while

larger increments apply in areas

designated as Class II or Class III. No

provision in the Act, however, defines "particulate matter" as used in section

163.

Section 162(a) designates as Class I areas all international parks and then all

national parks, national wilderness

areas, and national memorial parks

exceeding certain sizes and existing on

the effective date of the 1977

amendments. Section 162(a) prohibits

the States from changing this

designation. Other areas that may have

been designated as Class I under earlier

EPA regulations for PSD retain their

Class I designations, but may be

redesignated under procedures

described in section 164. Section 162(b)

provides that all other areas" . .. identified pursuant to section 107(d)(1)

(D) or (E) which are not established as Class I .. .shall be Class II areas ... " States may, however, redesignate

such areas as Class I or Class III under

section 164.

While Part C does not contain an increment system for the NAAQS

pollutants other than sulfur dioxide and

particulate matter, it directs EPA to

create such a system or an equivalent

one for those pollutants. Thus, for

carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen

oxides, and ". . . pollutants for which

national ambient air quality standards are promulgated after the date of

enactment of this part .... " sections

166 (a) and (d) require EPA to

promulgate ". . . specific measures at

least as effective as the increments

established in section 163 ....

(2) The preconstruction review

program. The key element of the

preconstruction review program

required by Part C is the requirement

that a company obtain a PSD permit

before constructing virtually I any new

major stationary source or making any

major modification in an attainment or unclassifiable area. See section 165(a),

40 CFR 51.166(i) [formerly 51.24(i)]. A

major stationary source is any plant that

has the potential to emit 100 tons per

year (tpy), or 250 tpy, depending on plant type, of any pollutant regulated

under the Act, including the NAAQS

pollutants. A major modification is, in

general, any change to a major

stationary source that would result in a significant net increase in emissions of a regulated pollutant [section 169, 40 CFR

51.166(b)].

IUnder EPA's current regulations, a project that

emits some regulated pollutant can escape PSD

review only if it locates in an area that is

designated nonattainment for all pollutants to

which section 107(d) applies or if it emits only those

pollutants for which the area is designated

nonattainment. See 45 FR 52a75, 52710-52712

(August 7, 1980).

To obtain a permit, an applicant must

show that the source or modification

would be subject to "best available

control technology" (BACT) for each

regulated pollutant it would emit in

significant amounts [section 165(a)(3), 40

CFR 51.166(j) (1983)]. In addition, an

applicant must show that:

... emissions from construction or operation of

such facility will not cause, or contribute to,

air pollution in excess of any [A) maximum

allowable increase or maximum allowable

concentration for any pollutant in any area to

which this part applies more than one time

per year, (B) national ambient air quality

standard in any air quality control region, or (C) any other applicable emission

standard .... [section 165(a)(3)].

Finally, an applicant must provide, for

each regulated pollutant emitted by the

project, analysis of (1) existing air

quality in the project area; (2) the effect

the project would have on soils,

vegetation, and visibility; and (3) the

effect growth associated with the project

would have on air quality. For NAAQS

pollutants, the analysis of existing air

quality generally must include a year's

worth of monitoring data [section

165(a)(2), (a)(b), and (e); 40 CFR

51.166(k)-(o)].

2

2. New Source Performance Standards

The 1970 amendments also require

EPA to establish NSPS for major new air

pollution sources. Under section 111,

EPA must promulgate such a standard

for any category of sources that:

... in [the Administrator's]

judgment . . . causes or contributes

significantly to, air pollution which may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public

health or welfare ... [section 111(b)(1)(A)I.

The standards apply to "new

sources," which include both new and

modified stationary sources [sections

111(e), 111(a)(2)]. The standards must:

... reflect the degree of emission limitation

and the percentage reduction achievable

'Part C gives special protection to Federal Class I areas. It places an "affirmative responsibility" on each Federal land manager (FLM) to protect the air

quality related values (AQRV'sl of its Federal Class

I areas. It then forbids the issuance of a PSD permit

in any case where the FLM of a Class I area shows

to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that

the project in question would affect the AQRV's of

the area adversely, even if the applicant shows that

the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of an increment over the area [section

15(dl(2) [B), (C].

On the other hand, Part C provides certain

variances from the Class I increments. For instance, even if a project would cause or contribute to an increment violation over a Federal Class I area, the

permitting authority may issue a permit if the FLM

certifies that the project would not violate certain

special increments. For particulate matter, these

special increments are equal to the normal Class 11

increments [section 165(d)(2)[C)].

24675
24676 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

through application of the best technological

system of continuous emission reduction

which [taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction, any

nonair quality health and environmental

impact and energy requirements) the

Administrator determines has been

adequately demonstrated . . . [section 111(a)(1)].

B. Regulatory Background

1. Implementation of Particulate Matter

Standards

a. Section 110 State Implementation

Plans. Since 1971 EPA has promulgated,

in 40 CFR Part 51, regulations covering a

wide range of the planning requirements

set forth by section 110. On November 7,

1986 EPA promulgated (51 FR 40656)

restructured Part 51 regulations.

References to Part 51 in this notice are

to the recodified sections.

b. Part D State Implementation Plans.

(1) Section 107(d) designations. The EPA

promulgated attainment status

designations for particulate matter and

four other NAAQS on March 3, 1978, in

40 CFR Part 81 Subpart C (43 FR 8962).

In the preamble of this action, EPA

pointed out that it had designated some

rural areas "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for particulate matter

despite data showing that these areas

were experiencing violations of the

particulate matter NAAQS (43 FR 8963),

Under its Fugitive Dust Policy, EPA

defined as "rural" any area with low

population that lacked major industrial

development or major industrial

particulate matter emissions. In the

absence of evidence to the contrary,

EPA at that time presumed rural dust to

be less harmful than urban dust because

it consisted primarily of natural

materials not contaminated by industrial

products.

The EPA also promulgated a rule

explaining that it could redesignate

areas when air quality data showed that

a change was warranted. See 40 CFR

81.300.3

(2) Guidance for Part D State

Implementation Plan revision: "RACT

plus studies"policy. The EPA published

most of its guidance for SIP's for

nonattainment areas in the form of a "general preamble" interpreting the Part

D planning requirements (44 FR 20372,

April 4, 1979). The EPA generally

required States to apply RACT to all

stationary sources unless the State

could show that controls on a particular

source or group of sources would not

3 One court has ruled that section 107(d) does not

authorize EPA to redesignate areas to

nonattainment unless a State concurs In the

redesignation. See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA.

726 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1983). No other court has yet

decided this issue.

bring about attainment any faster.

Moreover, the States had to submit all

needed control measures in fully

enforceable form (44 FR 20375). For

particulate matter, however, EPA

allowed States to postpone the adoption

of control measures for "nontraditional"

sources until the States had an

opportunity to study what control

measures would be efficacious (44 FR

20378). "Nontraditional" sources

included area or background sources

such as vehicle traffic and construction

activities. All emissions from industrial

processes at stationary sources were

subject to the requirement for

enforceable RACT measures.

Later, as EPA reviewed specific plan

revisions, it expanded this policy to

allow States to postpone the submittal

of attainment demonstrations for the

particulate matter standards until the

States had a chance to quantify the

effects of controlling nontraditional

sources. However, the demonstrations,

when submitted, still had to provide for

attainment of the primary standards by

the end of 1982. Also, EPA required

areas that postponed demonstrations to

impose RACT measures on all

traditional sources, since they would be

unable to show that they could attain

with less stringent controls.

(3) New source review rules. The EPA

originally issued guidance on the NSR

requirements of section 173 in the

general preamble. However, in 1980 EPA

promulgated detailed regulations on the

content of approvable State programs

(45 FR 31304, May 13, 1980 and 45 FR

52678, August 7, 1980), codified at 40

CFR 51.165(a) [formerly 51.18(j)]. Part D

and these regulations provide, among

other things, that State plans must

require major stationary sources and

major modifications to offset their

proposed emissions and achieve the

"lowest achievable emission rate"

(LAER). 4

(4) Environmental Protection Agency

action on Part D plans: construction

bans, conditional approvals, and policy

for correcting deficient Part D plans. By

July 1, 1979, no nonattainment areas had

fully approved SIP's, and very few had

SIP provisions in effect that limited

construction as required by sections

110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4). Consequently, on

July 2, 1979, EPA published a regulation

that inserted the section 110(a)(2)(I) and

section 173(4) construction bans into all

SIP's that lacked them (44 FR 39471, now

codified at 40 CFR 52.24). In the same

4 Under regulations recently upheld by the

Supreme Court, Chevron, Inc. v. NRDC, 104 S. Ct.

2778 (1984), EPA defines "major stationary source"

for purposes of the nonattainment area NSR

program as essentially an entire plant.

notice, EPA announced that the section

110(a)(2)(I) ban had become effective in

each nonattainment area that lacked an

approved or promulgated Part D plan

revision. The EPA explained that it

would remove these bans when it took

final action approving or promulgating a

plan that met all relevant Part D

requirements. The EPA, however,

subsequently concluded that the section

110(a)(2)(I) construction ban would not

apply if a State lacked a Part D revision

for a secondary NAAQS, since section

110(b) allows States to obtain

extensions for submitting secondary

plans and the legislative history of Part

D shows Congress' chief concern was

the protection of human health (47 FR

44729, October 12, 1982).

Many nonattainment areas failed to

attain the primary standards by the end

of 1982. The EPA has interpreted the

Act, however, as not requiring the

Agency to impose the full array of

available sanctions immediately in all of

these areas. Instead, on November 2,

1983, EPA announced that it would find

plans for areas that failed to attain to be

"inadequate" under section 110(a)(2)(H)

and 110(c)(1)(C) (48 FR 50686). The EPA

would require States to submit revisions

for these areas and, if any area failed to

comply, EPA would find that the State

was not implementing the portion of its

SIP that requires revisions in response

to a notice under section 110(a)(2)(H).

This finding would trigger a construction

ban under section 173(4) and funding

restrictions under section 176(b).

The EPA acknowledged in its

November 1983 notice that it was

considering a revision to the particulate

matter standard (48 FR 50697).

Consequently, EPA deferred, and is

continuing to defer, the issuance of

notices of inadequacy for particulate

matter plans.

2. Implementation of Prevention of

Significant Deterioration Requirements

Prior to the enactment of Part C in

1977, EPA had promulgated Federal PSD

regulations as 40 CFR 52.21 in response

to court rulings that the 1970 Act

required SIP's to include PSD measures.

See Sierra Club v. Ruckleshaus, 344 F.

Supp. 253 (D.C. Cir. 1972), aff d per

curiam, 4 ERC 1815 (D.C. Cir. 1972), aff'd

by an equally divided court, sub. nom.

Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541 (1973).

The EPA inserted the Federal PSD

regulations directly into each SIP

pursuant to section 110(c) of the Act [39

FR 42510]. In 1978 EPA substantially

amended its Federal PSD regulations to

conform them to the detailed PSD

requirements contained in the 1977

amendments [43 FR 25380 (now codified,
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

as amended at 40 CFR 52.21)]. At the

same time EPA inserted the amended

Federal PSD regulations into each

deficient SIP.

Pursuant to the statutory

requirements, the amended PSD

regulations established a Federal

permitting system for preconstruction

review of new major projects and

authorized the Administrator to approve

construction only of those facilities that

would employ BACT and would not

cause or contribute to ambient air

quality in excess of any NAAQS or

applicable PSD increment [40 CFR

52.21(j), (k)]. The regulations explicitly

refer to the statutory increments for

sulfur dioxide and "particulate matter"

[40 CFR 52.21(c)].

In 1978 EPA also promulgated a

second set of PSD regulations outlining

the requirements for an approvable

State PSD program (43 FR 26380) (now

codified, as amended, at 40 CFR 51.166].

These regulations mirrored the Federal

PSD program for the most part.

Numerous industry and environment

groups challenged the amended PSD

regulations, which were subsequently

affirmed in part and remanded in part in

Alabama Power Co. v. Castle, 636 F.2d

323 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The court in

Alabama Power took the position, which

was not essential to any of its ultimate

dispositions, that EPA had discretion to

define "particulate matter" to exclude

particles of a size or composition

determined not to present substantial

health or welfare concerns, not only for

purposes of the NAAQS, but also for

purposes of the PSD increments (Id. at

370, footnote 134).

In 1980 EPA again amended its PSD

regulations, this time to make them

conform to the Alabama Power decision

(45 FR 52676). The EPA amended both

the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21

and the requirements for approvable

State programs at 40 CFR 51.24 (now

51.166). The EPA again inserted the

amended Federal regulations into the

SIP for each State that had not

previously submitted an approvable

PSD program.

3. Implementation of New Source

Performance Standards

The EPA has promulgated NSPS in 40

CFR Part 60 that limit particulate matter

emissions from 22 categories of

stationary sources. The EPA determined

that the sources in these categories emit

significant amounts of particulate

matter. For NSPS, EPA defined

"particulate matter" in section 60.2 of

Part 60 as ". . . any finely divided solid

or liquid material, other than

uncombined water, as measured by

reference methods specified under each

applicable subpart, or an equivalent

method ..."

4. Regulatory Precedents: The

Environmental Protection Agency

Actions on National Ambient Air

Quality Standards Since 1977

The EPA has promulgated two major

rules concerning NAAQS since

Congress revised the Act in 1977. In 1978

EPA, for the first time, promulgated

NAAQS for lead (43 FR 46246, October

5. 1978). In a related action addressing

implementation issues, EPA directed

States to submit plans controlling new

and existing sources under section 110,

as opposed to Part D (43 FR 46264,

October 5, 1978). Thus, there are no

formal designations of attainment status

under section 107(d) for the lead

NAAQS.

Any new major lead source or

modification must undergo the PSD

review that section 165 requires of all

regulated pollutants, unless the source

or modification locates in an area that is

not designated attainment or

unclassifiable for any NAAQS pollutant.

[Since EPA has not promulgated any

section 107 designations for lead, no

source can escape PSD review because

it locates in an area designated as nonattainment for lead (see footnote 1J.]

Such a source or modification must also

undergo the review outlined in sections

51.160(a)-(e), 51.161, 51.162, and 51.163

[formerly 51.18(a)-(i)] to ensure that the

project will meet applicable SIP limits

and not cause or contribute to a NAAQS

violation.

In 1979 EPA renamed the NAAQS for "photochemical oxidants" so they

applied to "ozone" and raised the

numerical level of the primary and

secondary standards (44 FR 8202,

February 8, 1979). In this case EPA

instructed the States to follow Part D.

The EPA concluded that, since the

revised standard represented a

relaxation, States would have no

difficulty meeting the Part D deadlines

for submitting plans and attaining

standards [43 FR 26962, June 22, 1978

(proposed rule); 44 FR 82021.

Il1. Interpretation of the Clean Air Act

Requirements

As indicated above, the Act contains

different pathways along which the

revised NAAQS could be implemented.

These pathways fall under two general

categories which, for ease of discussion, are referred to as (1) the section 110

core, and (2) Part D. For the reasons

described below, EPA has concluded

that only section 110 governs the

implementation of the revised primary

and secondary PM1o standards. In the

following sections of this notice, EPA

discusses its legal interpretation of the

Act and applies that legal interpretation

to the revised particulate matter

standards.

A. Legal Interpretation

1. Conflict in the Literal Language of the

Clean Air Act

A literal reading of sections 110(a)(1)

and (a)(2)(A) yields a general rule for

implementing revised standards and a

partial exception. Section 110(a)(1)

requires each State to submit

"... within nine months after the

promulgation of a national . ..ambient

air quality standard (or any revision

thereof) . . ." a SIP that implements the

new standard in all regions of the

State 5 (emphasis added). Section

110(a)(2)(A), which applies to all plans

submitted under section 110(a)(1),

stipulates that a plan, to be approvable

by the Administrator, must provide for

attainment and maintenance within

certain specified periods except as may

be provided in section 110(a(2)(I).

Section 110(a)(2)(A)(i), for example,

requires each SIP implementing a

primary standard to provide for

attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but ". . in no case later

than three years from the date of

approval of such plan (or any revision

thereof to take account of a revised

primary standard] ...." Section

110(a)(2)(I) on the other hand requires

the SIP to contain a construction ban

that applies after June 30, 1979, ". . . in

any nonattainment area [as defined in

section 171(2)] . . . unless. . . such

plan meets the requirements of Part

D .. . ." Section 171(2) defines "nonattainment area" as any area that

"... is shown . . . to exceed any

national ambient air quality

standard . . ." (emphasis added).

Since the term "any revision" in

section 110 (a)(1) appears to encompass

any revised standard, sections 110(a)(1]

and (2) appear to set a general rule that

(1) States must submit SIP revisions for

all areas to account for NAAQS

revisions, generally within 9 months

after promulgation of the revised

NAAQS and (2) the SIP revisions must

provide for attainment within the

periods specified in section

110(a)(2)(A]-for example, 3 years from

plan approval for a primary standard.

However, since the reference to "any

national ambient air quality standard"

in section 171(2) also appears to

encompass any revised standard,

a Section 110(b) allows EPA to extend this

submittal deadline an additional 18 months for

revised secondary NAAQS under certain

conditions.

24677
24678 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

section 171(2) together with section

110(a)(2)(I) seem to state an exception to

section 110(a)(2)(A) for areas that are "nonattainment" for any standard, new

or revised. The exception is that SIP

revisions for all such "nonattainment

areas" must include a construction ban

that can be avoided by satisfying all of

the provisions of Part D instead of

providing for attainment within the

usual periods of section 110(a)(2)lA).

Thus, the Act appears to contain two

different and conflicting blueprints for

SIP preparation with respect to both

content and timing, one in section 110

and the other in Part D, for SIP's for

areas that are "nonattainment" under a

revised primary or secondary standard.

2. Resolution of the Conflict

In the April 1985 proposal, EPA set out

various legal interpretations it could use

to reconcile the inherent conflict

between section 110 and Part D as to the

requirements for "nonattainment areas."

After subsequent analysis of the legal

issues and review of the numerous

public comments received, EPA has

concluded that the best legal

interpretation is that Part D applies only

to those NAAQS that existed when

Congress created Part D in 1977 and to

revisions to those NAAQS that do not

impose significant new planning

burdens on the States. Only section 110

applies to new NAAQS and to revised

NAAQS that do impose significant new

planning burdens on the States.

Congress created Part D in 1977 to

deal with the persistent failure of many

areas to attain the then existing NAAQS

by the statutory attainment dates

despite sufficient time for preparation

and execution of SIP's. Congress

imposed strict new requirements on these nonattainment areas to encourage

them to promptly complete the retooling

necessary to bring them into attainment.

The EPA's review of the relevant

statutory language and legislative

history leads it to conclude that these

more rigorous Part D provisions should

not apply to revised standards that

impose significant new planning

burdens on the States.

In particular, the fixed attainment

deadline of December 31, 1982, could

produce unreasonable results if strictly

applied to such a revised NAAQS. Since

that date has already passed, an area

under a literal application of the

statutory language would become

subject to Part D sanctions immediately

after a finding that the area exceeds the

revised NAAQS, despite the fact that

the area could not demonstrate

attainment of the revised NAAQS

without completing the additional new

planning burdens imposed by the

revised NAAQS. Thus, the area would

be penalized for having failed to submit

a SIP demonstrating attainment by

December 31, 1982, even though the

planning burdens the area must

complete to demonstrate attainment

were never required until sometime

substantially after that date.

The EPA does not believe that it

should apply Part D to these areas and

then attempt to ease this burden by

interpreting the 1982 attainment

deadline as inoperative so that the

residual Part D requirement for

attainment "as expeditiously as

practicable" would apply to areas

shown to exceed a revised standard.

Under this approach, the meaning of

section 110(a)(2](A)'s 3-year deadline as

it relates to revised standards would be

lost. It would also mean that an area

exceeding a revised standard that

imposes significant new planning

burdens would not be subject to section

110(a)(2)(A]'s 3-year attainment

deadline, while areas exceeding an

entirely new standard would be. This

would treat these two areas differently,

and would treat revised standards more

flexibly, even though they would face

essentially the same type of planning

requirements, which would in all

probability be more challenging for new

than for revised standards. It is unlikely

that Congress would have intended

these inconsistent results.

The EPA also rejects the legal

interpretation that the relevant Part D

provisions do not govern revised

standards at all. Arguably, section

171(2) defines "nonattainment areas" as

areas exceeding "any national ambient

air quality standard," without reference

to revised standards. In contrast, section

110(a)(1) expressly applies its 9-month

SIP submittal deadline, and section

110(a)(2)(A) its 3-year attainment

deadline for primary standards, to "revisions." Congress could have

included a similar reference to revised

standards in section 171(2) if it had

intended Part D to apply to revised

standards. This indicates that Congress

may have intended the general section

110 scheme to govern the

implementation of all revised standards.

This reading, however, would produce

the result that a relaxation of a pre-1977

NAAQS would automatically shield

areas exceeding the revised standard

from the strict Part D requirements, even

though the revision made it easier for

them to attain. It is clear that Congress

would not have intended this result.

Hence, EPA reads the section

110(a)[2)(A) exception, and thus Part D,

as applying to the nonattainment

planning problems that Congress faced

when it enacted Part D in 1977 and to

those revised NAAQS that result in no

significant increase in those problems.

The legislative history of section 110

and Part D also supports the view that

revised standards requiring significant

new planning burdens should not be

implemented under Part D. Congress in

1970 created a SIP development scheme

that until 1977 clearly applied to all

revised NAAQS. When Congress added

Part D in 1977, it did not repeal the

requirements either for SIP submittal in

section 110(a)(1) or for attainment and

maintenance in section 110(a)(2)[A).

Moreover, the conflicts between section

110 and Part D (e.g., their different

attainment deadlines) show that a single

revised standard could not have been

intended to be subject to both schemes

at one time. Congress, therefore, must

have intended section 110 to remain

effective for areas that are not attaining

at least some revised NAAQS.

Many areas failed to plan adequately

to attain the standards EPA promulgated

in the early 1970's. The legislative

materials behind Part D strongly

indicate that Congress' main purpose in

enacting Part D was to address the

nonattainment problems that persisted

because of those planning failures.

Congress chose to solve the problems by

giving States one last planning

opportunity before imposing the

sanctions authorized in Part D. In

contrast, the history reveals no evidence

that Congress intended these tougher

measures to apply also where EPA

revises a NAAQS so as to impose

planning burdens significantly beyond

what the Act imposed under the pre1977 standards. Stated simply, areas

that exceed such a revised standard are

unlike those for which Part D was

plainly intended-namely, areas that

had already failed to plan adequately in

the first SIP round. Moreover, inferring

congressional intent that these measures

apply to such revisions would conflict

with the pattern of legislation in this

area. Congress reserved substantial

power to the States when it enacted the

1970 Act. The tough Part D measures, by

providing for a significant Federal

intrusion on what had previously been

the States' domain, represented an

exception to the Act's general scheme of

cooperative State and Federal

regulation. Interpreting ambiguity in the

Act's language so as to authorize the

most intrusive implementation of Part D

would be inconsistent with the basic

thrust of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

B. Comparison of Revised and Prior

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air

Quality Standards

The EPA assessed the impact of the

revised primary and secondary NAAQS

on the planning requirements of State

air pollutibn control agencies.b It

estimated the probability of violating the

PM,o NAAQS at each TSP State and

local air monitoring station based on

1983-1985 TSP data. These estimates

indicate that sites in over 100 counties

could violate the PMio NAAQS. The

EPA's SIP development policy which is

discussed in section IV.C. of this

preamble requires new PMo SIP's to be

developed for each of those areas. To

develop SIP revisions for each of the

counties, EPA estimates that an average

of 4 work years and $250,000 in State resources could be required. In addition,

all States must revise their SIP's to

respond to the new monitoring and new

source review requirements. Therefore,

EPA concludes that the PM10 NAAQS

will impose a significant new planning

burden upon the States.

The change in the indicator for the

revised NAAQS from TSP to PM,o could

also create regulatory burdens. This

change could result in the need for

control strategies to refocus on sources

emitting small particles. States may also

need to develop PM,o emission

inventories and perform modeling based

upon PMo. Thus, the change in

indicators alone will cause significant

impacts which are a factor to consider

in interpreting the Act.

C. The Clean Air Act's Applicability to

the Revised National Ambient Air

Quality Standards

As stated earlier, EPA has concluded

that section 110 governs the

implementation of all revised standards

that would impose significant new planning requirements beyond what the

pre-1977 standards required. For the

reasons just described, EPA believes

that the revised PM,o standards will

impose new planning requirements in a significant number of areas. Hence, only

section 110 will govern nonattainment

problems arising from the revised

primary and secondary standards. The

policies and rules that EPA discusses in

the remainder of this notice implement

the EPA's basic conclusion that section

110, and not Part D, applies to

implementation of both the primary and

secondary PMo standards.

IV. Requirements for State

Implementation Plans

Sections A, B, and C of this portion of

the preamble set forth EPA's policy for

actions that States must take to prepare

and submit appropriate SIP revisions for

existing sources. Section D focuses on

the SIP preconstruction review of new

sources, including the PSD permit

program.

A. Transition Policy

The particulate matter control

strategies in existing TSP SIP's reduce

ambient concentrations of PM 0 as well

as TSP. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary

disruption of the existing particulate

matter control program, States will want

to utilize existing SIP requirements as

much as possible in their PMo SIP's. The

regulatory requirements of a State's

existing TSP SIP must remain in effect,

therefore, until a PMo SIP is approved

by EPA [see section 110(i), 42 U.S.C.

7410(i)]. The existing regulations will

continue to be enforced by Federal and

State agencies and through citizen suits

during the period of transition from a

TSP SIP to a PM SIP.

It is unlikely that the level of control

required by the current SIP is

significantly more than will be

necessary to attain and maintain the

PMo NAAQS. Therefore, regulations in

the existing SIP cannot be relaxed

without a demonstration that the

revision will not interfere with

attainment or maintenance of the PM 0

NAAQS.

B. Technical Support for State

Implementation Plans Development

1. Ambient Data Base

In 1979 EPA began operating ambient

samplers in the inhalable particulate (IP)

network. That network consisted of

ambient air monitoring stations

containing high volume samplers,

collocated with dichotomous samplers

having inlets designed to measure

particles nominally 15 micrometers and

less (PM 15). The stations in the network

were located in urban and suburban

areas thoughout the U.S. to reflect

maximum concentrations and

population exposure due to urban and

industrial sources, and also in nonurban

areas to provide information on

background levels.

The EPA began operating ambient

samplers with inlets designed to collect

PM,0 early in 1982. Since August 1984,

EPA has distributed PMo samplers to

State and local air pollution control

agencies. As of December 31, 1986,

about 900 samplers were operating at

550 sites. However, sufficient ambient

PMlo data are not yet available to allow

States to comprehensively evaluate the

PMo attainment status for all areas.

Analysis of the available ambient

data reveals that the PMo portion of

TSP varies widely, making it

inappropriate to establish a single

nationwide conversion factor to simply

convert ambient TSP values to ambient

PMo values. Therefore, EPA has

developed a statistical approach for

estimating from ambient TSP data the

probability that PM1o NAAQS are being

violated in the area represented by the

ambient sampler. This probability has

been termed the "nonattainment

probability."

Procedures for using statistical

probabilities in the absence of ambient

PMo data are explained in a document

titled, PMo SIP Development Guideline

(EPA 450/2-86-001).' A companion

document, Procedures for Estimating

'Probability of Nonattainment of a PM 0

NAAQS Using Total Suspended

Particulate or PMo data (EPA 450/4-86--

017 referred to herein as the "probability

guideline"), explains in detail the

methods for estimating PMlo levels using

ambient PM,5 data. or for estimating the

probability of PM 0 nonattainment using

TSP data.d The probability guideline

also contains guidance on determining

the spatial extent of PM,o nonattainment

problems (i.e., the "PMo exceedance

area" represented by an ambient PM0

sampler). The extent of the PMo

exceedance area must be determined in

order to develop a control and

compliance strategy that encompasses

the area.

2. Technical Guidance

The PMo SIP Development Guideline

provides technical information on how

to meet the implementation

requirements in this rulemaking. Topics

discussed include monitoring PM air

quality, determining from ambient data

when nonattainment problems are

apparent, using PM1o emission factors,

performing joint dispersion and receptor

modeling, interpreting model results,

writing emission regulations, and

measuring PM emissions. It is meant to

cover all aspects of SIP development

where additional guidance is needed

due to the new focus on a PMo size

range. References to other sources of

information are included where more

detail may be required. The guideline is

available from EPA's Regional Offices.

The EPA's Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards will be working

through its Regional Offices to provide

further guidance to States on developing

SIP revisions to account for the revised

NAAQS.

C. State Implementation Plans

Development Policy

For the reasons described earlier, EPA

is requiring implementation. of the PM

standards under section 110 of the Act.

24679
24680 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Section 110(a)(1) provides that each

State shall adopt and submit, within 9

months after revision of a NAAQS, a

SIP providing for attainment and

maintenance of the primary NAAQS

everywhere in the State as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than 3 years

from the date EPA approves the SIP.

Section 110(a)[2) requires that a SIP

contain emission limits, schedules, and

timetables and such other measures as

may be necessary to assure expeditious

attainment and maintenance. The EPA's

regulations in 40 CFR 51.112 (formerly

section 51.13) adopted under section

110(a)(2) of the Act, require that States

demonstrate through modeling or an

adequate alternative that this control

strategy will indeed assure timely

attainment and maintenance.

The EPA has considered different

ways of implementing this control

strategy demonstration requirement

under the 9-month SIP submittal

schedule in section 110(a)(1). There is a

great deal of merit in obtaining ambient

PM1o data in all areas to specifically

define the extent and degree of PM1o

nonattainment situations before

developing control strategies. However,

due to applicable Act requirements and

the environmental risk in areas with

severe air quality problems, the

Administrator cannot permit delay in

the development of PMio control

programs simply because ambient PMio

data are unavailable.

Another approach would be simply to

call upon States to develop and submit a

full PMo attainment demonstration and

control strategy for every area of the

country within the 9-month period. The

EPA believes, however, that such a

requirement would be unreasonable for

certain areas. An analysis of the latest

ambient TSP data in conjunction with

the methodology in the probability

guideline indicates that there could be

from around 50 to 150 counties in which

the PM 1o NAAQS will not be attained.b

While these numbers are the best

indication at this time of the potential

nonattainment situation for PMo, they

are only estimates and, furthermore, will

probably change as new ambient TSP

and PM~o data become available. The

estimates are, however, useful as an

indication of the degree of PMo SIP

development that may eventually be

necessary. The key point is that many of

the 3141 counties in the nation may need

no additional particulate matter SIP

provisions to meet the revised NAAQS.

Thus, for many areas, the existing TSP

SIP's may already provide for timely

attainment and maintenance of the PMio

NAAQS. To call upon areas that almost

certainly have adequate SIP's to

resubmit those SIP's along with full

attainment demonstrations would be

unnecessary and therefore wasteful of

limited State resources.

0

There are, also, several areas where

available data indicate that air quality

may be close to the level of the NAAQS.

Many of these areas may actually be

shown, with more ambient data, to be in

attainment or may need only minor SIP

changes. Therefore, EPA believes that a

demand for immediate submissions of

attainment demonstrations and control

strategies for all of these areas is

unreasonable when additional air

quality data could provide a more clear

picture of the status of the area.

For the reasons given immediately

above, EPA is adopting the SIP

development policy it proposed April 2,

1985. The EPA is dividing all areas of the

country into three categories: (1) Areas

with a strong likelihood of violating the

PMo NAAQS and requiring substantial

SIP adjustment (Group I), (2) areas

where attainment of the standards is

possible and existing SIP's probably

need less adjustment (Group II), and (3)

areas with a strong likelihood of

attaining the PMo NAAQS and

therefore needing only adjustments to

the PSD/NSR provisions in their SIP

(Group III). For purposes of this

program, "areas" are conceptually the

same as "areas" for which

classifications are designated in Part 81,

although there will be no area

designations in Part 81 for PM 0 . The

spatial extent of a PM 0 attainment or

nonattainment situation may differ from

TSP area boundaries. Guidance is

provided in the probability guideline for

determining the area of exceedance of

the PMio NAAQS.

1. Area Grouping Procedures

For those areas where there are

sufficient ambient PMo data to define

PMo NAAQS attainment or

nonattainment in accordance with

Appendix K of 40 CFR Part 50, the need

for SIP revision can be determined

relatively easily. The SIP's are due

within 9 months for such areas that

cannot demonstrate attainment. For

other areas with insufficient PMio data,

EPA will use a three-step process to

categorize areas.

First, where only ambient TSP data

are available, or limited amounts of

6 Developing a sound attainment demonstration is

generally resource intensive, It requires an in-depth

study of the emission characteristics of specific

sources in the demonstration area and a thorough

evaluation of the anticipated effects of various

emission levels from those sources. The EPA

estimates it could require up to 4 work years and

$250,000 to develop a SIP for each area found to be

violating the NAAQS.

PM,o are available, EPA in cooperation

with State agencies will use those data

and the probability guideline to classify

areas preliminarily as Group 1, 11, or 1II.1

The EPA will presume that (1) areas

with a probability of not attaining the

PMo standard of at least 95 percent fit

into Group 1, (2) areas with a probability

of between 20 and 95 percent fit into

Group II, and (3) areas with a

probability of less than 20 percent fit

into Group III.

Second, EPA's Regional Offices, after

consulting with the appropriate State

and local agencies, will evaluate the

existing TSP SIP's and other relevant

information for each area in their

jurisdiction (1) to see whether

information other than the probability of

nonattainment justifies changing the

group for an area, and (2) to determine

the appropriate group for areas that the

EPA could not classify under the first

step because ambient TSP data were

unavailable.

7 The EPA has computerized the procedures

described in the probability guideline and has made

the computer software available to States to

calculate nonattainment probabilities. The EPA has

also made the results of its own calculations

available to the States.

The EPA has found that some uncertainty exists

in the PMo measurements collected prior to 1987

with the PMis instruments available at that time.

Specifically, a study performed by EPA in Phoenix

has shown that in extreme situations, data collected

by the Sierra Anderson SA-321A size selective PMjo

instrument can be influenced by coarse particles to

the extent that concentrations may be biased high

by as much as 20 percent.* In addition, data

collected by the Wedding and Associates GMW9000 instrument may be biased low 20 percent due

to soiling problems and improper cleaning. In order

to account for the uncertainty associated with such

reported PMo concentrations, a zone of uncertainty

or "gray zone" of ±20 percent will be placed

around the standard for the purpose of calculating

the probability of nonattainment. Further, the gray

zone will be divided into two portions: the lower

gray zone, defined as 0.8 NAAQS to NAAQS, and

the upper gray zone, specified as NAAQS to 1.2

NAAQS. In particular, when calculating

probabilities based on PMo from SA-321A

instruments, PMo observations within the upper

gray zone will not be counted as exceedances of the

24-hour standard and PM~o annual means

[calculated using all PM,0 data) that fall in the upper

gray zone will not be counted as exceedances of the

annual standard. Similarly, when calculating

probabilities based on PMo data from GMW-9000

instruments, 24-hour PM,. values and annual PM~o

means (using all data) that are within the lower gray

zone will be counted as exceedances of the

respective standards.

If an area's nonattainment probability using TSP

data and PMo data drops below 0.20 or rises above

0.95, as a result of PMo data in the "gray zone," it

will be classified Group II in order to resolve the

possible uncertainty associated with the PMto data

and to ensure that a determination is made as to

whether the existing SIP provides for attainment

and maintenance of the PMio standards. Areas will

not be classified Group I solely on the basis of SA321A data that are within the upper gray zone.

Similarly, areas will not be classified Group III on

the basis of data, Produced by GMW-9000

instruments, that are within the lower gray zone.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 -/ Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Third, to insure national consistency, all grouping will be reviewed by

representatives of EPA's Headquarters

staff and Regional Offices.

Requirements for Group I Areas.

States will be required to submit

complete SIP's for all areas in Group I

within 9 months of promulgation of the

PMo NAAQS. These SIP's will have to

contain full PM1o control strategies

including a demonstration of attainment

as expeditiously as practicable, but not

later than 3 years (for the primary

standards) from approval of the SIP, and

provisions for maintenance, as well as

meeting the PSD/NSR requirements

discussed in section D below.

As provided in section 110(e) of the

Act, the Governor may apply, at the

time the SIP is submitted, for up to 2

additional years for attainment of the

primary standards. The Administrator

may grant an extension if he determines

that:

.... (A) one or more emission sources (or

classes of moving sources) are unable to

comply with the requirements of such plan which implement such primary standard

because the necessary technology or other

alternatives are not available or will not be

available soon enough to permit compliance

within such 3-year period, and

(B) the State has considered and applied as a part of its plan reasonably available

alternative means of attaining such primary

standard and has justifiably concluded that

attainment of such primary standard within

the 3 years cannot be achieved.

The Administrator must also determine

that the plan provides for: ... (A) application of the requirements of

the plan which implement such primary standard to all emission sources in such

region other than the sources (or classes)

described in paragraph (A) [above] within the

3-year period, and

(B) such interim measures of control of the sources (or classes) described in paragraph (A) (above) as the Administrator determines

to be reasonable under the circumstances.

Requirements for Group II Areas.

States will also be required to submit

SIP's for all areas in Group II within 9

months of NAAQS promulgation. but

those SIP's need not contain full control

strategies and demonstrations of

attainment and maintenance. Instead,

States may submit "committal" SIP's

that supplement the existing SIP's with

enforceable commitments to:

(a) Gather ambient PMio data, at least

to an extent consistent with minimum

EPA requirements and guidance.8

8 Section 58.13 of 40 CFR Part 58 requires States.

within 1 year after PMo NAAQS are promulgated,

to begin sampling PM,o everyday (at at least one site) in areas with a PM'0 nonattainment probability of 95 percent or greater, and every other day (at at

least one site) in areas with a nonattainment

probability between 20 and 95 percent.

(b) Analyze and verify the ambient

PMo data and report 24-hour PM1o

NAAQS exceedances to the appropriate

Regional Office within 45 days of each

exceedance.

(c) When an appropriate number of

verifiable 24-hour NAAQS exceedances

becomes available (see Section 2.0 of

the PMo SIP Development Guideline) or

when an annual arithmetic mean (AAM)

above the level of the annual PMo

NAAQS becomes available,

acknowledge that a nonattainment

problem exists and immediately notify

the appropriate Regional Office.

(d) Within 30 days of the notification

referred to in (c) above, or within 37

months of promulgation, whichever

comes first, determine whether the

measures in the existing SIP will assure

timely attainment and maintenance of

the primary PM1o standards, and

immediately notify the appropriate

Regional Office.

(e) Within 6 months of the notification

referred to in (d) above, adopt and

submit to EPA a PMo control strategy

that assures attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than 3 years

from approval of the committal SIP.

The EPA proposed (50 FR 13130) that

States determine whether measures in

the existing SIP were adequate [item (d)

above] and notify the appropriate

Regional Office within 18 months after

approval of the committal SIP. Assuming

the committal SIP was submitted to EPA

9 months after promulgation and EPA

approved the SIP in 6 months, the

notification of SIP adequacy would have

been due within 33 months of

promulgation. The EPA is changing the

latest date of notification of SIP

adequacy to 37 months after

promulgation for two reasons. First, 18

months was allowed initially for making

PM10 air quality measurements.

However, 3 years of valid air quality

data are required to determine the

attainment status of an area in

accordance with Appendix K of 40 CFR

Part 50. Second, if the committal SIP is

submitted late or approval is not

completed in 6 months, the date of

notification would extend beyond 33

months after promulgation. The EPA

believes it is best to have a firm date by

which the adequacy of the existing SIP

must be determined for Group II areas and still allow adequate time to collect

PMo data. The PMo monitors have been

operating for several months already in

many Group II areas. The time a State

has to implement a control strategy and

comply with the PMio NAAQS could be

shortened by 4 months if the committal

SIP is submitted in 9 months, approved

in 6 months, and the notification of SIP

adequacy is not made until the end of

the 37-month period. However, any area

that requires a full 3 years of monitoring

to determine that it is violating the

NAAQS, must be very close to the

NAAQS. Therefore, only very minor

adjustments to the control strategy

should be required to attain the

NAAQS.

The following factors should be

considered in determining the adequacy

of the existing SIP in item (d) above:

(1) Air quality data. (Time is alloted

for up to 3 years of PMo data to be

collected if a NAAQS is not violated

sooner. At the end of that time, the

available PMo data must be examined

to determine if attainment can be

demonstrated in accordance with

Appendix K of 40 CFR Part 50 or the

"Guideline on Exceptions to Data

Requirements for Determining

Attainment of Particulate Matter

Standards" in the absence of adequate

PMo data.) 1

(2) The present control strategy. (The

existing control strategy must be

evaluated to determine if it is fully

implemented; if it is adequately

enforced; if start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction regulations are adequate to

prevent circumvention of the emission

limitations; and it can adequately attain

and maintain the PMo NAAQS if the.

above conditions are met. The

evaluation should include the use of

dispersion and receptor modeling

techniques where appropriate.)

(3) Emissions data. (The emission

inventories must be evaluated to

determine if emissions can increase

significantly because actual emissions

are far below allowable emissions for

the area, if sources with operating

permits are not operating or are

operating at reduced capacity. and if

"banked" emissions could impact future

air quality.)

The committal SIP must include an

enforceable schedule with appropriate

milestones or checkpoints. The EPA will

review and act on both the committal

SIP's and on control strategies submitted

under step (e). For Group II areas, States

may, if they wish, submit full PMio

attainment demonstrations within 9

months as required for Group I areas in

lieu of the committal SIP.

The SIP revisions necessary to meet

the PSD/NSR requirements detailed in

section D below must be submitted in 9

months, also.

Requirements of Group lIAreas. For

Group III areas, EPA will presume that

the existing SIP is adequate to

demonstrate attainment and

maintenance of the PMo standards.

States, therefore, need only make SIP

revisions as required under the24681
24682 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

preconstruction review program (see

section D) within 9 months. The EPA

will make a final determination of the

adequacy of individual Group III SIP's at

the time it takes action on these

revisions. Any of these areas which

subsequently observe violation of the

PMo NAAQS will be treated as newly

discovered nonattainment areas.

2. Area Designation Policy

The EPA proposed to amend Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes," by transferring the

area designation of nonattainment for

the primary TSP standard to an area

designation of nonattainment for the

secondary TSP standard. Since the

Administrator has determined that the

indicator for the secondary standard

should also be changed from TSP to

PMo, EPA is withdrawing this proposed

change to Part 81.

The EPA will continue to accept

requests by the State to revise area

designations for TSP from

nonattainment to attainment or

unclassifiable. The requests will

continue to be reviewed during the

transition period for compliance with

EPA's redesignation policies as issued in

memorandums from the Director of the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) April 21, 1983, and

September 30, 1 9 8 5 .9.h

States are encouraged to request

redesignation of TSP nonattainment

areas to unclassifiable at the time the

PMo control strategy for the area is

submitted. When EPA approves the

control strategy as sufficient to attain

and maintain the PM 0 NAAQS, it will

also approve the redesignation. An area

designation must be retained until EPA

promulgates PM1o increments because

the section 163 PSD increments depend

upon the existence of section 107

designations. Once States have PMo

SIP's in place and EPA has promulgated

PMo increments, EPA will act on

requests to delete TSP designations. See

section D below for a full discussion of

this issue in connection with the

requirements for PSD programs.

3. Fugitive Dust Policy

The EPA proposed to continue a 1977

fugitive dust policy which directs the

efforts to control particulate matter be

expended first at sources in urban areas

and next at certain large manmade

sources in rural areas.a.? In response to

a broad range of comments on this issue,

EPA has developed three alternatives to

the existing policy. Elsewhere in the

Federal Register today EPA is publishing

a notice proposing those alternatives.

Until EPA has reviewed comments on

the proposal and takes final action, the

existing policy will remain in effect.

4. Emission Trading (Bubble) Policy

In EPA's initial bubble policy (44 FR

71780, December 11, 1979), alternative

emission reduction options (bubbles)

approved as part of a SIP for TSP are

treated as any other existing SIP

provision that may or may not be

revised in order to control emissions

from other sources to attain the PMo

NAAQS. The recently published final

Emissions Trading Policy Statement

Technical Issues Document confirms

this position by stating that if ambient

violations of any standard are

discovered in an area where EPA has

approved a trade, sources in the trade

could potentially be subject to

requirements for additional emission

reductions just as all other sources in

the area [see 51 FR 43814 (December 4,

1986)]. Although there is no specific

requirement to review existing bubbles,

bubble agreements cannot interfere with

State efforts to attain and maintain the

PM10 NAAQS.

5. Sanctions Policy

Section 110 provides for Federal

intervention if a State fails to submit an

adequate SIP. Under section 110(c)(1),

EPA must promulgate plan provisions

for a State if the State fails to submit a

plan at all, submits a plan that does not

meet the section 110 requirements, or

fails to comply with a notification under

section 110 (c)(1)(C), i.e., a call for a plan

revision under the provisions of section

110(a)(2)(H). The EPA must promulgate

a substitute plan unless the State in the

interim adopts and submits a plan that

EPA finds adequate.

The EPA intends to explore the legal

issues, appropriateness, and authority

for imposing a construction ban under

sections 110(c) and 301 of the Act as the

first element of a Federal plan. A

construction ban would serve to limit

any growth of PM~o emissions in a

nonattainment area while EPA is

developing a control strategy for the

area. The EPA will also explore the

appropriateness and authority of using

funding sanctions to stimulate

development and implementation of

plans.

D. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration/New Source Review

Program

Today's notice promulgates certain

new and revised provisions which will

change the way in which EPA and State

and local air pollution control agencies

implement preconstruction review

requirements for particulate matter. The

most significant effects of today's

actions are that: (1) Proposed new and

modified sources must evaluate their

emissions of particulate matter on the

basis of two separate indicators-TSP

and PMo, and (2) the preconstruction

review of major new and modified

sources which emit particulate matter

will be conducted primarily under the

PSD program. Since EPA is not using

section 107 area designations for PMlo,

Federal requirements which apply to the

preconstruction review of sources

locating in designated section 107

nonattainment areas will generally not

apply with respect to particulate matter

in the long run, as explained in more

detail below.

1. Revised PSD Program for Particulate

Matter

a. Transition. Today's amendments to

the Part 52 PSD regulations, establishing

new requirements for PM10 , take effect

30 days from today on the effective date

of the revised NAAQS for particulate

matter. The EPA is making these

amendments effective at the earliest

possible date because once the PM

NAAQS becomes effective, EPA will be

responsible for the protection of the

PM,o NAAQS as well as the review of

PM~o as a regulated pollutant."

Consequently, PSD applicants

requesting preconstruction review

approval from EPA or a State that

implements PSD under a Federal

delegation of the Administrator's PSD

authority must begin to address the new

PM 0 requirements unless they are

eligible for grandfather status as

described below.

States with approved PSD SIP's will

have 9 months from the effective date of

today's PSD amendments to revise their

SIP's for PMo and submit them to EPA

for approval. See revised section

51.166(a)(6) [formerly section

51.24(a)(6)]. In the meantime, the EPA

expects these States to continue

implementing their existing programs for

particulate matter. In some cases, this

may involve the automatic assumption

of responsibility for the review of PMo.

EPA believes that some States may have

PSD rules which, like EPA's Part 52 PSD

9 Section 52.21(k)(1) contains a general provision

requiring prospective PSD sources to demonstrate

that their potential emissions will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of "any"

NAAQS. On the date that EPA's revisions to the

NAAQS for particulate matter become effective,

EPA will become responsible for protecting the

revised NAAQS, instead of the old TSP NAAQS,

under the preconstruction review process. Similarly,

various PSD provisions, e.g. 52.21(j)(2), apply to

"any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act,"

and would, thereby, automatically include the PMo

indicator for particulate matter on the date this new

indicator becomes effective.
Federal Register /' Vol. 52; No;. 126. / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

regulations, are sufficiently open-ended

so as to require-the, immediate

protection of the PMo-NAAQS and

review of PM,o as a regulated form- of

particulate matter.

Over the course of the next several

months, EPA will audit State.PSD.

permitting activities to determinewhether'or not States are implementing

their existing PSD requirements for

particulate matter. In- the event EPA

finds that a State is not protecting the

NAAQS for particulate matter in. either

of its regulated forms,. EPA will initiate

action pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of

the Act to disapprove the-State's PSD

program with respect to particulatematter and will reinstate amended Part

52 PSD regulations into the SIP for such

State. The EPA will then protect.the

PM,o NAAQS in that State through the

Part 52 PSD program until the State

submits, and EPA approves, a PMio SIP

which includes adequate PSD

provisions,

As a result of today's amendments

additional new sources and

modifications may be required to

undergo PSD review for particulate

matter, and sources already required, to

undergo PSD review for particulate

matter may be subject to additional

analyses for PMo. In fairness to certainof these applicants, EPA is phasing in

the new requirements by means of two

grandfather provisions and a monitoring;

program.

The first grandfather provision

prevents* the retroactive review of

sources that were not, previously subject

to PSD review for particulate matter,

provided that the. affected sources: (a)

Obtained all the necessary approvals

under the SIP'before the effective date

of the new requirements, and (b)

commenced construction within.18

months from the effective date of the

new requi:ements or any earlier time.

required under'the SIP [see new section

52.21(i)(4)(ix)].

The second provision excludes from

PSD review for PMo any applicant that,.

before the effective date of today's Part

52 PSD amendments for PMo, submits to

EPA or its delegated representative a

complete PSD application which already

addresses: particulate matter, even

though a final determination has not.yet

been made on the permit [see new

section 52.21(i)(4)(x)]. Any source

eligible for this grandfather provision

must meet the requirements for

particulate matter that were in effect

before the- effective date of the PMo

amendments.

Today's action also providessome

relief to certain- applicants who. would

otherwise be expected to include.up to I

year of ambient monitoring data for

PMo as, part of'a: complete PSD:

application..Three transition' provisions

relating'to the:preapplication monitoring

requirements will' take effect These

provisions are described below-under g.

PSD'Monitoring.

b. Source Applicability. A, major new

source or modification will' be subject to

PSD review for PMo if it: would emit

PM10 in significant amounts.10 Today's

action amends the definition of' "significant" for particulate matter

under section 5L166(b)(23)(i) [formerly

51.24(b)(23)(1)] and. section,52.24(b)(23)(i)

to include an emission. rate for the new

PMo indicator. Upon, its effective date,

the new significant emission rate, 15 tpy

of PMo emissions,. wilE begin to apply to.

each PS9I applicant subject to EPA's

Part 52 PSD regulations.

States with approved PSD SIP's are

expected to make similar amendments

to their PSD rules to add the new

significant emission rate: for PMio withinA

the 9-month7 period allowed under the

Act. In.the meantime, States must

examine the source applicability

provisions in their existing PSD rules to

determine. whether PMo is

automatically incorporated as a "regulated" pollutant (by virtue of the

fact that it will be a pollutant regulated

under the Act) or whether-specific

rulemaking action must be taken" to

accomplish that result. The EPA.

believes" that some States may have PSD

rules which could immediately require

the review of PMo as a regulated.

pollutant,, even though the!State rules do)

not yet contain a specified significance

level for PM. emissions. Prospective

PSD applicants should inquire as to the

status of existing State PSD rules with

respect to PM10.

The existing "particulate matter"

significance levelof.25 tpy is being

clarified to- apply to. particulate: matter

emissions: [see revised sections

51.166(b)(23)(i)" and 52.21(b)(23.)(i)]._' I

10 PSD applies to new major-stationary sources

and major modifications.of'existing majorstationary sources. A "major-stationary source" for

PSD purposes is; (1),any source type belonging to a.

list.of.28 source. categories that emits or has the

potential to emit.100 tpy or more'of'any pollutant

regulated under theAct,. or. (2) any other sourcethat.

emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant

regulated under the Act in.an amount equal to or.

greater than 250 tpy. The PSD'review requirements

apply to any regulated'pollutant'which the new-or

modified-major stationary source would emit in

significant amounts. Thus, a source may be,"major"

for only one pollutant, but PSI review would apply

to other pollutants emitted in "significant" amounts..

I Elsewhere in today's notice, the Administrator

has established new definitions, "particulatematter:

emissions" and."PMo- emissions." to distinguish

between those emissions of.the pollutant.particulate

matter which affect ambient concentrations of TSP

and PMs. respectively: [See new section51.100 (oo)'

and'(qq).]

TheEPA considbrs TSP, to remain

regulated, under'the'Act because, eventhough a NAAQSwi1 no longer exist for

TSP, the statutory' PSD' increments for

particulate matterwill' still be expressed'

in terms- of TS. It follows then that,

since PSD applicability'is defined in

terms' of'significant emissions of'any

pollutant subject to regulation under the'

Act, significance.levels for both

regulated indicators of particulate

matter are necessary.

The fact that there-are now two,

different indicators' for particulate,

matter means- that sources of particulate.

matter'could be required to undergo PSD

review for either or-both forms of the

pollutant. Conversely, an emission rate

lower, than the significant emission rate

for one form of particulate matter wouldc

allow a source- to be excluded from PSD

review only'with respect to that specific

form of the pollutant.

For source modifications, the PSD

review requirements will apply to

whichever form of particulate matter

results ih a significant net emission.

increase. Any determination of whether

a proposed modification would.exceed

the PMia significance threshold. shoul'd

be basedonl', on PM 0 emission.

changes which include actual emission

changes from.a particular modification

and other creditable increases. and

decreases ofactuaL PMo. emissions that

are contemporaneously associated with:

the modification.. For PM 0 , that portion

of the.contemporaneous particulate.

matter emission. change with a particle

size larger than- PMo. would not be

creditable.. If both PM ,o, and TSP

particulate matter emissions% increase

significantly, then both are subject to:

PSD review.

c. Geographib, Applicability.. Under

the section 1-10,implementation, pathway:

applicable toPMo the new PSD

requirements for PM 0 will generally

apply if the otherwise subject source

locates in an area. designated attainment

or unclassifiable under section-l07 for

any pollutant.This means that-the PSD,

requirements for PM0 will apply in all.

locations because there are.no, areas

where a section 107 nonattainment

designation currently applies, to all

pollutants. The Administrator's

determination that only section 110

applies to the. revised (PMlo): NAAQS. for

particulate, mattermeans: that there will,

be no.Federal requirements under-a Part

D based nonattainment area

preconstruction review with respect to,

PM10.

For TSP,, the PSD' requirements will

continue to, apply a any area wl ich

does not ha.ve' a, section 107

nonattainment designation for TSP:

24683
24684 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Since the indicator for the particulate

matter NAAQS has been changed to

PM10 , arguably it is no longer meaningful

to maintain section 107 designations

(whether attainment, nonattainment, or

unclassifiable] with respect to the TSP

NAAQS.' 2 However, EPA believes that

as stated in the April 2, 1985, proposal,

the Class II increments for particulate

matter only apply in areas that bear a

designation of attainment or

unclassifiable specifically for the

NAAQS for particulate matter, not just

for any NAAQS. 13 Consequently, in

order to preserve the applicability of the

increments as desired, EPA will not

approve any State requests to

completely delete these TSP

designations until the new PMlo

increments have been established (see

further discussion below in section f.

PSD Increments for Particulate Matter).

States may request redesignation of

their existing TSP nonattainment areas

to unclassifiable areas, pursuant to

section 107 and EPA will approve such

request on or after the date that EPA

approves the State's control strategy as

sufficient to attain and maintain the

PM1o NAAQS. Such redesignations

would enable PSD review to be applied

with respect to both indicators for

particulate matter and will avoid the

complexity of conducting the

nonattainment NSR for TSP, while

simultaneously conducting PSD for

PM10.

d. Best Available Control Technology.

While no actual changes have been

made to the control technology review

requirement for PSD, today's action by

the Administrator to regulate a PMo

indicator for particulate matter means

that any major stationary source or

major modification having the potential

to emit PMo in significant amounts, i.e.,

15 tpy or more, and seeking a PSD

permit under the Part 52 PSD regulations

must now consider how it will ensure

12 Section 107(d) authorized the States to submit,

and EPA to subsequently promulgate, a list of areas that on August 7, 1977, did or did not comply with

the various NAAQS in existence on that date.

Although section 107(d)(5) continues to provide for

revisions to these lists, it would make no sense to

continue to maintain a list indicating ongoing

compliance with a standard that is no longer in

effect.

Is See 50 FR 13147, discussion under d. NAAQS

Analysis/Increment Consumption. The same

argument would also apply to Class Ill increments;

however, no Class Ill designations have been made

to date under the PSD program, (With respect to all

subsequent discussions pertaining to Class II areas and increments, such discussions will also apply to

Class Ill areas and.increments.) On the other hand,

mandatory Class I areas and the Class I increments

would remain in effect since their general

applicability is independently established by the

Act and is not linked to the section 107 area designation process See sections 162(a) and

163(b)(1) of the Act.

the application of BACT for PM1o

emissions. A similar source undergoing

PSD review under EPA-approved State

regulations will also be required to

address BACT for PM~o if the applicable

State's PSD rules automatically cover

PMo as a regulated pollutant, despite

the lack of a specified significance level

for PMo emissions in the State rule;

otherwise, no BACT requirement will

apply to PMo in such State until the SIP

is appropriately revised.

Where PSD applicants request permit

approval under the Part 52 PSD

regulations, the Administrator will seek

to establish emission limitations defined

in terms of PMo emissions contingent

upon the availability of emission factors

and control efficiency information for

the source under review. The feasibility

of establishing a PMo emission

limitation will thereby be a case-by-case

determination. Compliance in each case

is to be based on an acceptable test

method also to be determined on a caseby-case basis. Appendix C of EPA's

PMo SIP Development Guideline

describes procedures for modifying

existing sampling techniques to collect

PM10 emissions data. The EPA is also

developing specific PMo emissions

measurement methods which will be

available in the future.

Where a quantifiable PMo emission

limit is not yet feasible, the

Administrator intends to allow the use

of TSP-based emission limitations,

provided that the reduction of PMo

emissions-and not just "particulate

matter emissions"-has been considered

to the extent possible in the BACT

determination.

e. National Ambient Air Quality

Standards Analysis

When the revised NAAQS for

particulate matter become effective,

each PSD application subject to EPA's

Part 52 PSD regulations, and not eligible

to be grandfathered under today's

action, must contain a PM~o NAAQS

analysis. Applicants seeking permits

from States with SIP-approved programs

will also have to demonstrate

compliance with the PMo NAAQS if the

State's regulations are sufficiently openended to accommodate EPA's revised

NAAQS for particulate matter without

further rulemaking action on the part of

that State. Otherwise, PSD applicants

will have additional time before a PMo

NAAQS analysis will be required by the

State's revised preconstruction review

procedures.

The required PMo analysis must

demonstrate that the proposed major

new or modified source will not cause or

contribute to ambient concentrations of

PM1o exceeding the PMio primary and

secondary NAAQS as required by

section 165 of the Act. This analysis

applies in general to PSD sources which

have the potential to emit significant

amounts of PMo emissions. In the event

that such demonstration indicates that

the proposed source would cause or

contribute to ambient PMo levels

exceeding the revised NAAQS, the

Administrator will require the applicant

to obtain, at a minimum, sufficient PMo

emission offsets to compensate for the

source's ambient impact in the area of

the violation. 14 In addition, the

Administrator intends that emission

offsets allowed for PSD purposes must

meet applicable creditability criteria

equivalent to those set forth under

section 51.165(a) [previously section

51.18(j)) 5

14 In the April 2,1985 proposal, the Administrator

indicated that under the Part 52 PSD regulations he

intended to require, at a minimum, that sources

found to cause or contribute to a PMIo NAAQS

violation must obtain sufficient emission offsets so

as to provide a "net air quality benefit," thus

satisfying the "cause or contribute to" language

under section 165(a)(3) of the Act. Later in the

proposal, he stated that the "net air quality benefit"

test would also apply to offsets required under State

PSD programs and section 51.1s(k) [now section

51.165[b)] programs as well. The Administrator has

since concluded that the "net air quality benefit"

test for the required offsets is appropriate in only

some areas, namely areas where violations of the

PM~e standard already exist but do not have an

approved plan demonstrating attainment of the

PMo standard as expeditiously as practicable. In

these areas, new sources would otherwise continue

to "contribute" to the existing violations if they

merely compensated on a one-for-one basis for their

own ambient impact and failed to also provide air

quality progress, inasmuch as such areas have yet

to satisfactorily provide for attainment through

available reductions from existing sources. Only by

providing for some air quality improvement could

new sources help to remedy the existing

nonattainment problems in such areas rather than

"contributing" to them. Conversely, in areas that are

not experiencing existing violations of the PMo

NAAQS, new sources would not need to provide air

quality progress because once such sources

adequately compensate for their own adverse air

quality impacts, the areas would remain in

attainment of the PMo NAAQS. Similarly, in areas

that may be experiencing violations of the PMIO

NAAQS but that do have an approved plan

demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as

practicable, new sources that adequately

compensate for their own projected ambient

impacts would not need to provide additional

emissions reductions since the areas are already

moving towards attainment as expeditiously as is

practicable. States may, of course, require

additional offsets in these latter areas should they

desire to do so. 15 On August 25, 1983, EPA proposed

amendments to its regulations concerning the

construction of new and modified stationary

sources of air pollution (48 FR 38742). Included were

two proposed changes to the offset creditability

criteria contained in section 51.18(j) [recodified as

section 51.165(a)]. Specifically, EPA proposed to

revise subparagraph (j)(3)}ii){T3c} [now (a)(3)(ii)(c)l

which pertains to the creditability of emission

reductions achieved by shutting down an existing

Continued
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Where a State must first revise its SIP

to redefine the ambient air quality

standards for particulate matter in terms

of PM,o before a PMo review would be

required, EPA anticipates that a

proposed source seeking a State permit

(including a PSD permit where

applicable) will have to continue. to

demonstrate its ability to meet the TSPbased NAAQS as a matter of State law.

Moreover, the particular State

preconstruction review requirements

which must be met will continue to be

based on geographic applicability as governed by current section 107 area

designations for TSP. It is possible,

therefore, that a source could be subject

to EPA's Part 52.PSD regulations

requiring compliance with the newlyrevised PMo primary and.secondary

NAAQS and the applicable State.

preconstruction review procedures

requiring compliance with the-old TSP

NAAQS. This particular outcome. will

not occur, however, after such State

revises its SIP for the PMio NAAQS.

f. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Increments-for Particulate

Matter

The Administrator today is

announcing his intention to establish

PMo increments pursuant to section 166

of the Act.'1 In accordance with the

procedures established by Congress

under paragraphs (a] and (b) of section

166, over the next several years, EPA

will propose and promulgate regulations

which set forth new PSD increments

measured by the PM,0 indicator. These

regulations are to. become effective 1:

year after the date upon which EPA

promulgates them, whereupon States

will be given time to revise their SIP's to

include the new PMo increments and

submit them to EPA for approval.

Ultimately, EPA plans to allow States to,

use the new PMo increments to

effectively replace the existing

increments for "particulate matter," as

further described below.

During the period of time required to

incorporate the new PMo increments

source Or permanently curtailing production or

operating hours: and to change subparagraph

(jJ(3Jlii(e) [now (a)(3)(ii)(e)] which currently requires that all emission reductions claimed as

offset credit be federally enforceable. The EPA

intends to apply the existing offset creditability

criteria to PSD offsets until it'takes final action on the August 25, 1983, proposal. In the event that such.

final action changes the offset creditability criteria

in section 51.165(a), then the changes would also be

applied with respect to-the PSD offset program.

10 Section 166 of the Act requires in part that, forpollutants for which NAAQS- are promulgated after

August 7. 1977, EPA must promulgate. regulations

which "shall provide specific measures-at least as

effective as the increments established in section

163 ... and may contain air quality increments,

emission density requirements, or other measures."

into State PSD programs; the

Administrator is taking-steps to ensurethat the existing. PSD. increments for

particulate matter ira section 163 of the.

Act will continue to be measured. by the.

TSP indicator. Although the statute does

not specify an indicator to be used to

measure particulate- matter levels

against the statutory increments (they

are simply referred to as increments for "particulate matter"), it is clear from the.

legislative history that Congress could

only have intended these increments to

be measured as TSP..

At the time Congress. created. the

increments, the particulate matter

NAAQS were measured as TSP

Congress created the "particulate

matter" increments in.section 163 by

taking a percentage of the lowest

NAAQS concentration for each

measurement period [see e.g., H.R. Rep.

No. 95-294, 95th Gong., 1st Sess. (1977),

p. 153ff]. In this way, ambient

concentrations of particulate matter.

could generally be restricted to levels

below the NAAQS levels. This approach

only makes sense if Congress intended

to use the same indicator for the

increments as was then in use for the

NAAQS. Therefore, under today's

revisions EPA is, clarifying these

increments so as to apply them,

specifically to ambient TSP

concentrations.

The TSP increments will. continue to

apply in mandatory Class I areas (see

footnote 13) and in Class II areas for

TSP, i.e., area's which, pursuant to

section 107, are designated attainment

or unclassifiable for TSP..The EPA

anticipates a potential problem if States.

should request deletion' of their section,

107 TSP designations- when they adopt

PMo0 NAAQS to replace the oldTSP

NAAQS. As noted earlier in-this

preamble, the statutory Class II TSP

increments will no longer apply in an area once EPA has deleted the existing

section 107 designations for TSP

pursuant to State request, since Class II areas are defined as a subset-of section

107 area designations. IfEPA were to

grant such requests in the. absence of

PMo increments, many areas would be

subject to no PSD increments for

particulate matter in either of its

regulated forms. This potential. result

would, clearly conflict with

congressional intent to prevent

significant deterioration with respect to

particulate matter.

The EPA intends to, deny State

requests for deletion of section 107 TSP

designations pending-each State's

adoption of PMo increments, In support

of this position, EPA-will rely-upon the

introductory phrase in section 107(d)

which states "[flor the purposes

of . . .part C (relating to preventionof

significant deterioration, of air

quality): ..... Although section 107

area designations withrespectto TSP

may no longer be appropriate:i.i th

absence of the-TSP NAAQS, EPA will,

require. the retention of the: TSP

designations. for the" purposes of Part: C

of the Act until PMe0 increments are in

place.

The, EPA. ,ill: also rely on.its authority

under section 301" to "prescribe such

regulations as- are necessary to carry out

[its] functions" under the Act That is,

until PM 0 increments. are promulgated,

it will be "necessary" within the

meaning of section 301 to retain existing

section 107(d) TSP designations so that

the Class IrTSP increments will

continue to apply in Class II areas for

particulate matter. However, as

described earlier, States will have the

opportunity to remove their existing TSP

nonattainment designations by

requesting to EPA that each area be

redesignated as unclassifiable. The EPA

will approve such redesignations on or

after the date, it approves. each State's.

plan to attain and maintain" the PMo

NAAQS

The redesignation to "unclassifiable"

pursuant to section 107 of the Act will

enable the PSDtpreconstruction review

requirements to apply to subsequent

major new sources and major

modifications proposing to locate in

such redesignated areas. Hence, at the

time that the first complete PSD.

application affecting the redesignated

area is filed, the baseline date will beestablished for TSP and the amount of

increment which would be consumed.

must be determined. The EPA plans to

develop guidance to enable PSD sources.

and States to determine which changes,

if any, in actuaLPMo emissions,

occurring during the time that the area

was designated nonattainment, affect

the amount of TSP increment consumed.

Once EPA promulgates PMo

increments a, dual increment system for

particulate matter, i.e., TSP and PM1o,

will exist. The EPA believes that ar

mandatory dual increment system will'

be unnecessarily burdensome:and

cumbersome. A partial remedy to a

mandatory dual system exists in: the fact

that States will be given the opportunity

to request the deletion.of all or a portion.

of their existing: section 107 area

designations for TSP. In any area

designated as attainment. or

unclassifiable for TSP, States, may

effectively end the: applicability of the

Class II increments- for' "particulate

matter" under section 163of'the Act

when the TSP area designation for such

246H3
24686 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

areas is deleted. However, because the

Class I increments for particulate matter

under section 163 of the Act are not

similarly affected by the deletion of the

section 107 area designations, EPA

intends to construct Class I PMo

increments that are equivalent in effect

to the statutory Class I TSP increments.

In the event that EPA can do so, it will

then allow States to use these Class I

PMo increments as surrogates for the

Class I TSP increments. Thus, PSD

permit applicants and permit reviewers

might not have to deal with two

separate increment analyses.

g. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Monitoring

Today's action adds a second

significance concentration for the

purpose of requiring PSD preapplication

monitoring data for particulate matter.

Under the amended Part 52 PSD

regulations, EPA will use the newlydefined significant ambient

concentration, 10 ;.g/m3 (24-hour

average) of PM1o, to help determine

when a proposed PSD source must, prior

to the submittal of its PSD application, collect and evaluate ambient PMo data.

See revised section 51.166(i)(8)(i) and

section 52.21(i)(8)(i).1 7

Although TSP monitoring will

continue to be required under the newly amended regulations, TSP will no longer

be a pollutant for which a NAAQS

exists. Therefore, discretionary

authority in accordance with section

52.21(m)(1)(ii) and section

51.166(m)(1)(ii) is available to exempt TSP monitoring in certain situations.

When an exemption is granted, the

required air quality analysis would

instead have to use air quality

dispersion modeling to estimate ambient

impact.

The Administrator will phase in new

PMo monitoring according to a

transition program being set forth today

I The Administrator is taking this opportunity to

correct several errors that have existed in the table

of significant ambient concentrations since the time

the table was first published on August 7,1980.

First, the averaging period for lead is being revised

to a 3-month average. This would conform to the 3-

month averaging period specified for the lead

NAAQS. The averiging period for each criteria

pollutant was intended to conform to the shortest

averaging period for which a NAAQS was defined

for that particular pollutant.

Second, the Administrator is revising the

significant concentrations for beryllium and

hydrogen sulfide because these concentrations were listed incorrectly. The beryllium concentration was promulgated as 0.0005, which was low by a factor of

2. It should have been 0.001 ;tg/m 3

. The hydrogen

sulfide concentration was promulgated as 0.04 ftg/ m3

, which is the minimum detectable concentration

and did not reflect the factor of 5 as used to

establish each of the other significant ambient

concentrations. The correct value for hydrogen sulfide should therefore be 0.2 jg/m3.

in the Part 52 PSD regulations. The three

monitoring transition provisions are

essentially the same as those in the

proposal, except that time periods focus

on the effective date of the PSD

amendments for PMo rather than the

promulgation date of the amendments.

For complete applications submitted

during the first 10 months after the PMo

amendments become effective, no new

PMo monitoring will be required;

however, the Administrator may require

an applicant to consider existing air

quality data (PM1o, PM, 5, or TSP) if it is

available and representative.1 8

When a PSD application would

become complete after 10 months and

not later than 16 months from the

effective date of the PSD amendments

for PMo, the prospective PSD source

must use existing PM1o or PM15

representative air quality data or collect

PMo monitoring data. 9 The collected

data can come from nonreference

sampling methods. The amount of PMo

data collected during this period will

involve at least 4 months of sampling,

but will depend on the applicant's

ability to collect more data before the

application would otherwise become

complete.

Finally, for complete applications

submitted after 16 and not later than 24

months from the effective date of

today's amendments, applicants must

collect ambient PMo data from

reference method PMo samplers. The

amount of data collected from the

18 The EPA has revised its "Ambient Monitoring

Guidelines for Prevention of Signification Deterioration (PSD)" to fully describe Agency policy for implementing each of the transition provisions which are set forth in today's notice.

19 The April 2,1985, proposal contained a discrepancy concerning the specific kinds of

nonreference sampling methods that the

Administrator would accept during the second

transition period (after 10 but not later than 10

months from the PSD amendments). In the

FEDERAL REGISTER preamble (p. 13150) there is a statement indicating that EPA would accept data

based on TSP sampling for comparison with the

proposed PMo primary NAAQS. The inclusion of

TSP as acceptable data was in error. The August 1984 draft of EPA's "Ambient Monitoring Guidelines

for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),"

which was made available for public comment

simultaneously with the proposed PSD

amendments, contained the Agency's intended

policy which was to allow TSP data to be used

during the second transition period only in

comparison with the then proposed TSP secondary NAAQS (see section 2.5.2.2, p. 44 of the draft

guidance). The Administrator's decision not to

allow the use of TSP data for comparison with the

PMo NAAQS is based on the fact that the

relationship between PMlo and TSP may vary quite widely on both a temporal (day-to-day) and spatial (site-to-site) basis so that no single conversion

factor can be used to reliably determine PMlo

concentrations using TSP data. Thus, the

Administrator wishes to discourage the use of TSP

data after the initial 10-month transition phase. After such time, sources should be able to gather at

least 4 months of ambient PM,o or PM, 5 data.

reference monitors must include at least

4 months of data but, as above, depends

on when the PSD application would

otherwise become complete.

2. Revised New Source Review

Requirements for Particulate Matter

The fact that EPA will implement the

PMo NAAQS under a section 110

pathway significantly limits which

Federal NSR requirements will apply to

major sources with PMo emissions. For

the reasons described elsewhere in this

preamble, the NSR requirements

contained in section 51.165(b) [formerly

section 51.18(k)] will apply, but the other

major source NSR requirements for

areas not attaining the NAAQS,

including the nonattainment regulations

under section 51.165fa) [formerly section

51.18(j)], the offset rule under 40 CFR

Part 51 Appendix S, and the

construction ban under section 52.24

will not apply with respect to PMo.

The purpose of the section 51.165(b)

NSR regulations is to require States to

establish preconstruction review

procedures which address major sources

proposing to locate in designated

attainment or unclassifiable areas and

whose proposed emissions would cause

or contribute to a NAAQS violation in

any area. States have been required to

implement a preconstruction review

program which meets the requirements

of section 51.165(b) for the particulate

matter NAAQS which until now were

based on the TSP indicator. Current

State programs may or may not continue

to protect the TSP-based primary and

secondary NAAQS for particulate

matter depending upon the language in

their regulations pertaining to NAAQS.

Such programs must continue to be

implemented with respect to TSP

NAAQS until the States revise their

SIP's where necessary to define the

NAAQS in terms of PMo.

The EPA expects States to implement

their section 51.165(b) NSR program in

accordance with the same geographic

and source applicability criteria as

apply for PSD purposes with one

exception. That exception pertains to

the definition of "major source." The

NSR source applicability requirement

w ith respect to major sources is more

inclusive than the PSD source

applicability requirement in that "major" for NSR purposes includes all

sources which have the potential to emit

at least 100 tpy of any regulated

pollutant as defined in section 302(j) of

the Act. The EPA is amending the

section 51.165(b) regulations to clarify

the ambiguity that was present in the

original requirements [see new section

51.165(b)(1)]. The Act requires that this
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

definition of major source, in section

302(j) of the Act, be used for the

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the

Act, which is the primary basis for the

section 51.165(b) NSR requirements.

In accordance with the April 2, 1985,

proposal, the Administrator will allow

States, as part of an approvable section

51.165(b) NSR program for PMio, to

establish an emission offset program.

Such emission offset program, in order

to be approvable by the Administrator,

must be consistent with the PSD offset

creditability criteria as described earlier

(also see footnote 15). Emissions offsets

must be applied as a prerequisite for

approving a construction permit for any

applicable major new or modified

source whose prospective construction

would otherwise cause or contribute to

a PMo NAAQS violation. "Cause or

contribute to" would be determined in

accordance with numerical criteria at

least as stringent as the significance

criteria set forth under new section

51.165(b)(2). States which experience

more severe nonattainment problems

may need to consider more stringent

significance criteria to address new

construction that would occur in the

area of a nonattainment problem. In any

case, the required offsets must be

sufficient to compensate for the

proposed source's ambient impact in the

area of a NAAQS violation to the extent

that the source's emissions would cause

or contribute to the violation [see new

paragraph 51.165(b)(3)].

With respect to federally-imposed

construction bans already in effect for

TSP, such bans will automatically be

lifted when EPA's PMo NAAQS in 40

CFR Part 50 become effective in 30 days.

EPA finds that it will no longer have

authority under section 110(a)(2)(I) of

the Act to impose the construction ban

against violations of the old TSP

NAAQS. Under that statutory provision

and 40 CFR 52.24, a construction ban is

to apply within designated

nonattainment areas failing to meet Part

D of the Act for a major new source or

modification that would cause or

contribute to a violation of a NAAQS.

While TSP nonattainment designations

will be retained at least for the time

being, the TSP NAAQS will be replaced

by PMio NAAQS in 40 CFR Part 50.

Thus, EPA will be unable to continue

imposing a ban to compel new Part D

planning for TSP. States will, however,

be expected to continue implementing their existing NSR rules, including those

based on Part D of the Act.

V. Revised Regulations

A. Revisions to Part 51

1. Regulatory Reform

On November 7, 1986, EPA

promulgated (51 FR 40656) restructured

40 CFR Part 51 regulations. Part 51 was

changed by deleting obsolete provisions,

removing unnecessary requirements,

reducing reporting burdens on the

States, and restructuring the entire part

into a new format that will be easier to

use than the existing format. Now

restructured, Part 51 reflects the Act

requirements pertaining to SIP's in

general terms rather than specifying

requirements by pollutant. This action

simplifies formerly detailed regulations

and provides more flexibility. In keeping

with that effort, the revisions to Part 51

being promulgated today are in the new

format. Since most references to specific

pollutants have been removed from Part

51, only a small number of changes,

aside from the NSR/PSD changes, are

needed in this action to revise Part 51 in

response to the revised particulate

matter standards.

2. Basic State Implementation Plans

Requirements

The new Subpart G, Control Strategy,

of Part 51 contains general requirements

that must be met by States in order that

their PMo SIP be approvable by EPA.

For example, Subpart G requires that

each SIP include a description of the

control measures being adopted, a

demonstration of the adequacy of those

measures to provide for timely

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS, and a description of the

procedures for implementing and

enforcing those measures. These

requirements were formerly included in

sections 51.12 and 51.13.

The new Subpart K, Source

Surveillance, requires provisions for

recordkeeping by owners or operators of

stationary sources, testing inspection,

and enforcement of regulations through

visibile emission limitations. These

requirements were formerly included in

section 51.19. The Administrator will

judge the PM1o SIP's against these

requirements to determine their

approvability. Where SIP's already

contain certain provisions, such as a description of administrative

procedures, these need not be repeated

in the SIP revision submitted for the

PM 0 NAAQS.

3. Section 51.100, Definitions

The EPA is adding definitions to

section 51.100 (formerly section 51.1) to

help clarify the distinctions between the

terms, "particulate matter," "particulate

matter emissions," "PMo," "PMo

emissions," and "total suspended

particulates." A generic definition of "particulate matter" is added which

parallels the use of the term in the

revised criteria document for particulate

matter. The term "TSP" is defined as

particulate matter as measured by the

high-volume method described in

Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 50. The term

"PM 0 " is defined as particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter less than

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as

measured by a reference method

described in Appendix J of 40 CFR Part

50.

The terms "PMo emissions" and

"particulate matter emissions" are

defined as those respective materials as

measured during a source test that are

emitted to the ambient air. For example,

particulate matter emissions are finely

divided solid or liquid material as

measured during a stack test (e.g., EPA

Reference Methods 5 or 17) of the

sources emissions. The PMo emissions

are finely divided solid or liquid

material with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers, as measured during a

stack test of the source's emissions.

4. Section 51.151, Significant Harm

Levels

The review and revision of health and

welfare criteria for particulate matter

and sulfur oxides and revisions to the

NAAQS for particulate matter

necessitate certain changes to the

significant harm levels. The indicator for

the particulate matter significant harm

level is changed from TSP to PMo to

conform with the revision of the primary

NAAQS for particulate matter.

Also the significant harm

concentration level for particulate

matter is revised. The criteria document

and its addendum indicate that a

scientific consensus exists linking

increases in daily total mortality and

particles during the historical London

wintertime pollution episodes when

particle levels, measured as British

Smoke (BS), 20 and sulfur dioxide (SO2)

levels were both in the range of 500 to

1000 pg/m3.J Strong evidence exists

showing an association between

pollution and mortality at substantially

lower levels. However, substantial

disagreement exists as to whether such

associations are causal at these low

concentrations.k While the relative

10 British Smoke is a pseudo-mass indicator

related to small particle (size less than a nominal 4.5

micrometers) darkness. This particulate matter

indicator was widely used in British and other

European studies.

24687
24688 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

importance of SO2 cannot be specified

unequivocally, the conservative

assumption (with respect to particles) is

that similar responses might have

occurred without substantial amounts of

SO2 present as discussed in the EPA

staff paper and the staff paper

addendum for particulate matter (p.98)."

In addition to potential SO2 interaction,

consideration must also be given to

comparing BS and PMo. Because the

smoke reading responds to darkness

instead of mass, the relationship

between BS and a mass index such as

PMo is particularly uncertain. To

account for this, the staff paper (p. 99)

derives general boundary relationships

comparing BS and PM~o units from the

available aerometric data. The lower

bound assumes a BS reading equals a

PMo mass reading while the upper

bound assumes PMo mass =BS

reading+100 pg/m. The lower bound

includes a margin of safety compared

with the upper bound of the range. A

reasonable estimate of PMo that may

cause significant harm can be made by

combining the conservative assumption

that particulate matter above 500 pg/m

(BS > 500 pg/m s ) will cause increased

mortality and the less conservative

assumption that PMo=BS+100 Ag/m s.

On this basis, EPA is changing the

significant harm level for particulate

matter to 600 jig/m measured as PM~o

(PMo=BS> 500 pg/imn+100 g/m').

The significant harm level lor the

combined levels of particulate matter

(measured as TSP) and SO2 are deleted.

As noted in the staff paper (p. 71), it is

not clear from the relevant scientific

evidence that such a combined

particulate matter S02 index provides

any improvement in protecting against

significant harm from particulate matter

over a single significant harm level for

particulate matter that is chosen with

due consideration of the potential

interactive effects. As discussed above,

the proposed significant harm level for

particulate matter does take into

account, in a conservative fashion,

potential SO interaction. Continuation

of the current combined TSP-SO, index

is. therefore, no longer appropriate nor

needed from the standpoint of

particulate matter.

More detailed discussion of the

information supporting these revisions

can be found in the criteria document

and staff paper which are available for

inspection at the Central Docket Section

(Docket No. A--82-37). The address of

the Central Docket Section is gien at

the beginning of this notice.

5. Section 51.165, Permit Requirements

In subsection (a) of this section, the

significance level for particulate matter

is deleted because the TSP-based

NAAQS have been deleted and the new

indicator for particulate matter, PMo, is

not subject to the provisions of this

section concerning nonattainment NSR.

In paragraph (b)(1) reference is added to

paragraphs (a)(1) (iv) and (v) of section

51.165 which contain definitions of "new

major stationary source" and "major

modification." Also in paragraph (b)(1) a

change is being made to replace "40 CFR

81.300 et seq." with "section 107 of the

Act" where reference is made to area

classifications. A table similar to the

table in section III.A of Appendix S is

being added in a new paragraph (b)(2) to

indicate significant ambient impact

concentrations. Within this table, the

annual and 24-hour concentrations are

being deleted for TSP since there is no

longer an annual or 24-hour TSP

NAAQS. 2 1 Concentrations for the

annual and 24-hour averaging times are

being added to define significant

ambient impacts for PMo.

Paragraph (b)(3) is being added to

clarify EPA's position that States may

allow proposed major sources or major

modifications to obtain emission offsets

to compensate for their adverse ambient

impacts where such sources or

modifications would otherwise cause or

contribute to a violation of a NAAQS.

Finally, paragraph (b)(4) is being added

to exclude a source from the

requirements of paragraph (b) with

respect to any pollutant for which the

location of the source is designated as

nonattainment.

6. Section 51.166, Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

Various amendments to the

requirements for the prevention of

significant deterioration are being added

to section 51.166. Paragraph (a)f6)(i) is

changed to allow States 9 months from

the effective date of any new PSD

amendments to adopt and submit the

appropriate SIP revisions. In paragraph

(b)(231(i), the existing significant

emissions rate for particulate matter is

changed so as to clarify that it is to be

measured in terms of "particulate matter

emissions." A new significant emissions

rate for particulate matter is also added

and is expressed in terms of "PMo

emissions." Thus, there are significant

emissions rates for two regulated forms

of particulate matter, i.e., TSP and PMo.

The increments for particulate matter

in paragraphs (c) and (p) are clarified to

2 'The annual and 24-hour concentrations for TSP

in the table as it occurs in Appendix S are not being

deleted at this time because States may continue to

use these concentrations to address the TSP

NAAQS which may remain in effect within their

SIP's until the SIP's are revised with respect to PM~o.

indicate that the specified

concentrations apply to ambient TSP. In

paragraph (i) the significant ambient

concentration for particulate matter is

changed to indicate that the specified

value applies to either TSP or PMo. Also

in paragraph (i), technical and clarifying

amendments are being made to lead,

beryllium, and hydrogen sulfide to

correct for previous typographical

errors. Finally, a new provision is being

added that would allow States to adopt

PMo transition provisions that parallel

the proposed transition provisions in

section 52.21.

7. Sections 51.322 and 51.323, Annual

Source Emissions Reporting

The EPA requires annual reporting of

actual emissions of criteria pollutants in

order to perform various types of

national analyses and to prepare

national emissions trends reports. The

EPA proposed to amend section 51.322,

"Sources subject to emissions

reporting," and section 51.323,

"Reportable emissions data and

information," to specify requirements for

State reporting of both particulate

matter emissions and PM 0 emissions on

an annual basis. However, since the

Administrator has determined that the

indicator for both primary and

secondary standards should be changed

from TSP to PM~o, the promulgated

amendments simply replace particulate

matter emissions reporting with PMo

emissions reporting. To provide time for

States to develop the capability for

reporting PMo emissions data and for

EPA to store and retrieve such data,

State reporting of PMo emissions data is

to begin with calendar year 1988

emissions. The requirement to report

particulate matter emissions data ends

with State reporting of calendar year

1987 emissions.

8. Revisions to Appendix L

Appendix L to Part 51 contains

example air pollution episode levels and

contingency plans for the purpose of

preventing air pollution from reaching

the significant harm levels prescribed in

section 51.151. To conform with the

revisions to the significant harm level

for particulate matter, the Administrator

is making the following revisions to the

example episode levels for particulate

matter:

(1) The indicator for particulate matter

episode levels is changed from TSP to

PMo, as it is for the significant harm

level;

(2) The combined particulate matter/

sulfur dioxide episode levels are

deleted:
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

(3) The example alert level for

particulate matter (measured as PMs) is

changed to 350.tg/m3, 24-hour average;

(4) The example warning level for

particulate matter (measured as PM10 ) is

changed to 420 /g/m 3 24-hour average;

and

(5) The example emergency level

(measured as PMo] is changed to 500

g/m3, 24-hour average.

The basis for changing the indicator

for particulate matter and for deleting

the combined particulate matter/SO2

episode levels is the same basis as

discussed above for the revisions to

section 51.151. With respect to example

episode levels, the proposed alert level

reflects the upper bound of the range of

interest in the staff paper. The staff

paper concludes that at or above 350

)lg/m3 health effects are likely to occur in certain sensitive population groups.

Therefore, it would be appropriate under

the episode criteria to initiate first stage

control action when this ambient level

of particulate matter occurs. The

warning and emergency levels are set at

approximately equal increments

between the alert level and the

significant harm level. This approach

provides opportunity for the control

actions associated with each episode

level to take effect before the next stage

is triggered and additional control

actions become necessary.

9. Revisions to Appendix S

In Appendix S, the emission rate

which defines significant amounts for "particulate matter" in paragraph

II.A.10(i) is changed to clarify that such

emissions are to be measured as "particulate matter emissions,"

consistent with the newly defined term

added to section 51.100. The new

indicator for particulate matter, PMo, is

not subject to the nonattainment

provisions of this Appendix.

B. Revisions to Part 52

1. Section 52.21, Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

The amendments for the Part 52 PSD

regulations in section 52.21 include the

amendments described for section

51.166 concerning (1) the significant

emission rate for particulate matter; (2)

the ambient increments for particulate

matter; and (3) the significant ambient

concentrations for particulate matter,

lead, beryllium, and hydrogen sulfide.

Also, in paragraph (i)(4) new provisions are being added to grandfather certain

applicants from additional PSD review

resulting from new PMo requirements

when prescribed criteria have been met

by the applicant. In paragraphs (i)(11),

(m)(1)(vii), and (viii), new transition

provisions for preconstruction

monitoring are added to exclude

applicants from PM1o monitoring

methods depending on when a complete

application is submitted relative to the

promulgation date of the PMo NAAQS.

Finally, paragraph (w)(2) is changed to

replace the date "June 28, 1978," with

the date of the PSD requirements in

effect immediately preceding the

effective date of the new PMo

amendments.

2. Section 52.24, Statutory Restriction on

New Sources

The provisions for prohibiting

construction in certain designated

nonattainment areas are revised by

deleting the significaht emission rate for

particulate matter from the definition of

"Significant" under paragraph (f)(12).

This emission rate is no longer needed

because, through the deletion of the TSP

NAAQS, construction ban provisions of

this section no longer apply to

particulate matter.

VI. Public Participation

The proposal to implement the revised

particulate matter standards drew many

responses during the public comment

period. Since the issues raised by

commenters had a significant effect on

the contents of today's final rule, EPA

feels it is important to make the

connection between comments and the

development of this final rule as clear as

possible.

Accordingly, there is a separate

discussion below for each part of the

proposal that drew comments in which

issues of major importance were raised.

In order of presentation, these parts are: legal issues, attainment probability

estimates, SIP development policy, PSD

and NSR issues, technical,

miscellaneous, and procedural issues.

Each discussion opens with a brief

review of what was proposed. This is

followed by a summary of the issues

raised by the commenter and EPA's

response. The EPA's response to

comments not addressed in this

preamble may be found in the docket.

A. Comments on Legal Issues

A full discussion of the legal issues

raised in the proposal is presented in

section III above.

1. Comments Favoring an Exclusive

Section 110 Pathway

Many commenters who supported use

of section 110 exclusively for

implementation of the revised PMo

NAAQS argued that Part D by its own

terms does not apply to any revisions to

a NAAQS. The EPA does not agree with

this premise. As explained in Section III

above, if this were true, a relaxation of a

NAAQS that reduces a State's planning

burden would shield an area that had

failed to meet the original NAAQS from

the strict Part D requirements despite

the fact that it would now be easier for

the area to attain. It is unlikely that

Congress would have intended such a

result. The term "national ambient air

quality standard" in section 171(2) must

therefore encompass revised standards

as well.

These commenters similarly pointed

to the fixed attainment dates in Part D

as evidence that Part D could not apply

to any NAAQS revisions after the

statutory 1982 attainment date.

However, as a matter of statutory

construction, the duty to demonstrate

attainment by the Part D attainment

dates should properly still apply to

NAAQS relaxations after 1982 that

reduce an area's planning burdens and

ease opportunities to demonstrate

attainment, or that have no significant

effect on planning burdens.22 There is

no reason for Congress to have provided

such areas with additional time to

prepare SIP's to meet such revisions. All

such areas were already under a duty to

demonstrate attainment of the prior

NAAQS by 1982, and no further

planning would be required of such

areas by virtue of such relaxations.

Where NAAQS revisions do impose

significant additional planning burdens,

States could not be expected to show

that they could attain by dates that had

already passed before the planning

burdens were imposed and thus

Congress would not have wanted Part D

to apply to such areas.

One commenter pointed to section

406(d)(2)(B) of the 1977 amendments,

arguing that this provision required the

use of section 110 in all cases unless the

Act expressly stated otherwise. In fact,

this provision makes no mention of

section 110, but merely states that SIP

revisions should be submitted within 9

months of promulgation of EPA

regulations necessitated by the 1977

Amendments.

One commenter discussed the

legislative history of Part D and

concluded that Congress only intended

it to apply in 1977 to areas that then

exceeded the then-existing NAAQS.

These arguments support EPA's position

that Part D should not apply to NAAQS

revisions that impose significant new

21 The EPA notes that under its sanctions policy

(48 FR 50686), EPA would in practice approve a Part

D SIP and lift the construction ban upon a

demonstration that the SIP would provide for

attainment as expeditiously as practicable after

1982. This policy would apply to particulate matter

SIP's in all areas subject to Part D.

24689

24689
24690 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

planning burdens. But it would

drastically undercut any benefits of the

program Congress established in 1977 to

remove Part D applicability as to

NAAQS revisions that reduce planning

burdens and ease opportunities for

attainment of the NAAQS as they

existed in 1977, the very standards

Congress sought to see attained when it

created Part D. Any area not in

attainment of such a revised standard

would presumably have exceeded the

pre-1977 NAAQS as well.

Several commenters supporting use of

section 110 cited Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA, 723 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1983),

quoting the court's statement that the

Part D deadlines only make sense as

applied to areas that data indicated in

1977 were in violation of then-existing

NAAQS. This case had to do with EPA's

authority to reclassify areas so as to

bring new areas not previously subject

to it under Part D. The EPA's position

that revisions which impose significant

new planning burdens are not subject to

Part D is consistent with this case, in

which the court concluded that EPA

could not unilaterally apply the strict

Part D requirements to new areas after

1977. This case does not support the

position that Part D would not apply to

revisions that impose no new planning

burdens because all areas subject to

Part D under such revisions should

already have been subject to Part D

under the original pre-1977 NAAQS.

A few commenters cited U.S. Steel v.

EPA, 595 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1979),

asserting that the court had construed

section 406(d)(2) of the 1977

Amendments as applying section 110

even to SIP's subject to Part D but

incapable of meeting its deadlines.

Actually, this case merely held that the

relevant Part D plans would be due

within 9 months of necessary EPA

regulations as stated in section

406(d)(2)(B) and made no reference to

section 110.

Finally, one commenter cited the

opening sentence of the Supreme Court

decision in Chevron USA v. NRDC, 104

S. Ct. 2778 (1984), where the Court stated

that Congress in 1977 enacted additional

requirements for areas that had failed to

achieve previously established

standards. This statement is merely

descriptive of Congress' actions in 1977

and does not reflect any thought on the

Court's part as to the relative

applicability of section 110 or Part D to

future NAAQS revisions.

Numerous commenters addressed

EPA's alleged concern that application

of section 110 to all NAAQS revisions,

including relaxations, would

automatically shield States from having

to show that SIP relaxations would not

interfere with attainment and

maintenance of the revised NAAQS.

These commenters apparently

misunderstood EPA's actual concern

that use of section 110 in cases of

NAAQS relaxation would shield areas

from the strict Part D requirements

despite eased attainment burdens.

Consequently, the commenter's

suggestions that existing Part D SIP's

would continue to apply pending SIP

revisions to comply with the revised

NAAQS are not relevant to EPA's actual

concern over ultimate SIP relaxation in

such cases. Under either section 110 or

Part D, States would still have to show

that any SIP relaxation would not

interfere with attainment and

maintenance of the revised NAAQS.

One commenter alleged that historical

precedent supports use of the section

110 pathway in all cases. The

commenter pointed first to an EPA

decision in 1979 to accept less than all

reasonably available control measures

in a Part D plan so long as reasonable

further progress toward attainment

could be demonstrated as evidence of

EPA's alleged past practice of

dispensing with certain Part D

requirements. In reality, EPA merely

stated in 1979 its interpretation that Part

D only requires implementation of such

measures as necessary to insure

reasonable further progress and

attainment as expeditiously as

practicable, and that Part D does not

require implementation of additional

cost effective measures that would not

further expedite attainment. The EPA

did not purport to dispense with any

applicable Part D requirements (see 44

FR 20375).

This same commenter also stated that

EPA's 1979 position on implementation

of the revised ozone standard did not

support use of Part D for NAAQS

relaxations. The commenter alleged that

EPA merely concluded that SIP

revisions would not be required as a

result of the ozone NAAQS revision

since States could keep more stringent

requirements in their SIP's if they

desired. It is true that EPA concluded

that additional SIP revisions would not

be required to implement the relaxed

ozone standard. However, EPA also

stated that the deadline for Part D SIP

submission established in the 1977 Act

would not be affected by the ozone

NAAQS revision (44 FR 8202). Implicitly,

EPA concluded that Part D would

continue to apply to all areas that failed

to meet the new relaxed ozone standard.

Several commenters noted that use of

Part D for revisions that did not impose

significant new planning burdens could

result in a more stringent

implementation scheme for welfarebased secondary standards than for

health-based primary standards if only

the revised primary standard imposed

new planning burdens, a result that

Congress allegedly would not have

intended. Since EPA has concluded that

the primary and secondary PM1o

standards should be identical in all

respects, this hypothetical situation will

not arise for PMo. The EPA notes that a

similar situation could also arise if EPA

revised a primary standard to impose

additional planning burdens while

making no revision to a secondary

standard for the same pollutant.

However, as discussed in section

II.B.l.b.(4) above, EPA has determined

that sanctions do not apply for failure to

have Part D revisions for a secondary

NAAQS.

Finally, some commenters suggested

that an exclusive section 110 pathway

would be preferable in that it would

relieve EPA of the duty of determining

which revisions imposed additional new

burdens. The EPA agrees that a uniform

section 110 pathway would be simpler to

administer, but believes that the

adopted interpretation is the better

reading of the statute.

2. Comments Favoring an Integrated

Section 110 and Part D Pathway

Several commenters urged EPA to

read section 110 and Part D as an

integrated whole, applying Part D to any

areas not attaining any NAAQS. These

commenters noted that section 110

specifically incorporates Part D in

sections 110(a) (2) (D), (H) and (I).

However, EPA reads these cross

references as only incorporating Part D

to the extent it would otherwise apply

by its own terms. The EPA does not see

that the cross references reconcile the

inherent conflict concerning

applicability of section 110 and Part D.

In support of the integrated approach,

one commenter cited City of Seabrook v.

EPA, 659 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1980). There,

the court held that EPA's duty to

approve or disapprove SIP's under

section 110 applies also to plans

submitted under Part D. Again, EPA

believes this refers only to Part D SIP's

submitted for areas subject to Part D by

its own terms. The decision merely

clarifies the cross references to Part D in

section 110 and makes no statement

about applicability of either pathway to

new or revised standards.

One commenter supporting the

integrated approach addressed the

conflicting attainment deadlines in

section 110 and Part D by suggesting

that the Part D deadlines provide

exceptions to the 3-year deadline in

section 110 only for those areas
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

originally designated nonattainment in

1977. The commenter thus felt that any

areas designated nonattainment at later

dates would still be subject to Part D but

would have to attain as expeditously as

practicable, but in no case later than 3

years, as required by section 110. This

argument ignores the plain language of

section 172(a)(1) which establishes the

alternative Part D deadlines for "each

such area" subject to Part D. The

commenter did not provide further legal

support for its interpretation.

Another commenter supporting this

position pointed out that section 110 sets

the general rule, i.e., the 3-year deadline,

while Part D merely establishes an

exception to the rule for certain areas.

Since the exception would not make

sense as applied to areas not in

attainment of a new or revised NAAQS

after 1982, the general rule of section 110

would necessarily apply. Again, this

argument ignores the clear sense of

section 172(a)(1) that the 1982 deadline

apply to all areas subject to Part D.

A different commenter suggested

resolving the attainment deadline issue

by acknowledging that the 1982 deadline

would apply to all areas subject to Part

D, but giving the States the opportunity

to demonstrate under section

110(a)(2)(H)(i) that more time would be

needed to complete additional planning

necessary to attain the revised standard.

The commenter suggested that if EPA

found the demonstration adequate, it

could hold the section 110(a)(2)(I)

construction ban in abeyance. This may

be possible in practice, but EPA believes

it is not relevant to the statutory

construction of Part D. Congress

required in section 110(a)(2)(1) that for

all areas subject to Part D each SIP must

provide for a ban that would apply

unless the SIP provides for meeting all

of the requirements of Part D, which

necessarily includes the Part D 1982

attainment deadline. Given this,

Congress would not have intended Part

D to apply to areas that could not

possibly plan to meet the 1982

attainment date because a revised

NAAQS imposes significant new

planning burdens after that date.

As a policy matter, one commenter

noted that failure to apply Part D to the

revised PMo standard would produce

the undesirable result that

implementation of the revised standard

for particulate matter would proceed

under weaker substantive provisions

than the original TSP standard, which

was one of the standards Congress

clearly intended to be subject to the

strict Part D requirements. This result

would occur, but is not necessarily

undesirable in light of the significant

new planning burdens imposed upon

States to demonstrate attainment of the

revised PMo standard. Part D is clearly

a remedial provision and should not

apply to a new or revised standard that

imposes significant additional planning

burdens which States have never

previously addressed. This is so even if

the standard applies to a pollutant

which had previously been subject to a

different standard for which States had

failed to plan adequately.

Commenters also reasoned that EPA

should use an integrated approach

because of benefical program results,

such as continuation of existing Part D

SIP's and sanctions and alleviation of

the need to determine which revisions

impose additional planning burdens.

Whether or not EPA would like to see

these results, they do not provide a

different basis for determining statutory

applicability where EPA can do so

based upon the statutory language and

legislative intent.

One commenter claimed that EPA's

past practice did not support its current

position. The commenter pointed out

that although EPA did apply Part D to

the 1979 ozone relaxation, it did not then

indicate that Part D would not have

applied if the revision had imposed

significant new planning burdens. This

is true, but EPA had no reason to do so

because Part D did in fact apply in that

instance. The commenter similarly

found no precedent in the case of EPA's

1978 statements that Part D did not

apply to the lead NAAQS because it

was an entirely new, as opposed to a

revised, standard. Presumably, the

commenter felt that areas which had

failed to plan adequately to demonstrate

attainment of the original particulate

matter NAAQS should not be relieved of

the strict Part D requirements in

implementing the revised NAAQS for

particulate matter. The EPA, however,

believes that a revised NAAQS which

imposes significant new planning

burdens is similar to a new NAAQS in

that it imposes burdens on the States

which they were not subject to prior to

the revision and which they

consequently should not be penalized

for failing to have completed.

This same commenter also noted that

many areas which Congress subjected

to Part D in 1977 had not submitted SIP's

prior to 1977 and thus had full planning

burdens ahead of them. This may be so,

but the relevant fact is that those

planning burdens were originally

imposed in the 1972 Act. Whether or not

given areas had complied with previous

planning duties, Congress created Part D

in 1977 to encourage areas that either

failed to plan at all or planned poorly to

promptly complete the planning

necessary to show attainment of the

standards that should have been

attained years earlier.

This commenter also pointed to the

sum of congressional action since 1967

in which Congress reacted to State's

planning failures by granting more time

but only while imposing specific

additional requirements. This line of

reasoning is inapplicable to NAAQS

revisions which impose significant new

planning burdens because States that

have had no previous opportunities to

meet new planning burdens can hardly

be said to have failed to do so.

One commenter argued that EPA

should apply Part D merely because

implementation under section 110 has

produced little progress toward

attainment. Whether this is true or not,

it does not provide a legal basis for

applying Part D rather than section 110.

This same commenter pointed to

EPA's policy for newly designated

nonattainment areas, indicating that

there EPA applied Part D but substituted

alternative dates for the 1979 SIP

submittal and 1982 attainment dates

where these dates had passed prior to

discovery of a nonattainment problem.

In that case, EPA was faced with a

situation where Part D appeared to

clearly apply. The EPA attempted to

fashion a reasonable approach for

applying Part D to areas found to be in

nonattainment after the normal Part D

deadlines had passed. There, EPA

attempted to effectuate congressional

intent as closely as possible by honoring

the spirit of the statute since the literal

language did not fit the situation. The

EPA's actions in that context are not

relevant to a statutory interpretation of

the proper applicability of Part D to new

or revised NAAQS.

In addition, EPA notes that the court

in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA, supra,

held that EPA could not redesignate

newly found nonattainment areas so as

to bring them under Part D and apply

the above-described schedule in the

absence of a State request. The Court

relied heavily on the onerous nature of

Part D and its conviction that EPA

should thus not unilaterally create

analogies to Part D and apply them to

areas not clearly subjected to Part D by

Congress. This line of reasoning would

apply equally to areas subject to revised

standards imposing significant new

planning burdens, and consequently

supports EPA's statutory interpretation

that Part D does not apply to such areas.

24691
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

B. Comments on Use of the Probability

Guideline

Because of a lack of PMo data, EPA

proposed to use statistical probabilities

to estimate PMo concentrations from

the relatively abundant TSP data. The

EPA calculated this relationship by

relating available PM1o and Inhalable

Particulate (III) monitoring data to

collocated TSP monitors. As discussed

earlier, procedures for using statistical

probabilities in the absence of ambient

PMo data were explained in the

probability guideline (EPA 450/4-86-

017).

Commenters were concerned with the

concept of the guideline as well as

technical problems with the guideline.

First, they felt that EPA should base its

SIP development program on actual

ambient air quality data, not probability

estimates. To do this, the commenters

stated, EPA should allow sufficient time

to obtain adequate data on the new

standards, identify problem areas, and

develop and submit necessary revisions

to SIP control strategies. Second, there

were several comments of a technical

nature. The commenters were concerned

about many issues, among them the use

of a national probability distribution

instead of regional and seasonal

distributions, and the use of PMo/IP

ratios instead of PMo/TSP distribution

ratios.

In response to the first comment,

when EPA promulgates a new or revised

standard, the Act requires the States to

develop a SIP within 9 months to show

attainment of the standard. This

schedule presents a problem because

some areas do not yet have sufficient

PMo air quality data to determine their

attainment status. However, TSP air

quality data is readily available and,

together with available PMo data, a

reasonable probability of the attainment

status of the area may be determined.

Thus, the likelihood that any given area

will or will not attain the PMo NAAQS

can be determined by using the

available TSP and PMo data as

explained in the probability guideline.

The EPA is using its estimate of the

probable attainment status of an area in

conservative manner by requiring only

areas with at least 95 percent

probability of nonattainment to submit

full SIP's within 9 months. Areas with

less than 95 percent probability have

additional time to collect PMio data and

determine their attainment status prior

to submission of full SIP's.

In response to the second group of

comments on the probability guideline,

EPA has made several technical

revisions in the guideline. A number of

comments dealing with the basis for the

distribution were anticipated and

resolved through an evaluation and

refinement of the procedure conducted

concurrently with the public review

period. The results of this study are

described in a report, An Examination

of 1982-1983 Particulate Matter Ratios

and Their Use In The Examination of

PMo NAAQS Attainment Status (EPA450/4-85--010) which is in Docket No. A82-38.m The report reexamines the

seasonal and regional specific ratio

issues and supports the use of a national

distribution. As a result of this study

and the public comments, the guideline,

including the probability curves, has

been revised. The curves are now based

on only elevated TSP and PMo data

collected concurrently in 1982 and 1983.

The recommended procedure no longer

relies on a single conversion factor

between IP and PMo. A distribution has

been prepared for PMo/IP data. Also

the guideline was clarified in several

areas to address comments that were

prompted by misinterpretation of its

instructions. The guideline has been

updated just prior to promulgation to

incorporate charts for the specific level

of the NAAQS, thus simplifying the

computations somewhat. A computer

program is available to help accomplish

the computations. A detailed response

to the technical comments on the

Guideline and the corresponding

revisions have been placed in Docket

No A-82-38.

C. Comments on the SIP Development

Policy

1. Area Grouping Policy

The EPA proposed the same SIP

development policy described in section

IV(c) above with one exception. The

EPA proposed to use PMo and PM5

data where available to determine when

a control strategy demonstration is

needed. Where sufficient PMo data are

not available, EPA will use TSP data

and the probability guideline to classify

areas into Group I, II, or III. Group I

areas are required to submit a complete

SIP within 9 months that provides for

attainment of the NAAQS. For Group II

areas, a State would submit a "committal" SIP which need not contain

a full demonstration of attainment and

maintenance. The "committal" SIP

would pledge the State to gather

ambient PM o data, analyze and verify

the data, and develop an adequate SIP

where nonattainment is shown. The

EPA proposed to allow up to 18 months

from approval of the committal SIP to

collect and analyze PMo data. The

EPA's final policy is to allow up to 37

months from today to collect and

analyze PMo data. If a State notifies

EPA, during that time, that they have

found a violation of the PMo standard in

a Group II area, the State has 6 months

thereafter in which to develop and

submit a control strategy to EPA. The

strategy must then show attainment as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than 3 years from the EPA's initial

approval of the committal SIP as

required by the Statute. The EPA will

presume that the existing SIP in Group

III areas (less than 20 percent

probability of nonattainment) is

adequate to maintain the standards.

Industrial and governmental

organizations that commented felt the

SIP development policy should be based

on PMo air quality data and not on

probability estimates based on TSP

data. The commenters recommended

several paths to achieve this end. The

paths basically would result in EPA

allowing States time to develop a PMo

data base before requiring a control

strategy. Commenters suggested this

could be done in a variety of ways, such

as postponing the effective date of the

PMo NAAQS or classifying all high

nonattainment probability areas as

Group II for committal SIP's.

Commenters also felt an area might be

moved from one group to another

without a thorough evaluation of the

data. They wanted detailed guidance' on

how EPA would consider such issues as

unusual events, poor quality control,

and installation of recent additional

controls in an area after the air quality

was measured.

The environmental groups generally

felt that EPA should follow the letter of

the law and require complete plans for

all areas within 9 months of

promulgation. Even though EPA states

that Group II areas are to attain the

NAAQS within 3 years of approval of

the committal SIP, such areas are not

required to submit a full control strategy

for EPA approval until 3 years after

promulgation. The environmental groups

contend that even if such a schedule is

adhered to, it is very unlikely that a

complete control strategy will be

implemented within 1 year of submittal

to EPA.

Many PM1o monitoring sites have

been put into operation since the notice

of proposed rulemaking was published

April 2, 1985. It is EPA's policy to use

valid PMo data to determine the

attainment status of an area in

preference to TSP-based probabilities.

However, 3 years of PMo data are

required to demonstrate attainment in

accordance with Appendix K of 40 CFR

Part 50. Accordingly, EPA developed

statistical relationships between TSP

and PMo data, reviewed and confirmed

24692
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 /. Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

the validity of those relationships and

thus feels justified in using those

relationships, where sufficient PMo data

are not available, to predict PMo

attainment status. After a preliminary

area classification based on 1983-1985

TSP data, the EPA will consult with

State and local agencies to evaluate

available PMo data and consider other

factors affecting the air quality data and

the existing SIP. Thus, EPA believes that

the State and local agencies will have

adequate opportunity to discuss issues

which might determine the final

grouping of an area. The EPA's policy is

to require only areas with high

probability (>95 percent) of violating the

PMo NAAQS to immediately begin

developing a SIP. Other areas will be

allowed up to 3 years from promulgation

to collect additional air quality data and

determine their attainment status. The

amount of emission reduction required

for an area is not based entirely upon air

quality measurements exceeding the

NAAQS. The EPA also requires an

examination of allowable emissions,

meteorological conditions, and the use

of proportional models to demonstrate

that air quality will be protected under

the worst conditions.

Regarding the concern of

environmental groups, EPA proposed to

allow up to 18 months for air quality

monitoring following approval of a

committal SIP. Since a State can take 9

months to submit a SIP and EPA may

take 6 months to approve it, a State

would not be required to notify EPA of

the adequacy of the existing SIP for up

to 33 months after promulgation. This

notification date would be even later if

the date of SIP approval slipped.

Therefore, EPA has decided to set the

latest date for notifying the Agency of

the adequacy of the existing SIP at 37

months from promulgation. This

schedule allows 3 years of air quality

data to be collected, yet it sets a firm

date for declaring the attainment status

of an area. The final date of declaration

may be 4 months later than originally

proposed or several months earlier if SIP

approval is delayed. The EPA realizes

that it may be difficult to implement a

SIP and attain the NAAQS within 3

years after approval of the committal

SIP. However, EPA believes that the

worst nonattainment situations can be

identified quickly, and the States would

not need the entire 37 months to collect

data. To assist the States, EPA has

supplied them with several hundred

PMo samplers. These samplers have

been deployed in areas of high

probability of nonattainment on a

priority basis. In addition, EPA

monitoring regulations (40 CFR Part 58)

require every other day sampling in

Group II areas in order to expeditiously

confirm their attainment status. Thus,

any significant problems with attaining

the PMo standards should be found

early. Areas requiring the entire 37

months of monitoring to determine their

attainment status should be very close

to the NAAQS and require only slight

adjustments in the existing SIP to show

attainment. Thus it should be possible to

implement these minor changes in less

than 1 year.

2. Fugitive Dust Policy

The Administrator proposed to

continue the fugitive dust policy as it

was implemented in urban and rural

areas exceeding the TSP NAAQS." i

Reaction to the proposal to continue the

existing fugitive dust policy was

received from many industrial groups,

environmental groups, and State and

local agencies. Comments ranged from

suggestions that the policy be expanded

to opposition to continuing the existing

policy.

The existing policy would place all

Rural Fugitive Dust Areas (RFDA's) in

Group III for SIP development. The EPA

has developed three alternatives to that

policy. The first alternative would place

RFDA's in Group 1, 11, or III based upon

the area's probability of not attaining

the annual or 24-hour PM,o NAAQS. The

second alternative would place RFDA's

in Group II or III based upon the area's

probability of not attaining annual or 24-

hour PMo NAAQS. The third alternative

would place RFDA's in Group II or III

based only on the area's probability of

not attaining the annual PMo NAAQS.

These alternatives are discussed in

more detail in EPA's proposal, published

elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

Until EPA issues a revised policy, it is

continuing the existing rural fugitive

dust policy. To do otherwise would

require States to expend resources to

develop what may turn out to be

unnecessary SIP's.

3. Emissions Trading (Bubble) Policy

It was noted in the proposal notice

that past emission trade agreements

cannot interfere with a State's efforts to

attain and maintain the revised NAAQS.

Sources were warned in the initial

bubble policy published on December

11, 1979 (44 FR 71780), that if EPA

revised the TSP NAAQS to a PM10

NAAQS some alternative approaches

initially approved by EPA might no

longer be adequate to protect the PMo

NAAQS. On this basis, States were

advised in the proposal notice to

consider bubbles approved prior to

development of PM,o SIP's as any other

existing SIP provision and therefore

subject to revision.

The recently published final

Emissions Trading Policy Statement

Technical Issues Document confirms

that if ambient violations of any

standard are discovered in an area

where EPA has approved a trade,

sources in the trade could potentially be

subject to requirements for additional

emission reductions just as all other

sources in the area [see 51 FR 43814,

48847 (December 4, 1986)].

Commenters stated that revisions of

the TSP NAAQS should not

automatically trigger reconsideration of

bubble plans, especially in Group II and

III areas. They alleged that control

techniques applied in bubbles to meet

the TSP standard are likely to be the

same techniques that would be used to

meet a PMo NAAQS, and it was

therefore unnecessary to reopen bubble

plans to ensure attainment of the

revised standard. Also, one commenter

thought it would be inequitable for EPA

to reopen an agreement with a source

after the source has invested in controls.

It is not EPA's intent to automatically

reopen all emission trading plans. The

EPA merely intended to make three

points in the notice of proposed

rulemaking:

(1) Bubble agreements cannot

interfere with a State's efforts to attain

and maintain the revised NAAQS;

(2) States should consider bubbles

that were approved after publication of

the policy but prior to development of

PMo SIP's as any other existing SIP

provision; and

(3) Sources were warned in the initial

bubble policy published on December

11, 1979, that EPA was considering

revising its particulate matter NAAQS

and that some bubbles initially

approved by EPA might no longer be

adequate under the revised NAAQS.

For example, a process source emits

100 tpy of PMo. Instead of controlling

the process source, emissions from a

source of fugitive dust were reduced 100

tpy in order to attain the TSP standard.

If only half of the fugitive dust (i.e. 50

tpy) was PMo it may be necessary for

the State to require some portion of the

100 tpy of PMo from the process source

to be controlled in order to attain the

revised PM1o NAAQS.

D. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration/New Source Review

Program

In his April 2, 1985, proposal, the

Administrator announced that the

proposed revisions to the NAAQS for

particulate matter would potentially

affect six existing sets of

24693
24694 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

preconstruction review requirements

contained in Parts 51 and 52 and would,

in turn, lead to substantial revisions to

existing SIP procedures for PSD and

nonattainment NSR (PSD/NSR).

Because of some uncertainties as to

which implementation pathways would

apply to the revised primary and

secondary NAAQS, the program

proposal included several alternative

approaches to account for the different

outcomes possible. Many comments

were received on this part of the

proposal, describing support of specific

implementation pathways and the

resulting PSD/NSR requirements. This

section presents a review of the relevant

portions of the original proposal, the

comments, and EPA's responses.

1. Revised Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Program for Particulate

Matter

a. Effective Date of the Part 52

Federal Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Regulations. In the

proposal, the Administrator announced

his inclination to make the changes to

the Part 52 PSD regulations effective

immediately upon promulgation of the

revised PMo standards. The intended

effect of such an outcome was that EPA

and presumably State and local

agencies who had been delegated the

Administrator's PSD authority would be

required to begin immediately to

implement the new PSD requirements

for PMo on the effective date of the

PM1o NAAQS, even though States with

EPA-approved PSD SIP's would have an

additional 9 months to adopt new PSD

rules for PMo and submit them for EPA

approval.

While expressing his inclination to

require immediately effective Federal

PSD amendments for PMo, the

Administrator acknowledged some

potential problems concerning the legal

ability of delegated agencies to proceed

with their implementation of the PMo

requirements under section 52.21. First,

it was known that the delegation

agreement between EPA and the State

or local agency in some cases did not

require that the delegatee implement

new requirements based on future

standards or amended procedures.

Second, some PSD delegations could

only be implemented after equivalent

PSD requirements were enacted into law

at the State or local level (although not

submitted to EPA as part of an approved

SIP). Consequently, even with an

adequate delegation agreement, some

State or local programs might not be

able to implement PMo requirements

until their own PSD rules are

appropriately changed.

For these reasons, the Administrator

said he would consider delaying the

implementation of the PMo changes

where EPA or its delegatees had PSD

permitting responsibility. To assist in

this consideration, he solicited

comments on the merit of delaying the

effective date of the Part 52 regulations

and asked whether an immediate

conversion to PMo was necessary to

provide adequate environmental

protection for particulate matter.

Most commenters expressed their

support for EPA to delay its

implementation of the PMo amendments

under the Part 52 PSD regulations until

all States are required to have approved

PM 0 preconstruction review procedures

in their SIP's. However, the reasons

given typically did not relate to

problems associated with delegation agreements or other potential legal

problems that might occur during the

transition period.

Several commenters indicated that a

delay would be desirable because it

would result in a uniform

implementation scheme that would keep

the PSD permitting requirements

essentially the same in all States. In this

way, the commenters noted, Congress'

original concern about possible

interstate competition from new

industry would generally be eliminated.

Some commenters stated that the delay

would give EPA and the States time to

work out any technical difficulties with

the new rules before they become

effective. Two commenters felt that the

delay would allow additional time to

expand the data base for developing

PMo emission factors. One commenter

stated simply that the delay would

result in less complication and

confusion.

Concerning potential legal problems,

one air pollution control agency favored

a delay in the new PMo requirements in

order to provide additional time to

resolve any regulatory or statutory problems in making the transition from

TSP to PMo. However, the agency

commenting did not specify whether it

would experience any such problems.

On the other hand, another air pollution

control agency fully supported EPA's

immediate implementation of the PMo

amendments because such action on

EPA's part would enable agencies

desiring full PSD delegation to make

their request as soon after promulgation

as they are able.

A number of the commenters who

supported EPA's delay of the PMo

requirements added that a continuation

of the existing requirements for a TSP

review under the PSD program would

provide adequate interim protection for

the particulate matter NAAQS. This was

a key concern to EPA when the

possibility of a PMo program delay was

originally announced. The EPA

generally believes that its continued

implementation of a TSP review under

the PSD program would have been

acceptable as long as such review

provided for protection of the TSP

NAAQS. However, EPA failed to

adequately consider the fact that on the

effective date of the revised NAAQS for

particulate matter, the previously

effective TSP NAAQS will no longer

exist and consequently EPA will not be

able to require PSD applicants to

demonstrate that their proposed

emission increases will not violate the

withdrawn TSP NAAQS. The PSD

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(k) require

PSD sources to demonstrate that their

emissions will not cause or contribute to

air pollution in violation of "[any

national ambient air quality standard.

• . ." At any time, the applicable

NAAQS encompassed by this PSD

provision are those standards which are

independently defined under 40 CFR

Part 50. Moreover, the effective dates of

the NAAQS are independently

established when the standards are

promulgated and are clearly not affected

by the status of any amendment to the

PSD program.

If EPA does not amend the Part 52

PSD regulations as of the effective date

of the revised NAAQS for particulate

matter, PMo will be subject to PSD

review but EPA's PSD procedure would

be devoid of the various PMo thresholds

(for source applicability, ambient

monitoring, and significant ambient

impact) and transition provisions which

are necessary to determine when and to

what extent a PMo review is to be

required. Thus, given the fact that PMo

NAAQS become effective 30 days from

promulgation, as published elsewhere in

today's Federal Register, EPA believes

that it would not be appropriate to

consider a delay beyond the effective

date of the PM1o NAAQS in its

implementation of the PMo amendments

to the Part 52 PSD regulations.

b. Source Applicability. The

Administrator proposed a new emission

rate within section 52.21 (b)(23)(i) that

would define "significant" for PM~o. The

new rate would be used to determine

when PMo emissions (as opposed to

particulate matter emissions which

relate to TSP) would require PSD

review. An emission rate lower thah the

new significant emission rate would

allow a source to be excluded from PSD

review, with respect to PMo, on the

grounds that such lower emissions

would be insignificant, i.e., de minimis.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

In the proposal, the Administrator set

the significant emission rate for PM10 at

15 tpy. He explained that the approach

used to derive this value was based on

the methodology used to set the original

particulate matter significance level

promulgated on August 7, 1980 (45 FR

52676). Basically, this approach used an

emission rate for which the modeled

ambient concentration represented

approximately 4 percent of the 24-hour

primary standard. The Administrator

also announced in the proposal that two

additional points needed to be

considered during the final selection

process for the PMo significant emission

rate.

First, the proposed value of 15 tpy

assumed that the 24-hour primary

standard for PMo would be set at 150

Lg/m 3. Second, EPA was in the process

of studying the potential effects of

alternative significance levels in terms

of their environmental benefits versus

administrative burden. The study was

completed after the publication of the

proposal notice, but was placed in the

rulemaking docket approximately 30

days later for public inspection. The

Administrator stated his intention to

take into consideration the results of the

study and all relevant comments

pertaining to it.

Seven commenters expressed

opposition to the proposed 15 tpy

significant emission rate for PM1 o, while

three commenters conditionally

supported it. Of those in opposition, five

commenters sought a higher emission

rate and two expressed their concern

that proposing any significance level at

this time is premature.

Two of the opposing commenters

were particularly concerned about the

effect of a 15-tpy significant emission

rate on surface mining activities. One

stated that while it did not object to

establishing a significance level for

PM,o, use of the proposed 15 tpy rate

would be completely inappropriate for

determining major modifications at

surface mines if such facilities are made

subject to the PSD program. This

commenter noted that even a minor

extension of a haul road at a large

surface mine could increase emissions

more than 15 tpy. The commenter

argued that such activity should not be

considered a major modification which

would subject an existing coal mine to

PSD review.

The EPA does not believe that special

consideration of the effects on surface

mining activities or any other specific

category of source should generally

serve as the basis for selecting the

significant emission rate for PM,o

emissions. The significance values

provide a categorical exemption from

the PSD preconstruction review

requirements based on the de minimis

nature of the prescribed emission rate

with respect to its potential contribution

to the 24-hour primary NAAQS,

regardless of the specific emitter of the

pollutant.

In addition, the Administrator found

that the commenter's position indicating

that many surface mines would be

adversely affected by a 15 tpy PM~o

threshold in particular is not totally

correct. Minor extensions of haul roads,

as are typically made during the course

of carrying out the mining operation,

would not generally be considered

modifications for PSD purposes as long

as such activity would already be

allowed under the permit granted to the

source. Even if this were not the case,

the extension of a haul road could easily

result in emissions which would exceed

any of the emission rates that EPA

considered for developing a PMo

threshold.

At the present time, however, the

fugitive emissions from surface coal

mines are generally not included in the

determination of whether such source is

major for the purposes of PSD [see e.g.,

52.21(i)(4](vii)] and consequently the 15

tpy significance threshold would

generally not apply to their PMo

emissions. The EPA is considering,

under separate rulemaking, whether it is

appropriate to extend the requirements

for inclusion of fugitive emissions to

surface coal mines (45 FR 43215,

October 26, 1984). The EPA believes that

the commenter's concerns would be

more appropriately addressed under

that rulemaking action.

Several of the commenters stated that

EPA should set the significant emission

rate for PMo at a level higher than 15

tpy and gave a variety of reasons for

this conclusion. First, two of the

commenters said that the 24-hour

standard can be significantly higher

than 150 Ig/m s , i.e., 250 pg/ m, and still

protect public health with an adequate

margin of safety. This comment has

more to do with the level selected for

the 24-hour NAAQS than with the

significant emission rate for PMo.

Having promulgated a 24-hour standard

of 150 jg/m3, the Administrator finds no

specific argument from the commenters

that the proposed significance threshold

should not be 15 tpy.

Second, a commenter claimed that the

proposed significance value was based

on very conservative modeling. Thus,

the commenter reasoned that the

significance rate could be raised without

causing any significant real-world

impacts on air quality. The

Administrator wishes to point out that

the techniques used to derive the

selected value followed EPA guidance,

using procedures and assumptions

common to air quality impact analyses.

Such techniques could be used by

sources as well to calculate their own

ambient impact. The commenter

provided no demonstrations to support

the allegation that the modeling

techniques which EPA used were not

appropriate for selecting the PMlo

significant emission rate.

Third, a commenter used EPA's study

of alternative significance levels to

conclude that EPA had no justification

for selecting a significant emission rate

for PMo below 20 tpy. The commenter's

conclusion was based on a study finding

that, regardless of the PMo significance

level considered, up to 25 tpy,

approximately 90 percent of all PMo

emission increases would be subject to

PSD review. The commenter stated that

"thousands of dollars" in annual costs

to prepare and review applications with

respect to PMo would be saved by using

a significance level of 20 tpy rather than

15 tpy. The Administrator acknowledges

that, according to the study, the

additional PMo reviews required under

a 15 tpy significance level would not add

appreciably to total PM1o emissions

brought under PSD review. The

Administrator, however, is unable to

conclude that the additional number of

reviews estimated to result from

selection of a 15 tpy significance level

would cause an administrative burden

worthy of consideration for special

relief. The court in Alabama Power

stated that EPA's authority to exempt

sources-from PSD review "is narrow in

reach and tightly bounded by the need

to show that the situation is genuinely

de minimis or one of administrative

necessity" [Alabama Power Company v.

Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1979)].

In keeping with the previous approach

for setting de minimis cutoffs, a source

capable of consuming almost 5 percent

of the primary 24-hour NAAQS is not

insignificant, and EPA did not find a

compelling need for an exemption by

reason of administrative necessity.

One commenter, in an apparent

misunderstanding of EPA's approach for

selecting a significant emission rate,

disagreed with "EPA's modeled

calculations of 25 tpy of TSP and 15 tpy

of PMo to define 'significant' emissions."

This commenter stated that the emission

rate for TSP and PMo "should both be

the same for most efficient combustion

sources." The commenter's finding that

an efficiently operated combustion

source would have TSP emissions

comprised almost entirely of PM1o size

particles has no bearing on the process

of selecting a significant emission rate

24695
24696 Federal Register / Vbl. 52, No.. 126 / Wednesday, July 1,. 1987 / Rules and Regulations

for PMo which may differ from the rate

for TSP. The significant emission rates

for PMio and TSP are based on the

relationship-of a selected amount of

emissions to the resultingimodeled.

ambient concentrations from such level

of emissions. These ambient

concentrations are then compared to the

appropriate primary 24-hour NAAQS to

determine whether the emission rate is,

significant.

Of the three commenters who

conditionally supported the proposed

significance level, two stated that, if

EPA sets the primary PM10 standard

higher than 150-pg/m3, EPA should raise

the significance-level by a proportionate

amount. The third supportive commenter

agreed with.the 15-tpy emission rate as,

long as EPA did not eliminate the 25 tpy

significance-level for-TSP. If EPA were,

to abandon the TSP standards

altogether, thecommenter suggested

that EPA should reevaluate the 15 tpy

level in order to provide, continued and

equivalent ambient air quality

protection. As. with previouscommenters, the Administrator finds no

argumenthere concerning-the 15 tpy

significance level based- on. the fact that:

(1) He is today promulgating a 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS of 150 pjg/m s in an

accompanying final notice in today's

Federal Register and (2] the existing

significance level for TSP is, being

retained.

Finally, the two commenters who felt

that the proposal. of a- significantemission rate for PM10 was-premature

claimed that the technology, for

accurately-predicting PM1o emissions

from a-.s6urce does not yet exist. One

stated in particular that if EPA cannot

promulgate a reference method as part

of the implementation package, thensources should be. allowed'to use the

existing significance level-of 25 tpy in

making applicability determinations

with.the existing. reference method for

particulate matter emissions..The EPA

acknowledges that a reference method

for PMo. source testing does.not'yet

exist. Nevertheless, the Agency has

developed and used PMo. source test

protocols to collect data from a number

of source categories to develop PM

emission factors. The EPA believes that

this data is of good quality and can be

used, to determine.potential PMo

emissions tQ be compared against the

new PM10 significant emission rate. The

EPA will continue to develop and

update PM10 emission factors as

additional.test- data become available.

The EPA believes.that-sufficient

information is already, available-to

estimate the level ofPMio emissions

from;many, sources that. will come under

PSD/NSR. However; when it is not

feasible to estimate the amount of PM,

emissions from a particular source, then

it would be appropriate to proceed only'

on the basis of particulate matter

emissions (TSP).

c. Prevention. of Significant

Deterioration Geographic Applicability.

Because of the uncertainty as to whether

section 110 or Part D would apply to the

revisions being. proposed, the

Administrator described various

alternatives as to how the PSD

requirements with. respect to particulate.

matter would apply-based on the

geographic location of the proposed

source. In turn, commenters based their

responses on certain assumptions and

opinions as to which legal pathway

would apply. In light of the fact that the

Administrator has concluded that only

section 110 should be used to implement

both the primary and secondary

NAAQS, this section will address only

those portions of the proposal which

pertained to that particular set of

alternatives. The issue of whether or not

commenters agreed with the

Administrator's selection of the section

110 implementation approach was

addressed in an earlier part of this

preamble.

Under the section 110 pathway for

implementing the, proposed-PMmo

primary NAAQS, EPA anticipated that

PMo preconstruction review-would be

covered under the PSD requirements in

all locations. The proposal explained

that this result would occur because

States would not be required to

designate PMo nonattainment areas

pursuant to section 107 of the Act. In the

absence of PM10 area designations, PSD

would apply to PM1o sources in.any area

designated as attainment or

unclassifiable pursuant to section 107

for any pollutant unless the area was

nonattainment for all pollutants having

section 107 designations.2 2 There are, at.

22 If a proposed source or-modification qualifies

as major, its existing or prospective location must

be in a PSD area in order for a PSD review to apply.

A PSD area is one designated as attainment or

unclassifiable under section 107 for any pollutant

for which a NAAQS exists, regardless of.what

pollutant emissions cause the source to be major. Ih

general, once it is determined that a proposed major

source or major modification would occur in a PSD

area, the PSD review applies.to significant

emissions increases of each regulated air pollutant

unless the area is designated.nonattainment under

section 107 for that pollutant. In the case of a

pollutant-not subject to the section 107 area

designation process (e.g., lead, PM,.), PSD would

not apply only when the area is designated

nonattainment for all pollutants subject to section

107.

this time; no-such-pervasive

nonattainment situations to be found in

the nation.

The proposal also-discussed the

possibility that-the Administrator. would

make the secondary NAAQS equivalent

to the primary NAAQS in all respects,

including particle size. If'this were to

occur,. the proposal noted that under a

section 110 implementation pathway for

the secondary NAAQS, geographic

applicability would be the same as the

program outlined for the PMo primary

NAAQS.

Some commenters disagreed with

EPA's assertion that a section 110

implementation approach precludes the

use of section 107 area. designations

with respect to-the revised NAAQS for

particulate matter. These commenters,

while divided over which indicator to

use with.the term "particulate matter,"

claimed that there is no authority in

section 107 for States to completely

remove the area designations for

particulate matter. Moreover, the

commenters disagreed with EPA's

conclusion that the term "national

ambient air quality standards" in

section 107(d)(1) must mean only the

NAAQS in effect in 1977'even if that is

the accepted meaning of the same

phrase in section 171(2).

The Administrator interprets section

107(d)(1) of.the Act to require States to

list those air-quality control regions

which, "on the date of enactment of'the

Clean Air ActAmendments of 1977," do

or do not comply with the NAAQS in.

existence on that date. In turn, the

Administrator believes that section

107(d)(5) provides for States to revise

the originallist from time to time to

reflect changes in air-quality relative to

those. NAAQS in existence in 1977. If

Congress meant-for the section 107(d)(5)'

revision process to include new section

107 area designations for new NAAQS,

or for revised NAAQS which would

create significant new planning burdens,

then it would follow that Congress also

intended for Part D requirements to

apply in areas newly designated as

nonattainment for such pollutants after

the December 31, 1982, statutory

deadline-for demonstrating attainmenteven though the affected area had no

opportunity to complete newly imposed

planning burdens and to demonstrate

attainment within the statutory

timeframe. The Administrator does notbelieve that:Cbngress intended this

outcome. Similarly, it would make no

sense to continue to maintain a list

indicating ongoing compliance status

relative to a. level. or form of the

standard that no longer exists.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

The Administrator has concluded,

therefore, that the use of a section 110

implementation pathway-applying to a

new NAAQS or revised NAAQS

involving significant new planning

burdens-does preclude the use of

section 107 area designations. The term

"national ambient air quality standards"

in section 107 was intended by Congress

to mean only the NAAQS in effect in

1977, or revisions to such NAAQS which

would not impose any significant new

planning burdens and would therefore

continue to be subject to Part D of the

Act. The section 107 area designations

for TSP are being retained for the

interim, however, in order to support the

continued applicability of the section

163 increments for "particulate matter,"

which the Administrator believes

Congress intended to be TSP-based

increments. As explained earlier in this

preamble, these TSP designations will

continue to apply until EPA completes

rulemaking to establish PMo increments

and such increments become effective in

accordance with section 166 of the Act.

One of the commenters who

supported continuation of the section

107 area designations for particulate

matter, citing Alabama Power at 361-

363, alleged that the areas originally

identified as unclassifiable or

attainment under section 107(d)(9) (D)

and (E), respectively, remain PSD areas

subject to section 163 increments

regardless of any future change in their

section 107(d) area designation status.

The Administrator does not find

anything within the Alabama Power

decision to support the commenter's

conclusion. Section 107(d)(5) provides

States with the authority to "from time

to time review, and as appropriate

revise and resubmit" the area

designations as originally promulgated

by the Administrator. If geographic

applicability for PSD (and

nonattainment NSR) was to be

permanently affixed to the original area

designations, then there would be little

reason to revise the designations. The

EPA policy to date has always allowed

States to revise their section 107 area

designations as appropriate and to base

PSD/NSR geographic applicability on

the most current designations. In the

case of PM~o, however, the

Administrator has already stated his

position that the section 107 area

designation process does not apply, and

the existing designations for particulate

matter apply only with respect to TSP.

Several commenters stated that

although they agreed that PSD may

apply everywhere for PMio as the

primary standard, EPA's approach of

using TSP for the secondary standard

could prevent the desired "PSD

everywhere" approach because a

section 107 nonattainment designation

for TSP would prevent any PSD review

for particulate matter in those

nonattainment areas. One commenter in

particular stated that EPA's proposal

glosses over this difficulty, and EPA

could not achieve the result it wants

without also changing its position that

the PMo standards are revisions of the

existing particulate matter NAAQS

rather than new NAAQS.

Even though EPA decided not to

retain the TSP indicator for the

secondary NAAQS, the commenters'

main concern focused on the alleged

problems that would result from EPA's

retention of the section 107 area

designations for TSP. For the reasons

already given, the Administrator does

not agree that the section 107 area

designation process applies to the PMo

NAAQS and thus a section 107

nonattainment designation for TSP

would not prevent PSD review for the

PMo indicator. Instead, a nonattainment

designation for particulate matter will

only affect which preconstruction

review requirements will apply with

respect to the TSP indicator. In addition,

the Administrator does not believe that

it is necessary to consider the PM~o

NAAQS as new NAAQS-rather than

revisions to the existing standards-to

independently address PMo as a form of

particulate matter. The Administrator

believes instead, that it is possible to

regulate two forms of the pollutant

particulate matter through the

establishment of different indicators and

regard each as being a separate

pollutant regulated under the Act. Thus,

by establishing a new PMo indicator for

the particulate NAAQS and retaining

the existing TSP indicator for the section

163 increments as an interim measure, it

is possible to have two regulated forms

of particulate matter. In turn, it is

appropriate to determine PSD

applicability independently for each

regulated form.

Some commenters were concerned

that an EPA interpretation requiring no

section 107 area designations for PMo

under a section 110 implementation

pathway would pose a significant hurdle

to EPA's acceptance of the legal

argument that section 110 should govern

all PMlo SIP revisions. As described

earlier in the preamble, EPA's position

concerning the applicability of section

110 or Part D is based on whether a

NAAQS revision would impose

significant new planning burdens. The

ultimate applicability of section 107 area

designations was not a factor in arriving

at this conclusion.

d. Best Available Control Technology

(BACT). In the proposal. EPA stated that

its proposed action to regulate PMio was

not expected to immediately cause

significant changes in the way that

BACT determinations would be made

for particulate matter. This statement

was based on the belief that current

control technology for particulate matter

appears to be effective for controlling

both PMo and TSP. Meanwhile EPA

further indicated that it would be in the

process of evaluating the effectiveness

of various existing NSPS for controlling

PMo and, at a later date, would make

any necessary adjustments in BACT

policy.

In order to begin implementing the

BACT requirement for PMo, the

Administrator proposed that as a matter

of policy he would accept emission

limitations in terms of either PMo

emissions or particulate matter

emissions provided the selected

emission limit is enforceable and

represents selection of the appropriate

control technology for meeting BACT for

PMo. The proposal explained that the

alternative of a particulate matter

emission limit rather than a PMo

emission limit to represent BACT for

PMo might often be more desirable

initially for several reasons, including:

(1) The continuing reliance on TSPbased SIP's until a comprehensive PM1o

SIP could be developed, (2) the present

lack of a standard reference method to

ensure source compliance with a PM1o

emission limitation, and (3) the fact that

the NSPS were not likely to directly

reflect PMo emissions for some time.

Commenters generally supported EPA's

proposed policy that, as an alternative

to expressing the BACT emission

limitations in the PSD permit in terms of

PM~o emissions, the permitting authority

may instead express the emission

limitations in terms of particulate matter

emissions.

Several commenters urged, however,

that such policy should be strictly

interim and that emission limitations

should begin to be expressed in terms of

PMo emissions as soon as possible

pending the development of a reference

method for measuring PMo emissions.

Sharing a similar concern, two other

commenters indicated that the proposed

BACT policy for PMo should be

tightened with respect to allowing the

use of particulate matter emission

limitations. One commenter pointed out

that while EPA's proposal for BACT

determinations appears to be the same

as its guidance on lowest achievable

emission rate (LAER), they considered

the BACT proposal to be far less

protective. This conclusion was based

24697
24698 Federal. Register / Vol. 52, No.. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

on the fact:that EPA's LAER proposal

would allow, substitution of particulate

matter'emission controls for PMto

emission controls only when the-latter

are unavailable- or completely

unreliable, while the BACT proposal

would allow similar substitutions at any

time, whether they are necessary or not..

The other commenter cautioned that

EPA should permit particulate matter

emission substitution only-when PMo

emission limitations are-not feasible, or

when the applicant undertakes the

responsibility for demonstrating the

continued effectiveness of the

particulate matter emission limit for

controlling PMio emissions. This

commenter explained that even slight

variations in assumed-operating

conditions could affect the PMlo/TSP

relationship tremendously. Under worst

case parameters, the commenter

claimed, a source could emit several

times more PM1o emissions than

anticipated while the particulate matter

emission rate remained constant.

The Administrator agrees that, when

PM1o emissions would occur in

significant amounts, BACT defined in

terms of.PMo emissions should be

encouraged whenever possible. While

the proposed policy was intended as an

interim approach, the way that it was

expressed would have allowed for the

continued use of particulate-matter.

emission limitations beyond the point

that they were of necessity. Therefore,

as described in W.D. PSD/NSR Program,

the Administrator has reformulated his

BACT'policy to promote-the use of PMo

emission limits in most cases contingent on the availability of emission factors

and. control efficiency information for

the source under review. When it is not.

feasible to quantify PMo emissions, EPA

will-allow the use of emission limits

based on particulate matter emissions

as a substitute.

Objecting to the proposed BACT

policy, one commenter said that it would

be arbitrary for EPA to require sources.

subject to BACT for PMo to meet a TSP

emission limit. Thelcommenter wasconcerned that a source may not need

additional controls to meet.a PMo

emission limitation, yet.could be found

in violation because it.exceeds the

particulate. matter emission limit. The

proposed policy was. not.an attempt to

require a source subject to BACT for

PMio to meet a particulate matter

emission limit. Instead, it.was presumed.

that there would be a desirability or

need to do. so during the.period when

source test methods, SIP's, and NSPS, were under development.with.respect to

PM1o. The fact that.the Administrator

has revised his-policy concerning the

use of TSP substitutions should alleviate

some of the commenter's objections.

However, when it should become

necessary to define a source's emission

limitations in terms of particulate matter

emissions, source compliance must be

based on the source's ability to

continuously meet that particulate

matter emission limit.

Finally, a commenter disagreed with

EPA's statement on the overall

effectiveness of current particulate

matter technology for controlling both

PMo emissions and particulate matter

emissions. The commenter argued that,

from his experience, significant changes

are required when handling high

percentages of PMo particles. The

commenter expressed doubt that a

system handling particulate matter

emissions successfully will also handle

PMo emissions to-the same degree.

The Administrator appreciates the

point being made by this commenter and

acknowledges that one should not

arbitrarily assume that a particular

control device or operating system will

work equally well for both particulate

matter emissions and PMio emissions.

While the Administrator continues to

believe that current particulate matter

control technology has the effect of

controlling both forms of particulate

matter, he emphasizes that the

reviewing agencies have the

responsibility to evaluate each BACT

situation carefully to determine which

particular emission reduction system is

most appropriate for the source

configuration under review.

e. National Ambient Air Quality

Standards Analysis. Section 165(a)(3) of

the Act provides that no PSD source can

be approved for construction if it would

cause or contribute to ambient

concentrations of a pollutant that would.

exceed the applicable NAAQS. 2 3 The

Administrator proposed that, at a

minimum, he would require that PSD

sources subject to the Part 52 PSD

regulations and found to cause or

contribute to a PMio NAAQS violation

obtain sufficient PM1o emission

reductions (offsets) to provide a net air

quality benefit in the affected area. Such

offsets would be considered to satisfy

the "cause or contribute to" language

under section 165(a)(3) of the Act (see

23 As explained earlier in the preamble, the

Administrator's determination that section 110

governs the PM,o implementation requirements means that the PSD program for PMo will apply in

all locations regardless of how the existing air

quality compares with- the PMlo NAAQS.

Consequently, the PSD NAAQS analysis and all

other applicable PSD requirements.will serve to

determine the approvability of a new ormodified

PMo source seeking to construct in an area where

PMto NAAQS violations may already exist.

footnote 14,and accompanying text). In

addition, the Administrator indicated

that he was considering whether it might

be necessary to impose additional

conditions beyond offsets to adequately

address nonattainment situations

involving PMo. He solicited comments

as to what.additional requirements

should be considered.

The commenters generally stated that

EPA can implement, without any

changes to its PSD rules, the

requirement that in areas where the

PM 0 NAAQS would be exceeded a

proposed source can make a showing

that it will not cause or contribute to a

NAAQS violation by offsetting its

projected emissions. In fact, some

commenters said that EPA has no

authority to require that PSD programs

include LAER and statewide compliance

requirements. The commenters claimed

that the States have a responsibility to

submit a SIP which provides for

attainment as required by section

110(a)(2)(A). Only if a State fails to

satisfy this requirement does EPA have

any authority to impose additional

requirements.

The EPA generally agrees with these.

commenters. In.their initial PM1o SIP's,

States will not be required by EPA to

impose LAER and statewide compliance

provisions butneed only require that

proposed sources and modifications

demonstrate that their emissions will

not cause or contribute to ambient

concentrations in excess of the PMo

NAAQS. In the event initial.PMo SIP's

fail to provide for timely attainment and.

maintenance of the PMio NAAQS, EPA

will then investigate the need to impose:

additional requirements on proposed

new sources.

Several commenters suggested that,

since PSD offsets will become more

common under a section 110 pathway,

some creditability criteria might be

helpful in managing offsets under the

PSD program. The Administrator agrees;

he believes that creditability criteria are

not only helpful but are necessary to

determine the adequacy of emission

offsets obtained by PSD sources. In the

proposal, the Administrator indicated

that he would approve a State's

emission offset program under section

51.18(k) [recodified at 51.165(b)] only if

creditability criteria at least as stringent

as the criteria set.forth under section

51.18(j) [recodified at-51.165(a)] are

required to be applied to all offsets..

These. criteria- should also be applied to

offsets obtained by a source under a

StatePSD program (see footnote-15 and

related discussion).

Where-EPA is implementing the PSD

program under. its Part 52 PSD
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

regulations and the applicant must

obtain emission offsets with respect to a

pollutant subject to PSD review, the

Agency's general policy is not to be

involved directly in approving emission

offsets which would involve the

modification of permits issued by State

permitting authorities. Instead, EPA will

require the owner or operator of the

proposed source to obtain offsets

(whether from another facility on the

same premises or from an external

source) through the appropriate State or

local new source review program before

EPA can approve the proposed source

under PSD. These offsets must meet

EPA-approved creditability criteria

which are equivalent to the criteria

under section 51.165(a) and contained in

the applicable SIP.

One commenter objected to the

Administrator's proposal to require a

source that would cause or contribute to

a PM 0 NAAQS violation to obtain

sufficient offset so as to provide a "net

air quality benefit" in the affected area.

The commenter argued that this

requirement is unlawful, and that a

source whose emissions have been

offset one-for-one cannot be said to

"cause or contribute" to a NAAQS

violation.

As explained in footnote 14, EPA has

decided to restrict the use of the "net air

quality benefit" test in conjunction with

the offsets which EPA requires for

purposes of PSD and section 51.165(b).

Offsets producing air quality benefits

would only be required in areas already

experiencing violations of the PM1o

standard where the State does not have

an approved attainment demonstration.

The EPA does not agree with the

commenter's conclusion that one-for-one

offsets will always satisfy the "cause or

contribute to" criterion with respect to

NAAQS violations. Where an area is

shown to have existing violations and

does not have an adequate attainment

plan, new sources that fail to provide

progress would continue to "contribute"

to the nonattainment problem inasmuch

as the area has not yet provided for

expeditious attainment through

reductions from existing sources.

In an area that does not have existing

violations, a new source would need

only to compensate for its own adverse

ambient impacts to fully remedy any

projected violations. Where an area is

experiencing violations but does have

an adequate attainment plan, new

sources again need only compensate for

their own ambient impacts since the

area is already moving toward

attainment as expeditiously as is

practicable. As pointed out in the

preamble to the recently published final

Emissions Trading Policy Statement,

since EPA can do no more than require

States to demonstrate timely attainment,

EPA will approve trades, including

offsets, in areas experiencing violations

that have adequate attainment

demonstrations so long as air quality

impacts are equivalent [see 51 FR 43814,

43818 (December 4, 1985)]. States are of

course free to require additional offsets

in such areas. However, the Emissions

Trading Policy Statement requires

substantial additional air quality

progress for trades in areas without

adequate attainment demonstrations to

insure that such trades will help move

the areas forward toward eventual

attainment (see 51 FR 43814, 43820).

Further, even in areas that are not

experiencing violations, offsets may

need to exceed one-for-one in terms of

emissions in order to produce equivalent

ambient impacts, depending upon

source parameters and geographic

conditions.

Finally, several commenters stated

that, if a new facility fully offsets its

emissions, EPA should waive the PSD

requirements for ambient monitoring

and modeling. The Administrator does

not find any justification for a blanket

waiver from the PSD monitoring and

modeling requirements simply because a

prospective source would obtain

emission reductions which fully offset

its emissions. The commenters have

failed to consider the importance of

modeling and monitoring (conceivably

both preapplication and post

construction monitoring) in

demonstrating that the emission offsets

would satisfy the air quality impact test

associated with the required emission

offsets and described above in the

response to the previous comment; in

fact, such a demonstration would of

necessity require modeling,

Consequently, the Administrator finds

no reason to change EPA's present

requirements for PSD monitoring and

modeling as a result of today's action to

promulgate PM1o amendments.

f. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Increments for Particulate

Matter. In the 1985 proposal, the

Administrator indicated his belief that

the PSD program would need to include

a dual increment system for particulate

matter; that is, separate sets of

increments for TSP and PMo. To carry

this out, the Administrator proposed to:

(1) Clarify that the existing increments,

defined under section 163 of the Act,

would be measured as TSP; and (2)

establish new increments measured as

PMo in accordance with the procedures

under section 166 of the Act. While he

believed that this proposal could be

readily accomplished under the proposal

to promulgate a PMlo primary NAAQS

implemented under a section 110

pathway and a TSP secondary NAAQS

implemented under a Part D pathway,

the Administrator raised a number of

questions as to how the increment

system for particulate matter would be

affected by other alternatives for

revising the particulate matter NAAQS.

Relevant to today's announced action,

the Administrator raised the issue

regarding the continued applicability of

the existing increments for particulate

matter in the event that the secondary

NAAQS was defined as a PMio-based

standard and implemented via section

110 of the Act as is the case in today's

final action. Specifically, the

Administrator indicated that it was not

clear whether TSP would continue to be

regulated under the Act, whether the

section 107 designation process would

continue to apply to particulate matter,

or whether the TSP-based increments

would continue to apply. Thus, the

Administrator requested comments

concerning all possible impacts on the

PSD increments for particulate matter if

he were to use PMlo to define both the

primary and secondary NAAQS.

With respect to PMo increments, the

Administrator indicated that he would

consider using the approach applied by

Congress, which initially created the

TSP increments, to establish new PMo

increments (i.e., basing them on specific

percentages of the NAAQS). In addition,

he described possible means of

implementing such increments relying

on many of the same criteria that are

currently being used to implement the

existing increments for particulate

matter. This particular discussion was

raised to identify issues associated with

the eventual development of a PM1o

increment system which would proceed

under a subsequent rulemaking action in

accordance with section 168 of the Act.

The EPA received numerous

comments concerning the PSD

increments for particulate matter. The

Administrator's announced intention to

establish a dual increment system was

opposed by most of the commenters.

Many of these commenters also opposed

the retention of TSP as the indicator for

measuring the increments. In addition to

the comments concerning the

appropriate way to express the

increments, a number of commenters

presented arguments concerning the

selection of the proper implementation

pathway (section 110 versus Part D) in

relation to the continued applicability o

the increments for particulate matter.

Several commenters pointed to the

PSD provisions of the Act and the

24699
24700 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

legislative history to argue against the

Administrator's proposal to define the

section 163 increments for "particulate

matter" as TSP increments. The

commenters pointed out that section 163

establishes increments, at levels that

cannot change, for "particulate matter"

in whatever way EPA wishes to define

it. Congress, the commenters noted,

intended section 166 to be used to set "numerical measures" for totally

different pollutants and not for various

indicators of the same pollutant, e.g.,

particulate matter. These commenters

stated that there is no requirement on the face of the Act, or in the legislative

history of section 163, to suggest that

Congress intended to require EPA to

define the increments for particulate

matter in terms of TSP. The commenters

cited the use by Congress of the term

"particulate matter" without any

reference to TSP. One commenter in

particular stated that, although at the

time Congress adopted section 163 of

the Act in 1977 particulate matter was

generally equated with TSP and

Congress did use TSP as the basis for

setting the section 163 increments, it

does not necessarily follow that

Congress intended the increments

forever to be tied to TSP if EPA changed

the indicator for purposes of the

NAAQS.

On the other hand, one commenter

supported retention of the existing

statutory increments as TSP increments

based on the very fact that Congress was aware of the use by EPA of TSP as

the indicator for particulate matter.

Therefore, the commenter believed that

Congress intended the term "particulate

matter" to mean TSP. This commenter

also claimed that there is no authority in

the Act for EPA to administratively

change this clear example of legislative

policy judgment. Referencing the

legislative history, this commenter went

on to say that by choosing increments

that were numerically a small fraction of

the then'current NAAQS, Congress was

clearly hoping to minimize the amount

of environmental damage associated

with the congressional objective to

accommodate a specified level of new

economic activity. Thus, the commenter

concluded, if the statutory increments

were modified.to "track" a NAAQS o

revision, both the absolute amount of

additional pollution allowed in each

area and the number of additional

polluting sources permitted would be

changed. The commenter stated that

since the latter was the subject of

intense congressional scrutiny, there is a strong presumption that Congress did

not intend to give the Administrator

discretion to change the statutory

increments in section 163 because of a

particulate matter NAAQS revision.

According to this commenter, EPA has

authority under section 166 to establish

a PSD program for a particulate matter

indicator other than TSP, but as a

supplement to, not a replacement for,

the section 163 increment program.

The Administrator agrees with the

latter commenter that Congress did

intend to fix the measure of the

particulate matter increment defined in

section 163 in terms of TSP and to

provide for establishment of new

increments in the appropriate form

under section 166 of the Act for any new

NAAQS. In defining the section 163

increments for particulate matter,

Congress used the same term that EPA

used in establishing the then current

NAAQS, clearly understood to apply to

TSP. Further, Congress relied upon TSPbased emissions data from a number of

specific source categories to agree upon

specific allowable increases that Would

accommodate a certain level of source

growth.2 4 This point is important

because it assigns to the "particulate matter" increments a fixed reference

point, i.e., the TSP indicator, upon which

source growth is to be measured. To

change this reference point, as the latter

commenter notes, would change a

significant part of the nondegradation

system which Congress chose to define

in section 163 by means of specific

maximum allowable increases for both

TSP and SO2. The Administrator wishes

to note here that while he strongly

believes that the statutory increments

for "particulate matter" must be

measured in terms of TSP, he does not

believe that he should necessarily

continue to retain TSP increments

beyond the date when new PM0

increments become effective. This will

be discussed more fully in response to

subsequent comments which support the

dual increment system which the

Administrator originally proposed.

Finally, Congress apparently

considered excluding "naturally

24 Committee on Environment and Public Works,

95th Cong., 2nd Sess., A Legislative History of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, at 330-331

(1978). Discussion recorded in the House debate on the selection of PSD increments indicates that

acceptance of the increments then under

consideration was based heavily on the assurance that power plants using BACT could normally be

built up to approximately 6,000 megawatts in Class

I1 areas, and that constraints in the construction of

other types of new plants would be in the

equivalent range. If for some reason the section 163

Increments were to be redefined in such a way that

they would become more stringent, then it is not at

all clear that Congress would have selected such

levels. It cannot be concluded, therefore, that

redefining the existing increments to make them

less stringent would have been any more acceptable

to Congress.

occurring particulate matter" from

subsection 163(c) and rejected that

alternative. 25 Thus particulate matter

increments must include all suspended

particles for Congress to consider it

necessary to exclude some fraction of

those particles.

Several commenters stated that it was

clear that the court in Alabama Power

acknowledged EPA's power to define "particulate matter," both for NAAQS

and PSD increment purposes as

something other than TSP. The

commenters quoted from footnote 134 of

that opinion:

EPA has discretion to define the pollutant "particulate matter" to exclude particulates

of a size or composition determined not to

present substantial public health or welfare concerns. 636 F. 2d at 370 n. 134.

The Administrator acknowledges that,

in dicta, the court in Alabama Power

describes such an approach, which

could be used to ultimately redefine the

statutory increments for particulate

matter as PMo increments. However,

the court clearly premised this approach

on a finding by EPA that larger particles

present no substantial health or welfare

effects. The EPA has not reached this

conclusion. Rather, EPA believes that

large particles do present some welfare

concerns but that controls necessary to

meet a PMlo NAAQS will adequately

address any such concerns. Further,

EPA does not read footnote 134 to mean

that EPA could administratively

redefine the statutory increments to

apply to PMo. Such a reading would be

inconsistent with the court's stated

rationale. Moreover, the court's

statements appear in a footnote not

essential to the ultimate disposition of

the case, and are thus not entitled to the

weight of a judicial holding.

The court's conclusion that once EPA

excludes certain particles from the

NAAQS for particulate matter then PSD

increments for TSP should not apply to

such excluded particles is sound.

However, it does not follow that EPA

can administratively alter the statutory

TSP increments. The court did not

analyze the issue of which indicator

Congress intended to use for the

statutory increments prior to drafting the

footnote. After a careful review of the

relevant statutory and legislative

background, as discussed above, EPA

has concluded that Congress intended

2 5 The 1977 House bill had an exclusion for

naturally occurring particulate matter in the

forerunner of subsection 163(c) [see HR Rep. No. 95-

294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 165 (1977)]. The conference

committee remanded the exclusion and it was not

included in subsection 163(c) as adopted. However,

the term particulate matter was used unchanged in

both versions of the provision.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

the statutory increments to be measured

as TSP. The EPA therefore agrees with

the commenter who claimed that

footnote 134 does not change the

statutory construction. This commenter

further pointed out that footnote 134's

sole authority is section 166, but that

section contains no authority to modify

the section 163 increments; rather

section 166 establishes a duty for EPA to

expand the PSD program beyond the

statutory increments of section 163.

The Administrator agrees that the

proper approach for developing new

PMo increments is found in section 166

of the Act, and earlier in this preamble indicated his intention to proceed along that prescribed path. Further

explanation of his effort and its effect on

the PSD increment system for

particulate matter is provided in

response to subsequent comments

below.

Some commenters gave other reasons

for opposing the retention of TSP as the

indicator for the particulate matter

increments. A number of these

commenters stated that retention of TSP

would lead to complex, duplicative, and

therefore wasteful practices in that it

would require sources subject to the

PSD program to implement dual systems

for monitoring, establishing emission

limitations and control strategies,

obtaining offsets, and preparing and

evaluating permits-one for the sizespecific indicator of the revised NAAQS

and another for TSP as the indicator for

the PSD increments.

The Administrator acknowledges that,

during the interim period when the

section 163 TSP increments are to be

retained, the PSD program will entail

review requirements for both TSP and

PMo. Such requirements would cause

permitting agencies and PSD sources to

consider both forms of particulate

matter when such sources could emit

both TSP and PMo in significant

amounts. This situation is intended to be

temporary, however, and should

improve when EPA completes the

statutory process for developing PM1o

increments in accordance with section

166. The EPA believes such a situation is

necessary during the period required to

establish PM,o increments. The

alternative, that is, temporarily

eliminating increment protection for

particulate matter, cannot reasonably be

justified. A number of commenters associated

with the mining industry expressed their

concern that if EPA finalizes its October

1984 proposal to list surface coal mines

as major sources for which fugitive

emissions are to be included in

determining PSD applicability, retention

of the TSP increments would result in

severe economic consequences for

surface coal mines. These commenters

noted that the adoption of a size-specific

indicator for the increments, instead of

TSP, would reduce the adverse

economic effects although there would

still be substantial limits on mine

production.

The Administrator recognizes that

certain industries may be affected more than others under the requirements of

the PSD program; however, this

situation cannot serve as the basis for

defining the form of particulate matter

used to measure the increments for

particulate matter in section 163 of the

Act. The Administrator has already

explained the legal basis by which he

concluded that the statutory increments

for particulate matter must be measured

by the TSP indicator. Eventually, the

Administrator intends to promulgate

PMo increments which States may use

effectively to replace the statutory TSP

increments.

Some commenters supported EPA's

retention of the TSP-based increments

and even suggested that PM1o

increments should be added to

supplement rather than replace the

statutory increments. Several air

pollution control agencies stated that

EPA should retain the TSP increments to

prevent deterioration beyond what

would be allowed under the TSP

increment system and to prevent

potential soiling and nuisance impacts

of particles greater than 10 microns. A

Federal agency noted that the

development of PM1o increments would

be a significant additional management

tool. Another control agency claimed

that abolishment of the TSP secondary

NAAQS (and presumably the TSP

increments) would weaken the PSD

program because PSD applicability

would be based on a source's potential

to emit PMo, which may be only a

fraction of TSP, i.e., particulate matter

emissions.

While the Administrator agrees that

the statutory increments for particulate

matter are appropriately expressed as TSP increments, he does not agree that

it is necessary or reasonable to continue

measuring air quality deterioration in

terms of TSP in light of the fact that both

the primary and secondary NAAQS for

particulate matter will be measured by a

PMo indicator, particularly when PM1o increments are developed in accordance

with section 166. In fact, once EPA

approves State requests-to delete

section 107 designations for TSP, the

Class II TSP increments will no longer

have any applicability since Class II

increments by definition apply only in

designated section 107 areas. The

statutory Class I TSP increments will of

course remain applicable. However,

EPA intends to develop PM,o increments

under section 166 which are equivalent

to the existing TSP increments. To the

extent this can be done, protection of

the PM,o increments will fully protect

the TSP increments. The EPA will then

accept a demonstration of protection of

the PMo increments as a surrogate for

the required demonstration of protection

of the TSP increments so that permit

applicants and reviewers will be able to

avoid the then unnecessary burdens and

complexities of a dual increment system.

The EPA believes it has the authority to

do this under section 301(a) of the Act.

With respect to any weakening of the

PSD program as a result of basing major

source status on PMo emissions rather

than particulate matter emissions, the

Administrator recognizes that

eliminating regulation of TSP altogether

could reduce the number of sources

emitting major amounts of "particulate

matter" and consequently would allow

such sources to avoid PSD review. As

part of the EPA's effort to develop a

PM10 increment system, the

Administrator intends to evaluate the

effects on PSD source applicability of

changing the indicator for particulate

matter. Should a significant negative

effect be foreseen, the Administrator

would consider alternatives for

correcting the problem such as

redefining "major" for PMo sources

under section 166.

One commenter, who supported

redefining the section 163 increments as

PMo increments, also stated that EPA's

concern about the geographic

applicability of the section 163

increments for particulate matter was

unfounded. This commenter noted that

Congress designated mandatory Class I

areas and then designated all other

areas as Class II if the area was

attainment or unclassifiable for at least

one pollutant. The commenter then

concluded that because the Class II area

classifications are not pollutant

specific-as opposed to the section

107(d) designations which are-the area

classifications will survive the NAAQS

revision and subsequent deletion of

section 107 area designations for TSP,

and the section 163 Class II increments

for particulate matter will retain their

applicability as well.

The EPA disagrees with the comments

claiming that the Class II area

classifications are not pollutant specific.

If that interpretation is correct, then it

would follow that Congress intended the

PSD review including the increment

analysis to apply to emissions of a

nonattainment pollutant (based on a

section 107 designation) simply because

240 24701
24702 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

the area was also designated attainment

for another pollutant. The structure of

the Act suggests otherwise, indicating

instead that Congress did not intend for

a source to undergo PSD review for a

pollutant that was subject to a section

107 nonattainment designation. The EPA

believes that by adding Part D to the Act

in 1977, Congress intended that separate

preconstruction review requirements set

forth under section 173 of the Act were

to apply in such situations instead.

Other commenters who recognized the

Class II area classifications as being

pollutant-specific were concerned that

EPA's proposal not to require section

107(d) area designations for PM1o would

result in no Class II PSD areas for

particulate matter, and thus no areas in

which the section 163 Class II

increments for particulate matter would

apply. As mentioned earlier, EPA does

not believe that Congress intended for

either the section 163 increments or the

section 107(d) area classification system

to apply to PMo. The EPA believes that

new PMo increments, developed

pursuant to section 166 of the Act, can

be applied independently from the

section 107(d) area designations for TSP

and the Class II areas-both of which

determine the applicability of the

section 163 TSP increments. Also, EPA

will establish appropriate areas to

which the PMo increments will apply

during the course of the upcoming

section 166 rulemaking process.

Since EPA believes that the section

107(d) area designations for TSP are

necessary to provide for the continued

applicability of the section 163 Class II

increments, it will decline to completely

eliminate these TSP designations until

PMo increments are in effect and

replace the existing TSP increments. As

mentioned earlier, the Administrator

believes that retention of the TSP

increments is necessary during the

interim to implement Congressional

intent to keep air quality deterioration

within the limits established by the

statutory increment system.

Finally a number of commenters

stated that since there is allegedly no

scientific reason to retain the TSP-based

increments (because there are no soiling

or nuisance effects), an EPA decision

not to eliminate TSP as the indicator for

the PSD increments would be a violation

of the binding and enforceable

settlement agreement in CMA v. EPA,

D.C. Cir., No. 79-1112. 26 These

26 Pursuant to a settlement with petitioners in

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. D.C.

Cir. No. 79-1112. the EPA agreed to propose revisions to certain PSD requirements, if

appropriate, at the time it proposed revisions to the

particulate matter standards on public health or

comments actually addressed EPA's

earlier proposal on March 20, 1984 (49

FR 10408], which in addition to

proposing revisions to the NAAQS for

particulate matter proposed not to

change how "particulate matter" would

be defined for the purposes of the PSD

increments. In that proposal, the

Administrator indicated that based on

EPA's review of the data, particles

larger than 10 microns could contribute

to soiling and nuisance and therefore

may have substantial welfare effects.

Consistent with this finding, the

Administrator proposed to retain TSP as

the indicator for the secondary NAAQS

for particulate matter, and consequently

for the PSD increments, because it

includes most of these larger particles

and could therefore be a better indicator

of all particles that produce soiling and

nuisance. The Administrator also raised

the possibility that a size cutoff below

TSP could ultimately be selected to

replace TSP as the indicator for the

secondary NAAQS, but even if that were to occur, there was considerable

question as to whether EPA could then

adopt the same cutoff for the purposes

of the PSD increments (49 FR 10421).

By the terms of the CMA agreement

itself, the Administrator believes that he

acted appropriately in then proposing to

retain TSP as the indicator for the PSD

increments and concluding that the

contemplated interim relief was not

available. In any event, the thrust of the

settlement provision was to cause EPA

to initiate a rulemaking on the question

of how the NAAQS revisions for

particulate matter should affect the

particulate matter increments. In no way

was it intended to bind EPA to any

particular outcome. Here EPA in its 1984

proposal not to change the increments

and its 1985 proposals on PSD increment

issues in general certainly initiated such

a rulemaking-indeed a rulemaking that

has resulted in thorough public

discussion, debate, and subsequent

Agency deliberation. Thus the spirit as

well as the letter of the provision has

been satisfied.

Moreover, the Administrator now

firmly believes that for the reasons set

forth earlier in this section of the

preamble, Congress intended the section

163 increments for particulate matter to

welfare. In relevant part, the settlement stated that

"[when EPA proposes a new size cutoff for

purposes of the NAAQS, it shall also propose: (a) A

new size cutoff for PSD purposes that would remain

in effect indefinitely (i.e., the permanent PSD cutoff];

and (b) an interim size cutoff for PSD purposes to

remain in effect until EPA takes final action on the

permanent PSD cutoff. The interim cutoff will

exclude only those particles which clearly appear

not to pose substantial health and welfare risks and

therefore are highly likely to be excluded

permanently."

be measured as TSP. The Administrator

is taking the course of action he believes

was intended by Congress to implement

different "particulate matter"

increments. That is, he will promulgate

new PM1o increments in accordance

with section 166 of the Act and allow

such increments to the extent that they

are equivalent to replace effectively the

statutory TSP increments at the

appropriate time.

g. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Monitoring. The

Administrator proposed a new

significance level, expressed as an

ambient concentration of PMo, for PSD

monitoring purposes. He proposed that a

concentration of 10 /g/m3 (24-hour

average) be used as a criterion to

determine whether a PSD applicant

would be required to collect (or,

conversely, be excluded from having to

collect) ambient PMo data for the 1-year

period preceding submittal of a

complete PSD application. The

Administrator also indicated that the

significant ambient concentration for

TSP, 10 g/m 3 (24-hour average), would

be retained due to the proposed TSP

secondary NAAQS.

In addition to proposing a significant

ambient concentration for PMo, the

Administrator proposed a transition

program related to the preapplication

monitoring requirements for PMo (see

section h. Transition Provisions for

details on the proposed provision, issues

raised by commenters, and EPA's

response). As part of the proposed

program, the Administrator indicated

that he intended to allow the use of

ambient data collected from samplers

not designated as PMo reference or

equivalent methods until such reference

or equivalent methods are designated

and made commercially available. The

Administrator specified PMo, PM 5, and

TSP as the particulate matter size

fractions which could be measured from

acceptable alternative samplers. This

data would then be used in accordance

with EPA-approved estimating

procedures to demonstrate compliance

with the PM 0 NAAQS.

The EPA received no comments

opposing the proposed significant

ambient concentration for PMlo; several

commenters expressed general support

for the proposed value. However,

several commenters did raise certain

questions concerning the proposed

monitoring and ambient air estimating

procedures. These procedures would be

used to meet the preapplication

monitoring and air quality analysis

requirements for PMo during the

transition period before PM1o reference
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

or equivalent methods become

available.

One commenter stated that EPA

needs to address the frequency of

required monitoring since this is not

addressed with respect to PSD

monitoring. Since States are required to

conduct daily monitoring for 1 year at

high priority sites, the commenter asked

whether PSD applicants would be

required to do the same.

The EPA addressed the frequency of

PSD monitoring for PMlo in its draft

revisions to the EPA document entitled

"Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)," which was made available for

review during the public comment

period. The Administrator intends to

retain the language contained in the

draft guidance which described different

sampling frequencies as appropriate for

use with PMo, PM15, or TSP data used to

demonstrate compliance with the PMo

NAAQS. The frequencies described are

consistent with the final 40 CFR Part 58

sampling frequencies as published

elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

Another commenter questioned EPA's

ability to use undesignated interim

alternative sampling methods to gather

ambient PM 0 data. This commenter

stated that EPA must instead propose

and subject the interim sampling

methods to public and scientific review

before any final monitoring

implementation rule is promulgated. The

Administrator disagrees with this

position for two reasons. First, the Clean

Air Act requires States to submit control

strategies to EPA within 9 months of the

revision of the NAAQS. However, it will

take approximately 6 months after

promulgation of the PM1o NAAQS before

PMo reference method samplers are

designated. The EPA's policy, therefore,

is to require States to use available

particulate matter data for PM10 SIP

evaluation and planning purposes during

the period before reference methods are

designated. The use of interim methods

for PSD purposes is also considered

acceptable by EPA. Thus, when PM,o

data are required during the transition

period and PM1o reference method data

are not available, particulate matter

data that must be used in order of

preference are PMo nonreference

method data, PM15 data, and, for up to

10 months after the effective date of the

new requirements, TSP data.

Second, on March 20, 1984, EPA did

propose in Appendix J of Part 50 a

general reference method for

determination of particulate matter as

PMo in the atmosphere. Public

comments were taken and were

considered before final promulgation of

this reference method. Actual

designation of reference method

samplers, however, does not require

proposal in the Federal Register. Under

the existing 40 CFR Part 53 regulations,

EPA has the authority to designate

reference or equivalent method

samplers without first proposing the

method(s) in the Federal Register for

public comment provided that the

methods meet the performance

specifications and other requirements

contained in Parts 50 and 53.

Concerning efforts to meet the air

quality analysis requirements before a

reference method is available, one

commenter stated that EPA must

propose for comment the specific "estimating procedures" that must be

used to determine ambient

concentrations of PMo based on data

collected from undesignated samplers.

-The commenter was apparently not

aware that the prescribed "estimating

procedures" were provided in the draft

revisions to EPA's PSD monitoring

guideline referenced above. The

monitoring guideline actually reflects

guidance provided elsewhere for

purposes of SIP development which

prescribes that PM5 data be multiplied

by a correction factor of 0.8, and that

PMo data be used directly even though

it was collected with a nondesignated

reference or equivalent method. In

addition, the monitoring guideline

allows TSP data to be used only as a

one-for-one substitute for comparison to

the PMo standards and only during the

first 10 months of the monitoring

transition. The use of PMmo and PM15

data will result in much less uncertainty

than the practice of comparing existing

TSP data to the PMio standards.

Alternatively, awaiting the availability

of reference method monitoring and

making no estimates of the PMo

particulate matter air quality in the

meantime would be even less desirable

in light of the need to demonstrate

ambient impacts of proposed sources on

the PMo NAAQS.

h. Transition Provisions. The

Administrator proposed several

provisions which would delay for some

applicants all or some of the new PSD

requirements for PMo. Complete

exclusion from the new requirements

was proposed under two grandfather

provisions. The first excluded from

review sources that were not previously

subject to PSD review, provided that the

sources: (a) Have already obtained all

the necessary approvals under the SIP

before the effective date of the new

requirements, and (b) commenced

construction within 18 months of the

effective date of the new requirements

(or any earlier time required under the

SIP).

The second grandfather provision

excluded from PM review any sources

that have submitted a complete PSD

application (including those for which a

final determination has not yet been

made) to EPA or its delegated

representative on or before the

promulgation of the Part 52 PSD

amendments for PMio.

In addition to the above provisions,

the Administrator proposed to enact a

transition program to phase in the new

requirements for PMlo monitoring. These

monitoring provisions were necessary

because the proposed grandfather

provisions could not offer adequate

relief to those applicants whose

applications had not been submitted but

whose on-site monitoring efforts were

well underway, except, of course, for

any new PMio monitoring that would

otherwise be required.

There were several other factors that

influenced the design of the monitoring

transition program as well. One

important factor was the concern that

development of ambient PMo samplers

suitable for designation as reference or

equivalent method samplers could be

delayed as long as 1 year. Another was

that once the samplers became available

and designated, additional time would

be needed for applicants to actually

install and calibrate the samplers on site

before a PMlo sampling network could

begin to operate. Finally, the PSD

regulations require that a minimum of 4

months of data must be collected from

any site [see section 52.21(m)(1)(iv)] and

submitted as part of the complete PSD

application.

Taking into account these factors, the

Administrator proposed three provisions

to phase in the preapplication

monitoring requirements for PMo. The

first of these provisions gave the

Administrator discretionary authority to

exempt from the PMo ambient data

requirements certain PSD applicants

who would become subject to the

requirements because of PMo, provided

the applicant submitted an otherwise

complete application within 10 months

after promulgation of the Part 52 PSD

amendments for PMo.

The second proposed provision

allowed eligible applicants to sample

PM1o using nondesignated PMo or PM,5

samplers during the period of time when

they would be unable to establish a

PM1o monitoring network utilizing

designated PMo samplers. In the

proposal, the preamble incorrectly

indicated that TSP data would also be

acceptable during this phase but EPA's

draft monitoring guidance made

available for public comment correctly

indicated that TSP monitoring data

24703
24704 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

would not be accepted for PM~o

purposes, but only for comparison with

the then proposed TSP secondary

NAAQS. This provision would affect

complete applications (except for PM1o)

submitted between 10 and 16 months

after promulgation of the PSD

amendments for PMo.

The third and final proposed provision

relating to the phase-in of PM1o

monitoring equipment allowed certain

applicants to commence reference

method PM1o monitoring and gather

ambient data over only the period

extending from the date 12 months from

promulgation of PMo amendments to

the date the application becomes

otherwise complete with respect to all

other existing monitoring requirements.

This provision applied to complete

applications (except for the PM1o

monitoring requirements) submitted

between 16 and 24 months after

promulgation.

The, Administrator also proposed to

allow States to adopt transition

provisions for PM1o monitoring if the

provisions are compatible with the

intent of the Federal transition

provisions proposed in the Part 52 PSD

regulations.

Grandfatherprovisions. While most

commenters expressed general support

for EPA's proposed grandfather

provisions which protect certain sources

from having to meet the PSD

requirements for PMo, a few concerns

were noted.

One commenter objected to the use of

different qualifications for

grandfathering sources not previously

subject to PSD versus sources previously subject to PSD. For the

former category, sources are grandfathered only if they have received

all otherwise required preconstruction

approval and permits and commence

construction within 18 months. In the

latter category, sources are

grandfathered if they have merely

submitted an otherwise complete PSD

application. The commenter felt this

provided inequitable treatment to

sources, and that it would be more fair

and rational to grandfather all sources

based on the submittal of a complete

application.

The EPA does not believe that the

alleged discrepancy in the two

provisions as they were intended to be

applied is inequitable. However, in

reviewing the proposed provisions, EPA

recognized that there was some

ambiguity as to exactly who would be

eligible for grandfather status under

each provision. The EPA-intended the

first grandfathering provision to apply to

all sources not previously subject to PSD

for particulate matter, even if they were

subject to PSD for some other pollutant.

The EPA intended the second

grandfathering provision to apply only

to those sources that were previously

subject to PSD for particulate matter

and had consequently included analyses

for particulate matter in their PSD

applications. The use of more lenient

grandfathering qualifications for sources

previously subject to PSD is keyed to the

presence of particulate matter analyses

in the completed application. The EPA

has clarified the grandfather provisions

in the final action to remove the stated

ambiguity [see new section 52.21(i)(4)

(ix) and (x)].

In addition, to further enhance

consistency between the two provisions,

EPA has also changed the wording of

the second grandfather provision so that

the same eligibility cutoff date is used

for excluding sources from the new PMo

amendments. Under the proposed

language, applicants previously subject

to PSD (for particulate matter) would

have had an extra day (i.e., "on or

before" versus "before") in which to

gain grandfather status. Based on these

changes, EPA does not agree that an inequity exists between the two new

grandfather provisions.

The EPA has found it necessary to

make several other changes to the new grandfather provisions. First, the second

grandfather provision in today's notice

contains a key final sentence that was unintentionally omitted from the

provision as originally proposed.

Without this sentence, the affected

source or modification would have been

excluded from the original PSD

requirements for particulate matter in

addition to being grandfathered from

today's amendments. This was clearly

not the intent of the provision. The

proposed grandfather rules were to

exempt applicants from new

requirements but require them to

continue to meet existing requirements

instead.

Secondly, the date upon which both

provisions will be based is changed to

the date 30 days from today's date of

publication. The proposal, in using the

date of publication, did not take into

account the fact that the amendments

being published in today's Federal

Register will become effective 30 days

later. Finally, reference to the August 7,

1980, PSD regulations in both of the

proposed grandfather provisions has

been changed because this reference

does not properly account for PSD

amendments occurring since August 7,

1980. Those sources or applicants which

may be grandfathered from the new PMo amendments are expected to meet

the Part 52 PSD requirements, including

applicable amendments made after

August 7, 1980, which are in effect

immediately preceding the effective date

of the new PMo amendments.

Several commenters noted that EPA

should also include these proposed

grandfather provisions in section 51.24

(recodified as 51.166] where States have

the permitting authority, and not just

include them in the Part 52 PSD

regulations where EPA or its delegate is

the permitting authority. The

Administrator agrees that States with

approved PSD regulations in their SIP's

should have the same ability to

grandfather certain sources from the

new PMo requirements. Although it was

not mentioned in the proposal, States

may adopt such provisions in their

regulations and EPA will approve them

pursuant to section 51.166(a)(6](ii which

requires that when a State revises its

PSD rules it must specify when and as to

what sources such revisions will take

effect. Consequently, there is no need to

further amend the section 51.166 PSD

requirements to satisfy the commenter's

concern.

Monitoring Transition. Many

commenters expressed general support

for EPA's proposed phase-in of the new

PSD monitoring requirements for PMo.

Some of these commenters, however,

gave recommendations that would

change the transition procedures in

certain ways.

Most of the commenters expressed

concern about the eventual availability

of an acceptable sampling method. One.

commenter stated that EPA should delay

action on its PM10 proposal until an

acceptable reference method sampler is

available for widespread use by PSD

permit applicants. Another commenter

stated that EPA should allow the States

to waive or to adjust the PMo

monitoring requirement on a case-bycase basis beyond the time periods

provided if a sufficient supply of

approved PM1o monitoring equipment is

not available. Yet another commenter

went further by stating that the PSD

requirements should contain some

triggering mechanism requiring the

Administrator to take an affirmative

action finding that monitors are

available before requiring their use.

Finally, a commenter said that all

three transition provisions should apply

uniformly to all applicants who meet the

requirements and should be revised to

reflect the delayed effective date of

EPA's PSD regulations. (This commenter

recommended a 9-month delay before

the Part 52 PSD regulations would

apply.) That is, the first transition

provision should exempt from PM

monitoring those applicants who submit

a complete application within 3 months
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

after the effective date of the PSD

amendments for PM~o; the second

provision should apply to applicants

who submit a complete application

between 12 and 18 months after

promulgation of the revisions and

should allow them to monitor PMo or

other particulate matter size fractions

during the interim period when

approved samplers are not available;

and the third provision should apply to

applicants who submit complete

applications from 18 to 24 months after

promulgation, requiring sampling with

designated samplers beginning 12

months after promulgation.

The Administrator believes that the

concern relating to potential

unavailability of reference or acceptable

PMo samplers is no longer a valid issue.

At the time of the 1985 proposal, it was

generally agreed that relatively few

acceptable PMo samplers were readily

available. However, since the 1985

proposal, at least 900 commercially

available PMo samplers have been

placed in operation by State and local

agencies and suppliers are already

advertising the availability of PMo

samplers that will meet the proposed

requirements.

The Administrator believes that the

three transition periods as proposed are reasonable, provide sufficient flexibility

for implementation, and do ensure that

adequate estimates of ambient PM10

concentrations are available for air

quality analysis purposes.

Consequently, no changes to the

proposed PSD regulations or draft PSD

monitoring guideline are being made

based on concerns over the

unavailability of PMo samplers.

However, with respect to the effective

date of EPA's Part 52 PSD regulations,

the Administrator has revised the

language in the monitoring transition

provisions to replace the reference to

the date of promulgation with the

effective date of the regulations which is

actually 30 days later.

2. Nonattainment New Source Review

Requirements

In the 1985 proposal, the

Administrator proposed separate sets of

preconstruction NSR requirements with

respect to the primary and secondary

NAAQS for particulate matter. The EPA

did this because: (1) the NAAQS

proposal included PMo primary

standards and TSP secondary

standards, and (2) the Administrator

proposed to establish implementation

requirements for attaining the PMo

primary NAAQS using the section 110

pathway and requirements to implement

the TSP secondary NAAQS using the

Part D pathway. While concentrating on

these particular assumptions, the

Administrator also described alternative

programs that could result from

subsequent decisions to use different

implementation pathways for either the

primary or secondary NAAQS, or to

select the PMo indicator for the

secondary NAAQS, thereby eliminating

TSP-based NAAQS altogether.

For the primary PMo NAAQS, the

Administrator proposed that the PSD

program (as described in the previous

section) in conjunction with the

requirements in section 51.18(k) [now

recodified as 51.165(b)], concerning

protection of the NAAQS in designated

section 107 attainment and

unclassifiable areas as required by

section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act, would

apply in all areas to major sources or

modifications whose PMo emissions

would cause or contribute to NAAQS

violations. The Part D NSR requirements

under section 51.18(j) [now recodified as

51.165(a)] and the construction ban

under section 52.24 would have no

applicability to PM10 . However the

Administrator proposed that until States

received EPA approval for their section

51.165(b) program for PM1o Section III of

the Offset Rule (40 CFR Part 51

Appendix S (1985)), would govern the

preconstruction review process for PMo.

Under section 51.165(b), the EPA

proposed both to add requirements for

PMo and to clarify the existing

requirements as they apply to other

criteria pollutants as well. First, EPA

proposed to establish annual and 24-

hour significant ambient impact levels

for PMo similar to the existing levels for

other pollutants which would be used to

determine when a source's emissions

are considered to cause or contribute to

a NAAQS violation at any location.

Sources having a modeled significant

ambient impact must address such

impact by getting emission offsets. The

EPA proposed values of I Lg/m3

(annual) and 5 ug/m3 (24-hour average).

With respect to the applicability of the

section 51.165(b) program requirements,

EPA proposed to clarify that major

source status would be based on the

applicable definition under section 302(j)

of the Act, i.e., 100 tpy or more of any

regulated pollutant. Using this

definition, section 51.165(b) covers all

PSD sources as well as certain non-PSD

sources, namely sources that have the

potential to emit more than 100 tpy (but

less than 250 tpy) of any regulated

pollutant and are not included on the 28-

source category listing for PSD.

For PSD sources, EPA proposed that

the requirements of section 51.165(b)

would be applied in addition to all

applicable PSD requirements. For nonPSD sources, section 51.165(b) would

apply in addition to any other applicable

preconstruction review requirements in

the approved SIP.

The Administrator also indicated that

he would give States considerable

flexibility in designing an offset program

under section 51.165(b) as necessary to

prevent new or modified major sources

from causing or contributing to a

NAAQS violation. He proposed that, as

a minimum, an approvable section

51.165(b) program would merely have to

require emission offsets which: (1)

Provide a net air quality benefit, and (2)

conform with creditability criteria at

least as stringent as the offset criteria

set forth under section 51.18(j)

[recodified as 51.165(a)]. However,

because of the broad range of

nonattainment situations that section

51.165(b) would be expected to deal

with in the absence of Part D

applicability for PMo, the Administrator

also requested comments concerning the

need to impose additional Part D-like

requirements such as LAER and

statewide compliance.

The Administrator's proposal with

respect to the proposed secondary TSP

NAAQS called for a continuation of the

Part D-based NSR requirements except

for the construction ban under section

52.24 should he select the Part D

implementation pathway as proposed.

Thus sources proposing to locate in

areas designated nonattainment under

section 107 for TSP would have been

required to fully offset their proposed

particulate matter emissions, apply

LAER, and ensure that all other sources

under common ownership statewide

were in compliance or on a compliance

schedule.

If he were to choose to implement the

revised TSP secondary NAAQS under

section 110 rather than Part D, the

Administrator indicated that the PSD

requirements in conjunction with the

section 51.165(b) requirements would

apply to TSP in the same manner as

proposed for the primary PMo NAAQS.

Moreover, in the event that the

Administrator set the secondary

NAAQS equivalent in all respects to the

primary PMo NAAQS, then the

preconstruction requirements proposed

for the primary PMo NAAQS would

apply for the secondary NAAQS as

well.

Finally, while proposing that no

construction ban under either section

110(a)(2)(1) or section 173(4) of the Act

would apply to PM1o, the Administrator

raised the issue of whether to consider

imposition of a construction ban for

PMo under authority of section 301 if a

State failed to meet its obligation to

24705
24706 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

submit an acceptable plan revision

within the required 9-month time frame

or failed to implement a plan after it had

been approved.

The commenters' views on the

proposed NSR requirements were

generally based on whether they

supported a section 110 or a Part D

implementation pathway. The majority

of commenters, believing that the

development of SIP's for any NAAQS

revision should be governed by section

110, opposed any retention of Part Dbased NSR requirements. These

commenters supported an offset

requirement under section 51.165(b) as

proposed, but disagreed that EPA had

any authority to impose LAER or other

requirements under Part D or the Offset

Rule-even during the interim period

before States submitted and received

EPA approval of their section 51.165(b)

program for PMo.

A few commenters who supported an integrated section 110/Part D

implementation pathway felt that it

would be inappropriate for EPA not to

continue imposing Part D NSR

requirements where PMlo NAAQS

violations may exist. One commenter

stated that by failing to do so, one must

conclude that Congress intended a more relaxed regime for the persistent

particulate matter problems than it

required earlier for initial particulate

matter nonattainment problems.

For reasons stated earlier, the

Administrator finds no statutory basis

for applying Part D to PM10 and thus it

would not be appropriate to try to

impose for PMo purposes the NSR

requirements for LAER or statewide

compliance contained in Part D of tne

Act. The Administrator here wishes to

reemphasize the fact that the

nonapplicability of Part D does not

result simply because EPA is revising

the NAAQS for particulate matter, but

because such revisions are believed to

result in significant new planning

burdens required to demonstrate

attainment of the revised PMo

standards.

In taking the position that Part D does

not apply to the revised primary

NAAQS, the Administrator

acknowledges that, as one commenter

noted, the NSR program for PMo may in

some respects represent a relaxation of

the nonattainment NSR program that

had been required for TSP. The

Administrator believes that this must

occur, however, under the

implementation scheme that Congress

appears to have intended when a

NAAQS revision causes significant new

planning burdens. Nevertheless% States

are still required to revise their SIP's

(including the applicable NSR

requirements) to demonstrate

attainment of the revised NAAQS

within the time frame required by

Congress. Even if the PMo

preconstruction review program adopted

by a State appears to be a weakened

one by comparison, the PMo SIP must

show that attainment of the revised

NAAQS will occur within 3 years.

Where violations of the PMo NAAQS

already exist, some States may indeed

find that the minimum required offset

program under section 51.165(b) is not

adequate to address the nonattainment

problem. Such States must then decide

to what extent it may be appropriate to

establish additional preconstruction

review requirements for major new or

modified sources under section 51.165(b)

in addition to requiring emission

reductions from existing sources of

PMo. The Act, under a section 110

implementation pathway, gives States

adequate flexibility to take the measures

they deem appropriate and necessary to

demonstrate attainment of the revised

PMo NAAQS within 3 years.

Several commenters opposed EPA's

proposal to apply the requirements

under the offset rule to govern certain

preconstruction review until the State

submitted and received EPA approval of

its section 51.165(b) program for PM 0.

These commenters stated that EPA is

not justified in proposing to impose the

Part D-type requirements of the offset

rule, i.e., LAER and certification of

statewide compliance, until the State

has failed to meet the statutory deadline

for achieving the revised NAAQS.

The EPA has reviewed the proposal in

light of these comments and agrees that

it would not be appropriate to apply the

requirements of the offset rule to PMo at

this time. However, until States revise

their SIP's to demonstrate attainment

and maintenance of PMo NAAQS and

presumably redesignate TSP

nonattainment areas to unclassifiable

areas, they will be expected to continue

implementing, where applicable, a

preconstruction. review program for

particulate matter based on their

existing TSP-based nonattainment area

requirements which may include the

provisions of the offset rule. The

requirements which the Administrator is

today promulgating will not seek to

impose the offset rule directly with

respect to PMo.

An air pollution control agency

opposed EPA's proposal to use only

section 51.165(b) to define NSR

permitting requirements for PMo. The

commenter criticized EPA's approach by

saying that due to the language of the

regulation, section 51.165(b) could

neither adequately address PMo

nonattainment situations nor ensure

progress toward attaining the PM1o

standards. At. the center of the

commenter's concern is the ambient

impact screening test which EPA allows

States to use as part of the applicability

requirements for section 51.165(b). First,

the commenter claimed that section

51.165(b) would provide no effective

control of PM 0 emission growth because

new sources could be permitted to

construct without sufficient mitigation if

modeling fails to demonstrate a

significant ambient impact. In

comparison, under EPA's Part D-based

nonattainment NSR requirements, there

would be no ambient test and each

major source locating in a

nonattainment area would be presumed

to contribute to the existing air quality

problem.

Second, the commenter stated that

section 51.165(b) provides no mechanism

for addressing precursors to

nonattainment pollutants. That is,

because of the ambient impact screening

test, section 51.165(b) is dependent on

the capability of models which are not

available to accurately predict

downwind concentrations.

In response to the commenter's first

concern, section 51.165(b) does allow

states to exclude certain sources from

its coverage on the basis of their

insignificant modeled ambient impact.

In proposing the significant ambient

impact levels for PMo, EPA sought to

enable States to use the same de

minimis modeling test for PMo that is

already available for other criteria

pollutants to determine whether the

modeled ambient impact of a new

source or modification would

significantly affect the air quality. At

points beyond the location where a

source would have significant modeled

impacts, the source's impact would not

be sufficient to cause or contribute to a

NAAQS violation.

These de minimis numbers are keyed

to the limits of reliability of the models

used to predict a source's ambient

impact some distance away. The

commenter correctly points out that the

use of such significant levels may not be

desirable for applying the section

51.165(b) program to PM , o when a

serious nonattainment situation is

known to exist in the area where a

source proposes to locate. (A similar

problem could occur for any other

pollutant as well when a State chooses

not to redesignate an area to

nonattainment under section 107 even

though a widespread nonattainment

situation may exist.)

Under such conditions of widespread

NAAQS violations, EPA advises States

to consider a more stringent
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

applicability framework than the one

minimally set forth under section

51.165(b), based on criteria other than

modeled ambient impacts. Such

additional stringency could include a

provision to require offsets from all

sources-even those that the ambient

screening test would otherwise exempt.

The Administrator continues to believe,

however, that it is generally reasonable

to apply the de minimis test under

section 51.165(b) to determine whether

the modeled ambient impact of a source

would significantly affect air quality.

Since that is the intended purpose of the

de minimis provisions, EPA therefore

finds it appropriate to promulgate the

proposed PMo values.

It should be pointed out that when a

source is allowed to be excluded from

the section 51.165(b) requirements on the

basis of its de minimis impact in the

affected area, the SIP for PMo must

continue to account for any potential

accumulation of such allowed de

minimis emission increases which affect

the NAAQS exceedance. Presumably

the SIP will address this through

additional emission reductions at

existing sources.

In response to the commenter's

second concern about the lack of models

to predict PMo levels caused by

precursors, the Administrator

anticipates that this is only a temporary

drawback. The EPA is developing

modeling methods that will estimate

ground level PM1o concentrations caused

by precursors. Where the contribution of

PM1o precursors is anticipated to be of

significant concern, EPA also permits

the development of site-specific models

to estimate precursor contribution to the

source's ambient PMo impact.

The same government agency

commenter, noting that EPA proposed to

grant States considerable flexibility in

designing their emission offset program

under section 51.165(b), suggested that

intrapollutant offsets for secondary

pollutants be accepted as mitigation for

PM,o emission increases. The

Administrator recognizes that secondary

aerosols in the form of sulfates and

nitrates may contribute significantly to

the ambient PMo levels in a number of

locations and believes that in certain

situations intrapollutant offsets could be

considered appropriate to enable States

to effectively address such problems.

This matter further points to the need for

models to predict the ambient PMo

concentrations caused by PM,o

precursors. The Administrator intends to

review on a case-by-case basis State

requests to incorporate in the SIP a

provision which would allow precursor

offsets for PMo.

Several commenters supported the

need for creditability criteria for

emission offsets required as part of a

section 51.165(b) program; however, two

commenters specifically questioned the

need for the offsets to be federally

enforceable. One commenter in

particular claimed that the process of

ensuring that an offset is "federally

enforceable" rather than simply "enforceable" can be burdensome, timeconsuming, costly, and unnecessary if

the source owner is already subject to a

State permit condition that requires the

emission reduction and is enforceable

by the State.

The general issue of federally

enforceable emission reductions

(offsets) is being addressed in a

separate rulemaking action. On August

25, 1983, EPA proposed amendments

which among other things proposed

changes to the Federal enforceability

requirements contained in a number of

preconstruction review provisions,

including the requirement for federally

enforceable emission reductions (48 FR

38742). Specifically, EPA proposed to

delete the requirement in section

51.18(j)(3)(ii)(e) [recodified as

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(e)] that emission offsets

obtained by one source from another

source in order to obtain

preconstruction approval be federally

enforceable. Subsequent to that

proposal, EPA received extensive public

comment which is being subjected to

careful review.

The Administrator finds no basis for

evaluating the issue of Federal

enforceability separately with regard to

PMo and he will take final action on the

August 25, 1983, proposal at the

appropriate time. Until such time as a

final action is taken, the requirement for

Federal enforceability of emission

offsets will continue to apply to all

pollutants, including PMlo. In the event

that EPA deletes the existing

requirement for Federal enforceability in

section 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(e), then the

change would also be applied to PSD

offsets.

A number of commenters strongly

opposed any attempt by the

Administrator to impose a construction

ban for PMo under any circumstances.

Some of these commenters noted that

section 110 does not provide the

Administrator with any authority to

reestablish a ban to stimulate timely

PMo SIP development. Other

commenters agreed, adding that even

section 301 with its narrow, gap-filling

grant of authority is not an appropriate

implementation vehicle for something as "major, extraordinary, and

controversial" as the ban.

Some commenters expressed the

opinion that imposition of a construction

ban could actually worsen the

nonattainment problem because it

would prevent areas from obtaining the

net emission reductions provided by

new and modified sources through their

offsets and also the replacement of

older, higher emitting facilities with

newer, better controlled ones.

A few commenters noted that the ban

penalizes the wrong party since

stationary sources are generally not

responsible for inadequate SIP's. Others

added that a better way to deal with

recalcitrant States is to use the funding

sanctions of section 176(b) and 105, and

the EPA SIP promulgation authority of

section 110(c)(1), all of which directly

affect the States.

Two commenters stated that if the

ban is to be used, it should be imposed

only on a case-by-case basis after an

opportunity for a public hearing, and

only when emissions from stationary

sources are the cause of the problem.

In support of a construction ban,

several commenters stated that the

existing construction ban is applicable

because section 110(a)(2)(I) applies to all

post-1979 SIP submissions. One of these

commenters stated that if EPA decides

that section 110(a)(2)(I) does not apply,

then it would be appropriate for EPA to

establish a provision equivalent to

section 110(a)(2)(1).

Because the Administrator has

concluded that Congress did not intend

the Part D requirements to apply to such

NAAQS revisions as are being

promulgated today, it would be

inappropriate in the absence of statutory

authority for EPA to impose the existing

Part D-based ban provisions under

section 110(a)(2)(I) and section 173(4)

with respect to PMo. In addition,

today's action does not include any new

provisions for imposing a construction

ban for PM10 sources under the

Administrator's section 301 authority.

The EPA does not believe it would be

appropriate to consider the need to

impose such a ban until States have first

had an opportunity to prepare and begin

implementing SIP's which provide for

attainment of the revised PMo NAAQS.

Nevertheless, EPA intends to fully

analyze all of the legal issues and

reserve for a future determination the

appropriateness of, and authority for,

imposing a construction ban under

sections 110(c) and 301 of the Act on a

case-by-case basis in States that fail to

develop PMo SIP's in a timely manner

or fail to implement a PMo SIP after it

has been approved by EPA. Where

authorized and appropriate, EPA will

also consider the use of other sanctions,

24707
24708 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

such as funding sanctions or Federal

rule promulgation to stimulate the

development and implementation of

plans which adequately demonstrate

timely attainment and maintenance of

the PM10 NAAQS.

E. Comments on Technical Issues

Along with the notice of proposed

rulemaking, EPA issued a draft "PM10

SIP Development Guideline." Several

comments were received regarding

development of PMlo emission

inventories, air quality modeling

procedures, PMo source testing

procedures, and other matters covered

in the guideline.

1. Preparing an Emission Inventory

Several commenters recommended

that EPA amend its PMo SIP

Development Guideline to provide

guidance on how to inventory directly

emitted nitrates and sulfates and that

the definitions of "particulate matter

emissions" and "PMo emissions" be

revised to include secondary particulate

matter precursor emissions.

The size specific emission factors

developed by EPA for various

particulate matter source categories

include directly emitted nitrates and

sulfates, but do not specifically identify

the portion of the emission factor that is

primary nitrate or sulfate. However,

EPA has published chemical

characterization information for a

number of source categories which

could be used to estimate the fractional

emissions of primary nitrates and

sulfates. This information is available in

Receptor Model Source Composition

Library, EPA-450/4/85-O02.0

The EPA does not agree that

secondary particulate matter precursor

emissions should be included in the

definition of particulate matter

emissions. Particulate matter emissions

are intended to include materials which

are directly emitted from sources as

particles. Directly emitted particles are

distinctly different from secondarily

formed particles, which are emitted as

gases and form particulate matter as a

result of chemical reactions that occur

some time after being emitted by a

source. As such, secondary particulate

matter precursor emissions contribute to

ambient PMo concentrations but do not

contribute to PMo emissions per se.

2. Emission Factors

Commenters stated that EPA has no

detailed emission information upon

which to base the development of PM1o

emission factors since a standard

reference source test method has not

been adopted for PMo emissions. The

commenters believe there are significant

technical problems with the two basic

PMo measuring techniques (cascade

impactors and multistage cyclones) and

with measuring condensible particulate

matter. Also, the commenters allege that

the use of particle size fraction

multipliers in conjunction with existing

emission factors requires excessive

attention to specific source

characteristics to prepare a realistic

emission inventory.

As part of a special data collection

effort to develop PMo emission factors

for certain source categories, starting in

the 1970's, EPA tested and evaluated

several particle size source sampling

techniques. The PMlo source test

protocols were developed and utilized in

collecting data for the development of

PMo emission factors under this

program. While it is true that EPA does

not have a standard reference method

for PMo source testing, the Agency

believes the data collected under the

special PMo emission factor program

were of good quality. Nevertheless, it is

generally recognized that much of the

particle size data collected and reported

in the literature in the past are of limited

value. Literature data were used by EPA

to develop emission factors for sources

not tested under EPA's field program.

The limited quality of these data has

been generally noted by the use of

EPA's letter rating system for emission

factors.

The EPA recommends that sourcespecific emission data be collected to

characterize emissions from any

particular source. This is particularly

true for large point sources of PMo,

whose emissions are known to be a

function of identifiable process and

design variables. Emission factors and/

or fractional multipliers are intended to

be used as a fallback to estimate

emissions when source specific data are

not available.

The fractional multipliers represent an

average of available test data and are

most appropriately applied when

estimating emissions from numerous

sources in an areawide source

inventory. Because these multipliers are

averages, they will yield emission

estimates and distributions that may not

necessarily be representative of an

individual source. However, when

applied to multiple sources, these

differences tend to balance out across

the inventory. The EPA published

particle sized emission factors in the

Compilation of Emission Factors, AP42, in September 1985 and Supplement A

which was issued in October 1986.p The

EPA will continue to develop and

update PMo emissions factors as more

data become available.

3. Receptor Modeling

Industrial commenters stated that the

receptor modeling techniques

recommended by EPA (chemical mass

balance, automated scanning

microscopy and optical microscopy)

have limitations that make their general

endorsement for SIP development

inappropriate at this time. They felt EPA

should acknowledge that there are

certain situations, primarily in simple air

sheds, in which use of these techniques

by technicians trained to understand the

capabilities and limitations of each

techinque would assist in control

strategy development. They

recommended EPA should concentrate

on standardizing and providing better

guidance and training regarding these

techniques.

The EPA does recognize the

limitations (and strengths) of receptor

modeling and our guidance reflects this.

Receptor models should be used

collaboratively with dispersion models,

where possible, to apportion the

contribution of sources to various

receptors.

The EPA guidance reflects the fact

that chemical mass balance (CMB) is

most useful in those cases where: (1)

The identification of source categories

will provide sufficient information or,

alternatively, that the impacts of specific

sources within a category can be

allocated by emission inventories or

models; (2) the number of major

impacting categories in an air shed is

likely to be small. The EPA recommends

that source profiles, based on sourcespecific data, be used in CMB just as

source emission measurements are

preferred to the use of AP-42 factors as

the basis for emission estimates in

dispersion model. As a fall-back, EPA

has developed a source composition

library which is a compendium of

available source profile information that

assigns a rating to each profile to assist

the user in determining its usefulness. It

is agreed that a PMo CMB analysis on

TSP glass fiber filters is likely to be

unsatisfactory in complex air sheds. The

proposed guidance recommends that a

CMB analysis be corroborated if

possible by microscopic analysis, if TSP

data collected on glass fiber filters are

all that are available. Many areas have

(or will have) PMo or PM15 data

collected on quartz fiber filters or Teflon

filters or will likely obtain additional

samples prior to SIP preparation.

Microscopic techniques will likewise

be useful in conjunction with some

models. Microscopy is less useful when

a TSP sample collected on glass fiber

filters is all that is available; it has been,
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

however, demonstrated to be valid as a

corroborative technique with

appropriately collected samples.

Agencies with moderately

sophisticated technical staffs should be

able to perform the CMB analysis after

appropriate training. The EPA has

conducted five workshops on receptor

modeling nationwide; several have been

conducted by the Air Pollution Control

Association and private consultants

have conducted several. The EPA has

published a six-volume set of technical

reports on receptor models which is

available from NTIS. Volume IV of the

Receptor Model Technical Series

provides useful information to agencies

interested in commissioning studies or

interpreting results, though it is not an

exhaustive treatment of the subject.

In some cases, a consultant will need

to provide the necessary analyses just

as some dispersion modeling is done by

consultants. The EPA is revising the

users guide for the CMB model and

preparing a protocol for application and

validation of that model, as well as a

document explaining how differences

between receptor and dispersion model

results can be reconciled. r,

s.t

4. Dispersion Modeling

Two commenters raised concerns

about the availability and applicability

of air quality dispersion models in

complex terrain. Both commenters

suggested EPA either approve air quality

dispersion models for use in such terrain

or permit the use of simpler approaches.

Commenters also raised concerns

about the ability of current air quality

dispersion models to assess the impact

of particle formation as a result of

oxides of sulfur and nitrogen emitted to

the atmosphere, i.e., secondary aerosols,

on PMo air quality.

Commenters asserted that fine

particles in general, and secondary

aerosols in particular, are potentially

major contributors to PM10 in some

areas and may originate outside of the

region under the control of local or State

authorities. They alleged gaseous as

well as particulate matter emissions

reductions may be needed to reduce

PMo concentrations and that distant

sources of precursors may prove

difficult to identify.

The EPA does not intend that each

area where complex terrain is of

concern develop its own model where

the State believes the available

techniques do not accurately describe

the physical circumstances. To eliminate

the use of air quality dispersion models

in complex terrain would be

inappropriate because while receptor

modeling and other similar approaches

provide information relevant to the SIP

development effort, analyses using air

quality dispersion models are more

likely to include the meteorological

circumstances resulting in the maximum

expected air quality concentrations.

The EPA proposed the addition of

another complex terrain screening

model, the Rough Terrain Diffusion

Model (RTDM), for use in performing

these air quality analyses on September

9, 1986 (51 FR 32180). Use of these

techniques, when approved, should

result in more credible analyses of

complex terrain impacts.

With regard to secondary aerosol,

preliminary analysis of fine particulate

matter data collected in the National

Inhalable Particulate Network indicates

that sulfate and nitrate generally total

less than half of fine particulate matter

on days with high concentrations. This

indicates that a substantial portion of

fine particulate matter in urban areas is

likely to be of local origin.

The formation of secondary aerosols

is the concern of many ongoing research

activities within EPA as well as the

scientific community at large. The

validity of models that represent the

formation of secondary aerosols must,

however, be demonstrated to EPA, and

approval for application of such models

in a specific area must be received

before incorporating the results in a SIP.

The EPA is developing a model, the

Particulate Episodic Model (PEM-2),

that calculates for either one or two

pollutants the average surface

concentrations of both the primary

(reactant) and secondary (reaction

products) pollutants, provided they are

coupled through a first-order chemical

transformation. Its use in specific

regulatory applications will have to wait

until the model and its associated

limitations can be established.

Where the contribution of secondary

aerosols is anticipated to be of

significant concern, EPA permits the

development of site-specific models to

address these concerns. With respect to

determining distant sources of

precursors, EPA is evaluating the

performance of long range transport

models. Therefore, none can be

recommended at this time on other than

a case-by-case basis. Recommendations

on the use of long-range transport

models will be accomplished through

revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality

Models." Appendix D of the SIP

development guideline provides

guidance on identifying the background

portion of PMo and provides a working

definition of background.

5. Source Sampling Devices and

Procedures

A commenter stated that the two

techniques available to measure PM,o in

a gas stream, cascade impactors and

cyclone samplers, have numerous

problems. Specifically, the commenter

alleged that cascade impactors:

a. Are very sensitive to small weight

changes and operator error;

b. Are not versatile enough to

measure wide variations of particle

concentrations and size distribution;

c. Have significant wall losses;

d. Are subject to particle bounce

which affects reliability:

e. Are affected by reactions between

the collection medium and SO2 in the

gas stream; and

f. Have difficulty achieving isokinetic

sampling.

The commenter also alleged that

cyclone samplers have many of the

same problems, and that there is very

little experience using cyclone samplers.

Appendix C of the PMo SIP

Development Guideline describes

modified Method 5 source sampling

procedures that can be used to measure

PMo in a gas stream. The EPA believes

Appendix C procedures can be used by

knowledgeable source testing personnel

in the interim until development of a

PMo reference method is completed.

Several precautionary statements are

made in Appendix C to make clear the

fact that size selective measurements

are more complex and require greater

skill and attention to detail than Method

5 and 17 tests. Regarding sampler

versatility, any one of several devices

will cover the majority of conditions in

ducts downstream of particulate matter

controls with gas temperatures less than

650 *F. Wall losses for particles smaller

than 10 micrometers are acceptably

small, particle bounce can be avoided

with proper operation, and reactions of

SO 2 with the filter media can be

prevented by pretreatment of the filter

media.

6. Data Reduction

A commenter stated that the PADRE

computer routine for test data reduction

has shortcomings that make prediction

of actual PMo emissions difficult.

Specifically, the commenter stated, the

PADRE program:

a. Allows the use of generic

calibration constants;

b. Uses fixed cut-point data for any

preseparator device; and

c. Requires designation of a maximum

expected particle diameter within the

sample.

24709
24710 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

The PADRE was developed for

analysis of cascade impactor data. It was used to facilitate entry of particle

size data into the Fine Particle Emission

Inventory System (FPEIS). The PADRE

contains an algorithm for interpolating

and to some degree extrapolating data

to obtain size distribution information at

diameters other than those provided

directly by the impactors. The accuracy

of this algorithm has been demonstrated

to be reliable. The "generic" calibration

constants used in PADRE are based on averages of calibration data for several

specific samplers of each model of

cascade impactor. When the

corresponding stages from all units of

the same model are averaged, the

standard deviation of the averages for

each stage are typically within 8 percent

of the mean values.

The PADRE program does not assume

a fixed preseparator cut point. Because

equations and constants governing the

performance of various precollectors are

not the same, operators are expected to

verify the cut point and input the correct

value as part of the data entry into

PADRE.

The maximum particle size of concern

in the PADRE input is the maximum size

in the sample. This can be measured

with sufficient accuracy using a microscope. This value is used to

establish a boundary condition in the

algorithm used to extrapolate data to

diameters larger than the maximum

stage or precollector cut size. Since 10

micrometers is almost always within the

span covered by the impactor and

precollector cuts, extrapolation of data

should seldom be needed. The EPA

believes these procedures can yield

results adequate for development of site

specific emission factors if the suggested

precautions are taken.

F. Comments on Miscellaneous Issues

1. Impact on New Source Performance

Standards Program

The current 22 NSPS that reflect best

demonstrated control technology for

particulate matter have the effect of

controlling PMo. Therefore, EPA

proposed to take the following actions

on NSPS in response to a revision of the

particulate matter standards:

(1) Complete an assessment of the

current NSPS to determine whether or

not to revise them because of PMo

considerations. The assessment would

identify the source categories that are

significant emitters of PM1o and

condensible gases that form PMo in the

ambient air after release from the stack,

and the effectiveness of the controls

required to reduce such emissions. The

EPA would then proceed to revise the

NSPS; giving highest priority to the most

significant emitters of PMo.

(2) Assess all NSPS for effectiveness

in controlling PM1o when reviewed

periodically as required by section

111(b)(1)(B) of the Act; and

(3) Consider PMo in developing any

future NSPS.

Several commenters stated that there

is no inconsistency between having

TSP-based NSPS requirements and

having PMo as the indicator of

particulate matter in the NAAQS. The

particulate matter regulated by the

NSPS is measured by Reference Method

5, and is probably closer in size to PMto

than TSP after passing through the

particulate matter control device almost

invariably required on any source of

such emissions subject to NSPS

requirements.

The EPA acknowledges that NSPS for

sources of particulate matter are not

based on the NAAQS indicator whether

that indicator is TSP or PM10. Rather the

standards are based on the effectiveness

of control technology as measured by

various reference test methods.

Consequently, EPA does not intend to

revise any NSPS at this time to account

for revisions to the NAAQS. Since

proposal, EPA has completed a draft

screening study that identifies the NSPS

source categories that are significant

emitters of PMo. As part of any future

review of these NSPS under section

111(b)(1)(B] of the Act, EPA will

consider the effectiveness of the NSPS

in controlling PM1o. The EPA will also

consider PMo control in developing any

future NSPS.

2. Economic Impact

The EPA determined that the

particulate matter NAAQS proposal of

March 20, 1984, was a major action and

prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA) as required by Executive Order

(E.O.) 12291. However, the EPA

determined that the proposal of April 2,

1985, as to how the standards will be

implemented, did not in itself result in

the economic effects set forth in Section

I of the E.O. as grounds for finding a

regulation to be a major rule.

A commenter disagreed with the

Administrator's finding that the

implementation proposal is not in itself

a major action, especially if the PMlo

standards are selected from the low end

of the range proposed.

The EPA recognized that selection of

a PMto standard in the lower part of the

range would be a major action.

Accordingly, both the draft and final

RIA account for those impacts. That

analysis is discussed in the final action on new particulate matter standards

that appears elsewhere in this Federal

Register and is also available in Docket

No. A-82-37. Since both the draft and

final RIA account for the level of the

NAAQS selected, the EPA determined

that no separate study was required for

related actions taken to implement the

NAAQS.

3. Annual Source Emissions Reporting

The proposal required States to report

annually both particulate matter

emissions data and PMo emissions data

and specified procedures applicable to

annual reporting of emissions for both

pollutants.

One State commented that it expects

to estimate directly emitted amounts of

PMo by multiplying total particulate

matter emissions [as reported to the

National Emissions Data System

(NEDS)] by PM1o size fractions and

added that, "EPA has PMo size

fractions and could apply them to

existing NEDS data for particulate

matter." Based on this, and "the small

contribution of point sources," the State

proposed that EPA require PM1o

emissions reporting only for sources

where estimates are not made by

applying a PM1o fraction to total

particulate matter emissions.

Since the Administrator has

determined that the indicator for the

secondary standard should also be

changed from TSP to PMo, EPA does

not require, as was proposed, annual

reporting of both particulate matter

emissions and PMo emissions. Required

annual reporting of particulate matter

emissions ends with State reporting of

calendar year 1987 emissions. Required

annual reporting of PMo emissions

begins with State reporting of calendar

year 1988 emissions. Since the reporting

burden will not increase and since the

ratio of PMo emissions to particulate

matter emissions can vary greatly

among sources, it is better for the State

to choose the appropriate method of

determining PMo emissions for each

source.

One State noted that a basic problem

will be the establishment of PMo

emission factors for sources and default

values where data do not exist. This

State also said that the criteria for

source emissions reporting for PMo

should be a lower number than for

particulate matter "as proposed in the

offset rule significant emission rate

determination."

The EPA agrees that providing

emissions factors and default values is

critical to the States' capabilities to

comply with EPA's PMo emissions

reporting requirements. The EPA plans

to provide this and other necessary

information to States by the time needed
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

to meet the reporting requirements. The

States' first annual reporting of PMio

emissions begins with the reporting of

calendar year 1988 emissions. Regarding

the differences in the criteria for

emissions reporting and the criteria for "significant emission rate

determination" in the offset rule, EPA

agrees that a lower number for reporting

PM1o would prove useful, since it could

continue to require approximately the

same number of sources to be reported.

However, the reporting system is

generally set up to track sources with

100 tpy or more of actual emissions

regardless of the pollutant or the method

used to measure that pollutant. This

keeps the system limited to the very

large sources of each pollutant, and EPA

feels still provides the data needed for

various types of national analyses at

minimal resource costs. The "significance" values in the offset rule

serve a totally different purpose; they

are potential emissions (not actual) used

to determine whether an emissions

increase at an existing source should be

subject to preconstruction review. The

threshold values for new source

preconstruction review, also in the

offset rule, are generally 100 tpy for

major sources as defined by statute

which fits in well with the reporting

requirement. Therefore, the threshold

limit for emission reporting is not being

changed.

One commenter stated that reporting

PMo emissions to the Hazardous and

Trace Emissions System (HATREMS)

with other pollutants opens the door for

false accusation of emitters of PMo as

being emitters of hazardous materials.

The EPA's proposal to report PMo

emissions to HATREMS was strictly for

the purpose of data management. The

NEDS does not have the capability to

store data for both particulate matter

and PM1 o. The EPA plans to replace both

the NEDS and HATREMS with a new

facility subsystem being developed as

part of the Aerometric Inventory

Retrieval System. The subsystem will be

able to store and retrieve emission data

on all pollutants.

G. Comments on Procedural Issues

1. Extension of the Comment Period and

Public Hearing

The proposal allowed a 60-day

comment period for submission of

written comments. It also provided an

opportunity for oral comment and stated

that persons wishing to present oral

testimony at a public hearing should

notify EPA within 2 weeks of

publication of the proposal.

Several commenters requested a 60-

day extension in the comment period.

One commenter made a request 45 days

after the proposal notice requesting that

EPA schedule a public hearing for a

reasonable time (30 days) after the close

of the comment period.

The EPA granted a 30-day extension

of the public comment period. The EPA

believes that a 90-day comment period

provided the public with ample

opportunity to submit written comments.

The EPA did not hold a public hearing

because only one commenter requested

it, and the request was not made until 30

days after the deadline established in

the proposal notice for such requests.

The EPA felt that one untimely request

did not indicate sufficient interest to

justify scheduling a public hearing.

2. Reproposal

Because no scientific consensus

existed on specific levels for the

standards, and the analytical and policy

basis for making these decisions under

the statute were limited and difficult to

implement, the Administrator did not

propose specific standard levels but

proposed a range of levels in the March

1984 proposal. The April 2, 1985,

proposal of regulations for implementing

revised particulate matter standards

also included a variety of scenarios and

implementation issues. The EPA

proposed to implement a PMo primary

standard under section 110 of the Act

rather than Part D. The SIP development

policy proposed was essentially the

same as that promulgated today (i.e.,

dividing the country into Group 1, 11, and

III areas). Implementation policies for a

TSP secondary standard were proposed

for both the section 110 and Part D

pathways.

Several commenters felt that it was

virtually impossible to comment on

implementation of the revised

particulate matter NAAQS as proposed

because of the numerous alternative

scenarios, what tney termed undue

complexity, and in places alleged

incomprehensibility of EPA's discussion

of its regulatory package. The commenters listed several

problem areas where they felt

uncertainties must be resolved before an

actual proposal on implementation

issues could be published on which the

public could meaningfully comment.

Among these problem areas were: (1)

Lack of a reference method for

measuring particulate matter stack

emissions; (2) lack of specified

numerical values for the PM,o primary

standards; (3) lack of a decision on

whether the secondary standard would

be expressed as TSP or PM,o, and the

specific numerical value for the

secondary standard; and (4) lack of a

clear legal "pathway" chosen to

implement the revised standards. Thus,

the commenters felt EPA should

withdraw the April 2, 1985, proposal and

rewrite, simplify, and repropose the

PMo implementation action after final

action on the standards.

The EPA agrees that the proposal

presented many options. However, EPA

believes that each option was discussed

in detail and the public had meaningful

opportunity to comment on each option

even though they did not know which

option EPA would eventually choose.

The EPA cannot repropose the SIP

implementing provisions after the

NAAQS are finalized because the Act

requires the States to implement the

standards as soon as they become

effective. The Act requires States to

submit SIP's to EPA within 9 months of

promulgation of a standard. If EPA

reproposed the SIP implementation

regulations and policy when the

NAAQS were promulgated, EPA could

not finalize them soon enough to give

States time to develop their SIP

submittals within 9 months.

VII. Regulatory and Environmental

Impacts

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under E.0. 12291, EPA must determine

whether a regulation is a "major rule"

for which an RIA is required. The EPA

has determined the particulate matter

NAAQS revision is a major action, and

has prepared a RIA which is discussed

in that notice. This action addresses the

implementation of the revised NAAQS

and does not itself result in the

economic effects set forth in Section I of

the E.O. as grounds for finding this

regulation to be a major rule.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires that all Federal agencies

consider the impacts of final regulations

on small entities, which are defined to

be small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. section 601 et

seq.). The EPA has considered the

potential impacts of revising the

particulate matter NAAQS on small

entity groups and included a detailed

discussion of that effort in Section V.F.

of the RIA. The reader is referred to that

discussion for further details.

C. Impact on Reporting Requirements

The revisions to Parts 51 and 52 were

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review as

required by EO 12291. The reporting and

recordkeeping provision addressed in

this notice, moreover, have been

submitted separately for review by OMB

24711
24712 Federal. Register./ Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

under section 3504(b) of the Paperwork

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

seq. The OMB comments and EPA

responses to those comments are

available for public inspection in the

docket for this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR'Part 51

Administrative practice and

procedure, air pollution control,

intergovernmental relations, reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

hydrocarbons, ozone, carbon monoxide,

sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, lead,

particulate matter, State implementation

plans.

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, ozone, sulfur

oxides, nitrogen dioxide, lead, carbon

monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate

matter.

Dated: June 2, 1987.

lUe M. Thomas,

Administrator.

References

a. Tuerk, Edward F. (Acting Assistant

Administrator for-Air and Waste.

Management) "Guideline on SIP

Development and New Source Review

in Areas Impacted by Fugitive Dust."

Memorandum to Regional

Administrators. August 16, 1977.

b. Woodard, Kenneth R. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Plans

and Policy Section. PM1o Nonattainment

Areas. Memorandum to David.

Stonefield, Chief, Plans and Policy

Section, February 1987.

c. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "PMo SIP Development

Guideline." Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research.

Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/2-86-001,

February 1987.

d. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Procedures for Estimating

Probability of Nonattainment of a PMo

NAAQS Using Total Suspended

Particulate Matter or PMo Data." Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-86-017, December 1986.

e. Purdue, L. et.al. "Intercomparison of

High-Volume Samplers at a Site with

High Particulate Concentrations,"

JAPCA, Vol. 36, No. 8, August 1986, pp.

917-920.

f. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Guideline on Exceptions to

Data Requirements for Determining

Attainment of Particulate Matter

Standards." Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, N.C. September 1986.

g, Meyers, Sheldon [Director, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards]

Section 107 Designation Policy

Summary, Memorandum to Directors of

Air Management Divisions, Regions I-X,

April 21, 1983.

h. Emison, Gerald A. [Director, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards]

Total Suspended Particulate

Redesignations. Memorandum to

Directors of Air Divisions, Regions I-X,

September 30, 1985.

i. Hawkins, David G. [Assistant

Administrator for Air and, Waste

Management]. Model Letter Regarding

State Designation of Attainment Status.

Memorandum to Regional

Administrators. October 7, 1977.

j. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Review of National Ambient

Air Quality Standards for Particulate

Matter: Assessment of Scientific and

Technical Information-OAQPS Staff

Paper." Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Research Triangle Park,

N.C. EPA 450-82001, NTIS PBB2-177874.

pp. 14-51. 1982.

m. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "An Examination of 1982-1983

Particulate Matter Ratios and Their Use

in the Examination of PMo NAAQS

Attainment Status." Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-85-010. August 1985.

n. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Ambient Monitoring

Guidelines for Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD)." Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-87-007, May 1987.

o. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Receptor Model Source

Composition Library." Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-85-002. November 1984.

p. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors, Fourth Edition,

Volume I, Supplement A." Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. October

1986.

q. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Receptor Model Technical

Series, Volume IV-Technical

Considerations in Source

Apportionment by Particle

Identification." Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/4-83-018.

June 1983,

r. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Receptor Model Technical

Series Volume Ill-User's Manual for

Chemical Mass Balance Model." Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,.

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-83-014, July 1983.

s. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Protocol for Applying and

Validating the CMBModel." Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-87-010, May 1987.

t. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Protocol for Reconciling

Differences Among Receptor-and

Dispersion Models." Office of Air

Quality Planning and, Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/

4-87-008, May 1987.

u. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Guideline on Air Quality

Models (Revised)." Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, N.C. EPA 450/2-78-027R,

July 1986.

v. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. "Regulatory Impact Analysis on

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Particulate Matter." Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. February

21, 1984:

PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, EPA amends Part 51 of

Chaptdr I of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 51 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: This rulemaking is promulgated

under authority of sections 101(b)(1), 110,

160-169, 171-178, and 301(a) of the Clean Air

Act 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1), 7410, 7470-7479,

7501-7508, and 7601(a).

2. In § 51.100, paragraphs (oo), (pp),

(qq), (rr) and (ss) are added to read as

follows:

§ 51.100 Definitions.

(oo) "Particulate matter" means any

airborne finely divided solid or liquid

material with an aerodynamic diameter

smaller than 100 micrometers.

(pp) "Particulate matter emissions"

means all finely divided solid or liquid

material, other than uncombined water,

emitted to the ambient air as measured

by applicable reference methods, or an

equivalent or alternative method,

specified in this chapter, or by a test

method specified in an approved State

implementation plan.

(qq) "PM1o" means particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter less than

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as

measured. by a reference method based,
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

on Appendix I of Part 50 of this chapter

and designated in accordance with Part

53 of this chapter or by an equivalent

method designated in accordance with

Part 53 of this chapter.

(rr} "PM1o emissions" means finely

divided solid or liquid material, with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers emitted to

the ambient air as measured by an

applicable reference method, or an

equivalent or alternative method,

specified in this chapter or by a test

method specified in an approved State

implementation plan.

(ss) "Total suspended particulate"

means particulate matter as measured

by the method described in Appendix B

of Part 50 of this chapter.

3. In § 51.151, the third unnumbered

subdivision beginning "sulfur dioxide

and particulate matter combined" is

removed and the second unnumbered

subdivision beginning "particulate

matter" is revised to read as follows:

§ 51.151 Significant harm levels. a * * a *

PM1O--600 micrograms/cubic meter; 24-

hour average. * a a * a

4. In § 51.165, the fourth entry in the

list in paragraph (a)(1)(x) is removed

and paragraph (b) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.151 Permit requirements.

(b)(1) Each plan shall include a

preconstruction review permit program

or its equivalent to satisfy the

requirements -f section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of

the Act for any new major stationary

source or major modification as defined

in paragraphs (a](1) (iv) and (v) of this

section. Such a program shall apply to

any such source or modification that

would locate in any area designated as

attainment or unclassifiable for any

national ambient air quality standard

pursuant to section 107 of the Act, when

it would cause or contribute to a

violation of any national ambient air

quality standard.

(2) A major source or major

modification will be considered to cause

or contribute to a violation of a national

ambient air quality standard when such

source or modification would, at a

minimum, exceed the following

significance levels at any locality that

does not or would not meet the

applicable national standard:

Averaging time (hours) Annual

24 8 3 1

Pollutant

S0 .......................... 1.0 .g/m 3 ................ 5 pg/m .................... .............................. 25 i / n/m3 ................. PM. ........................ 1.0 Pg/m ............... 5 Pg/m ................... ..............................

NO. .......................... 1.0 pg/m ................ ................. ...............................

CO ........................................................... .............................. 0.5 mg/m3............................... 2 mg/m

(3) Such a program may include a

provision which allows a proposed

major source or major modification

subject to paragraph (b) of this section

to reduce the impact of its emissions

upon air quality by obtaining sufficient

emission reductions to, at a minimum,

compensate for its adverse ambient

impact where the major source or major

modification would otherwise cause or

contribute to a violation of any national

ambient air quality standard. The plan

shall require that, in the absence of such

emission reductions, the State or local

agency shall deny the proposed

construction.

(4] The requirements of paragraph (b)

of this section shall not apply to a major

stationary source or.major modification

with respect to a particular pollutant if

the owner or operator demonstrates

that, as to that pollutant, the source or

modification is located in an area

designated as nonattainment pursuant

to section 107 of tne Act.

5. In § 51.166, paragraph (a)(6)(i) is

revised, the fourth entry in the list in

paragraph (b){23)(i) is revised, the

entries under the headings "Particulate

matter" in the tables in paragraphs (c)

and (p)(4) are revised, paragraphs

(i)(8)(i) (c), (f), (h), and (1) are revised,

and new paragraph (i)(10) is added to

read as follows:

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality.

(a) a a a

(6) a a *

(i) Any State required to revise its

implementation plan by reason of an

amendment to this section, including

any amendment adopted simultaneously

with this paragraph, shall adopt and

submit such plan revision to the

Administrator for approval within 9

months after the effective date of the

new amendments.

(b) a a a

(23)(i) a a a

Particulate matter: 25 tpy of particulate

matter emissions. 15 tpy of PMo emissions. * * * * *

(c) * * *

Maximum

allowable

increases

Pollutant (micrograms

per cubic

meter)

Class I

Particulate matter:

TSP, annual geometric mean ........................ 5

TSP, 24-hr maximum ................................... . 10

Class II

Particulate matter: I

TSP, annual geometric mean ........... *........... 19

TSP, 24-hr maximum ....................................... 37 .80

Class IIn

Particulate matter.

TSP; annual geometric mean ........................ 37

TSP, 24-hr maximum ....................................... 75

*i * * a

(8) a a *

(c) Particulate matter-l0 ,g/m 3 TSP,

24-hour average.-10 ;g/m3 PMlo, 24-

hour average. * * * * *

(j) Lead--O.1 tg/ms , 3-month average. , a *r * *

(h) Beryllium--0.001 t.g/m 3, 24-hour

average:

(I) Hydrogen sulfide-0.2 ikg/m3, 1-

hour average:

(10) If EPA approves a plan revision

under § 51.166 as in effect before 'July 31,

1987 , any subsequent revision which

meets the requirements of this section

may contain transition provisions which

parallel the transition provisions of

§52.21 (i](11)(i)(iii), and (m)(1) (vii) and

(viii) of this chapter as in effect on that

date, these provisions being related to

monitoring requirements for particulate

matter. Any such subsequent revision

may not contain any transition provision

which in the context of the revision

would operate any less stringently than

would its counterpart in § 52.21 of this

chapter.

* a a *t *

(p)

(4) * * *

Maximum

allowable

increases

Pollutant (micrograms per cubic

meter)

Particulate matter:

TSP, annual geometric mean ............................ 19

TSP, 24-hr maximum .......................................... . 37

24713
24714 Federal Register / Vol. 52; No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Maximum

allowable

Increases

Pollutant (micro.

grams per cubic

meter)

* , * * *

6. In § 51.322, paragraphs (a)(1) and,

(b](1) are revised to read as follows:

§ 51.322 Sources subject to emissions

reporting.

(a) * * *

(1) For particulate matter. PMo, sulfur

oxides, VOC and nitrogen oxides, any

facility that actually emits a total of 90.7

metric tons (100 tons) per year or more

of any one pollutant. For particulate

matter emissions,, the reporting

requirement ends with the reporting of

calendar year 1987 emissions. For PMo

emissions, the reporting requirement

begins with the reporting of calendar

year 1988 emissions. * * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) For particulate matter. PMio, sulfur

oxides,, VOC and nitrogen oxides. 22.7

metric tons (25 tons) per year or more.

For particulate matter, the reporting

requirement ends with the reporting of

calendar year 1987 emissions. For PMio,

the reporting requirement begins with

the reporting of calendar year 1988

emissions.

* * * * *

7. In § 51.323; paragraphs (a)(1] and

(a)(2) are revised and paragraph (a)(3) Is

added to read as follows:

§ 51.323 Reportable emissions data and

Information.

(aJ; * * *

(1), Emissions: of particulate matter;,

sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, and VOC as specified:

by AEROS Users Manual,. Vol. II (EPA

450/2-76-29, OAQPS No. 1.2-039) to be

coded into the National Emissions Data

System point source coding,form,

(2) Emissions of lead or lead

compounds measured as elemental lead

as specified by, AEROS Users Manual,

Vol. II (EPA 45/2-76-029, OAQPS No.

1.2-039) to be coded into the Hazardous

and Trace Emissions System points

source coding forms, and

(3) Emissions of PMo as will be

specified in a future guideline. * * *. * *.

8. In Appendix L, paragraphs 1.1 (b),

(c), and (d) are amended by removing

the unnumbered subdivisions beginning

"SO2 and particulate combined" and by

revising the unnumbered subdivisions

beginning "Particulate" to read as

follows:

Appendix L--Amended]

APPENDIX L-EXAMPLE

REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF

AIR POLLUTION EMERGENCY

EPISODES

1.1 * *.

(b) * * *

PM1o-350 Ag/m3, 24-hour average. c) * * *

PMo-420 pg/m 3, 24-hour average.

(d) ***

PM1o-500';Lg/m3 , 24-hour average.

Appendix S-[Amendedl

9. In Appendix 9, the fourth line

beginning "Particulate matter" in the list

in section 11.A.10(i) is amended by

adding the words "of particulate matter

emissions" after the words "25 tpy." * * * * *

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION, PLANS

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Part 52 of Chapter I of Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

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, the fourth item in the

table in paragraph (b)(23)(i) is revised;

the entries under the heading.

"Particulate matter" in the tables in

paragraphs (c) and (p)(5) are revised;

paragraphs (i)(4) (ix) and (x) are added;

the third, sixth, eighth, and twelfth items

in the list in paragraph (i)(8)(i) are

revised; paragraph (i)(11), and

paragraphs (m)(1)(vii) and (viii) are

added; and paragraph (w)(2) is revised

as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality. * * * * *

(b) Definitions. ***

(23)(i) * * *

Particulate matter: 25 tpy of particulate

matter emissions; 15 tpy of PMro emissions. * * * * *

(c) * * *

Maximum

allowable

increases

Pollutant (micrograms

per cubic meter),

Class I

Particulate matter:

TSP, annual geometric mean ........................ 5

TSP, 24-hr maximum ....................................... . . 0

Maximum

allowable

increases

Pollutant (micrograms

per cubic

meter)

Class It

Particulate matter.

TSP, annual geometric mean ........................ 19

TSP, 24-hr maximum ....................................... 37,

Class Ill

Particulate matter.

TSP, annual geometric mean ........................ 37

TSP, 24-hv maximum. ...................................... 75

t * * * *

(i} * * *

(4) ***

(ix) The source or modification was

not subject to § 52.21, with respect to

particulate matter, as in effect before

July 31, 1987, and' the owner or operator:

(a) Obtained all final Federal, State,

and local preconstruction approvals or

permits necessary under the applicable

State implementation plan before July

31, 1987.

(b) Commenced construction within 18

months after July 31, 1987, or any earlier

time required under the State

implementation plan: and

(c) Did not discontinue construction

for a period of 18 months or more and

completed construction within a

reasonable period of time;

(x) The source or modification was

subject to 40 CFR 52.21, with respect to

particulate matter, as in effect before

July 31, 1987 and the. owner or operator

submitted an application for a permit

under this section before that date, and

the Administrator subsequently

determines that the application as

submitted was complete with respect to

the particulate matter requirements then

in effect in. this section. Instead, the

requirements of paragraphs (j) through

(r) of this section that were in effect

before July 31. 1987 shall. apply to such

source or modification.

• * *

(8) ...

(i) * * *

Particulate matter

10 1Lg/m 3 of TSP, 24-hour average:

10 Jug/m 3 of PMto. 24-hour average:

* a * * *

Lead--0.1 ,±g/m 8 , 3-month average: * * * * a

Beryllium--0.001 pg/m 3

, 24-hour

average;

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Hydrogen sulfide--0.2 g/m 3, 1-hour

average;

(11)(i) At the discretion of the

Administrator, the requirements for air

quality monitoring of PMto in paragraphs

(m)(1)(i]-(iv) of this section may not

apply to a particular source or

modification when the owner or

operator of the source or modification

submits an application for a permit

under this section on or before June 1,

1988 and the Administrator

subsequently determines that the

application as submitted before that

date was complete, except with respect

to the requirements for monitoring

particulate matter in paragraphs (m](1)(i)-iv).

(ii) The requirements for aif quality

monitoring of PMio in paragraphs (m](1)

(iii) and (iv) and (m](3) of this section

shall apply to a particular source or

modification if the owner or operator of

the source or modification submits an

application for a permit under this

section after June 1, 1988 and no later

than December 1, 1988. The data shall

have been gathered over at least the

period from February 1, 1988 to the date

the application becomes otherwise

complete in accordance with the

provisions set forth under paragraph

(m)(1)(viii) of this section, except that if

the Administrator determines that a

complete and adequate analysis can be

accomplished with monitoring data over

a shorter period (not to be less than 4

months), the data that paragraph

(m)(1)(iii) requires shall have been

gathered over that shorter period. * * * * *

(in) Air quality analysis.

(1) * * *

(vii) For any application that becomes

complete, except as to the requirements

of paragraph (m)(1) (iii) and (iv)

pertaining to PMo, after December 1,

1988 and no later than August 1, 1988 the

data that paragraph (m)(l)(iii) requires

shall nave been gathered over at least

the period from August 1, 1988 to the

date the application becomes otherwise

complete. except that if the

Administrator determines that a

complete and adequate analysis can be

accomplished with monitoring data over

a shorter period (not'to be less than 4

months), the data that paragraph

(m)(1)(iii) requires shall have been

gathered over that shorter period.

(viii) With respect to any

requirements for air quality monitoring

of PMio under paragraphs (i)(11) (i) and

(ii] of this section, the owner or operator

of the source or modification shall use a

monitoring method approved by the

Administrator and shall estimate the

ambient concentrations of PMio using

the data collected by such approved

monitoring method in accordance with

estimating procedures approved by the

Administrator.

* * * * *

(p) *,, (5) * * *

Maximum

allowable

increases

Pollutant (micrograms per cubic

meter)

Particulate matter

TSP, annual geometric mean ................................ .. 19

TSP 24-hr maximum ................................. 37

* * * * *

(w) Permit rescission.

(2) Any owner or operator of a

stationary source or modification who

holds a permit for the source or

modification which was issued under

§ 52.21 as in effect on July 30, 1987, or

any earlier version of this section, may

request that the Administrator rescind

the permit or a particular portion of the

permit.

* * * * *

§ 52.24 [Amended]

3. In § 52.24, paragraph (f)(10) is

amended by removing the fourth entry,

beginning "Particulate matter," from. the

list of significant emission rates.

[FR Doc. 87-13709 Filed G-30-87; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

24715