Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5, 64864-64907 [2010-25132]
Download as PDF
64864
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605; FRL–9210–9]
RIN 2060–AO24
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is amending the
requirements for particulate matter less
than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program by adding maximum
allowable increases in ambient pollutant
concentrations (‘‘increments’’) and two
screening tools, known as the
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and a
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC) for PM2.5. The SILs for PM2.5 are
also being added to two other New
Source Review (NSR) rules that regulate
the construction and modification of
any major stationary source locating in
an attainment or unclassifiable area,
where the source’s emissions may cause
or contribute to a violation of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS).
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on
December 20, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
Site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Air Docket
is (202) 566–1742.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Mr.
Dan deRoeck, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (C504–03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541–
5593, facsimile number: (919) 541–5509,
e-mail address: deroeck.dan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this Supplementary
Information section of this preamble is
organized as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
II. Purpose
III. Overview of Final PM2.5 PSD Regulations
A. Increments
B. Significant Impact Levels
C. Significant Monitoring Concentration
IV. Background
A. PSD Program
B. History of Particulate Matter (PM)
NAAQS
1. Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and
PM10 NAAQS
2. PM2.5 NAAQS
3. Revised PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS
C. Implementation of NSR for PM2.5
D. Increments Under the PSD Program
E. Historical Approaches for Developing
Increments
1. Congressional Enactment of Increments
for PM and SO2
2. EPA’s Promulgation of Increments for
NO2 and PM10
a. Increments for NO2 Using the
‘‘Contingent Safe Harbor’’ Approach
Under Section 166(a) of the Act
b. Increments for PM10 Using ‘‘Equivalent
Substitution’’ Approach Under Section
166(f) of the Act
V. Final Action on PM2.5 Increments
A. Decision To Establish PM2.5 Increments
Using ‘‘Contingent Safe Harbor
Approach’’ Under Section 166(a)
B. Rationale for the Applicability of
Section 166(a)
C. EPA’s Interpretation of the
Requirements Under Sections 166(a)–(d)
of the Act
1. Regulations as a Whole Should Fulfill
Statutory Requirements
2. Contingent Safe Harbor Approach
3. The Statutory Factors Applicable Under
Section 166(c)
4. Balancing the Factors Applicable Under
Section 166(c)
5. Authority for States To Adopt
Alternatives to Increments
D. Framework for Pollutant-Specific PSD
Regulations for PM2.5
1. Increment System
2. Area Classifications
3. Permitting Procedures
4. AQRV Review by Federal Land Manager
(FLM) and Reviewing Authority
5. Additional Impacts Analysis
6. Installation of BACT
E. Final PM2.5 Increments
1. Identification of Safe Harbor Increments
2. Data Used by EPA for the Evaluation of
the Safe Harbor Increments for PM2.5
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Scope of Effects Considered
4. Evaluation of the Health and Welfare
Effects of PM2.5
a. Health Effects
b. Welfare Effects
5. Fundamental Elements of Increments
6. Evaluation of the Safe Harbor Increments
7. Compliance Determinations for the
PM2.5 Increments
a. Modeling Compliance With PM2.5
Increments
b. Condensable PM
c. PM2.5 Precursors
F. Final Action on Trigger and Baseline
Dates for PM2.5 Increments
G. Definition of ‘‘Baseline Area’’ for PM2.5
H. No Final Action With Respect to the
Proposed Revocation of PM10 Annual
Increments
I. Other Comments on Increments
VI. Final Action on PM2.5 SILs
A. EPA’s Determination on SILs for PM2.5
B. Response to Comments Concerning the
SILs
1. Legal Basis for SILs
2. Levels of the SILs
a. Class I SILs
b. Class II and III SILs
3. Relationship Between SILs and AQRVs
4. Form of the SILs
5. SILs for Other Pollutants
VII. Final Action on the PM2.5 SMC
A. EPA’s Determination on the PM2.5 SMC
B. Response to Comments Concerning the
SMC
1. Legal Issues
2. Level of the SMC
C. Correction of Cross Reference in PSD
Ambient Monitoring Requirements
VIII. Dates Associated With Implementation
of the Final Rule
A. Effective Date of the Final Rule
1. State PSD Programs
2. Federal PSD Program
B. Transition Period
C. SILs and SMC for PM2.5
IX. Other Regulatory Changes
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
XI. Judicial Review
XII. Statutory Authority
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64865
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities affected by this rule include
sources in all industry groups. The
majority of sources potentially affected
are expected to be in the following
groups:
Industry group
NAICS a
Electric services ...................................................................................................................................................
221111, 221112, 221113, 221119,
221121, 221122
32411
325181, 32512, 325131, 325182,
211112,
325998,
331311,
325188
32511, 325132, 325192, 325188,
325193, 32512, 325199
32552, 32592, 32591, 325182,
32551
211112
48621, 22121
32211, 322121, 322122, 32213
322121, 322122
336111, 336112, 336712, 336211,
336992,
336322,
336312,
33633, 33634, 33635, 336399,
336212, 336213
325411, 325412, 325413, 325414
Petroleum refining ...............................................................................................................................................
Industrial inorganic chemicals .............................................................................................................................
Industrial organic chemicals ................................................................................................................................
Miscellaneous chemical products ........................................................................................................................
Natural gas liquids ...............................................................................................................................................
Natural gas transport ...........................................................................................................................................
Pulp and paper mills ............................................................................................................................................
Paper mills ...........................................................................................................................................................
Automobile manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................
Pharmaceuticals ..................................................................................................................................................
a
North American Industry Classification System.
Entities affected by this rule also
include State and local permitting
authorities, and tribal authorities that
implement these regulations.
and an SMC for PM2.5 to facilitate
ambient air quality monitoring and
modeling under the PSD regulations for
areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable for PM2.5.
II. Purpose
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
rule will also be available on the World
Wide Web. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, a copy of this final
rule will be posted in the regulations
and standards section of our NSR home
page located at https://www.epa.gov/nsr.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
finalize certain program provisions
under the regulations to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
due to emissions of PM2.5 (i.e., under the
PM2.5 PSD regulations). This final rule
supplements the final implementation
rule for PM2.5, known as the Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule
(CAFPIR) that we promulgated on April
25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), and the PM2.5
NSR Implementation Rule that we
promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR
28321). Together, these three rules
encompass the elements necessary for
implementation of a PM2.5 program in
any area. This final rule is important
because it establishes increments, SILs,
III. Overview of Final PM2.5 PSD
Regulations
A. Increments
This rulemaking establishes
increments for PM2.5 pursuant to the
legal authority contained in section
166(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
for pollutants for which NAAQS are
promulgated after 1977. The final PM2.5
increments were identified as Option 1
in the 2007 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for this action, and
are as follows:
Increments (μg/m3)
NAAQS
(μg/m3)
Averaging period
Class I
Class II
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Annual ..............................................................................................................................
24-hour .............................................................................................................................
15
35
As discussed in more detail in
sections V.F and VIII, the increments for
PM2.5 will become applicable on
October 20, 2011 in order to comply
with section 166(b) of the Act
(providing that regulations under
section 166(a) ‘‘shall become effective
one year after the date of
promulgation’’).
B. Significant Impact Levels
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
This final rule does not revoke the
annual increments for particulate matter
less than 10 micrometers (PM10) as
proposed under Option 1 in the 2007
NPRM. Thus, we are retaining the 24hour and annual PM10 increments in
addition to adding PM2.5 increments.
This outcome is discussed in greater
detail in section V.H of this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1
2
Class III
4
9
8
18
This rule establishes SILs for PM2.5 for
evaluating the impact a proposed new
source or modification may have on the
NAAQS and PSD increments for PM2.5.
The SILs for PM2.5 were developed by
scaling the existing PM10 SILs using a
PM2.5-to-PM10 NAAQS ratio. The final
SILs were identified as Option 3 in the
2007 NPRM, and are as follows:
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64866
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
SILs (μg/m3)
Averaging period
Class I
Annual ......................................................................................................................................................
24-hour .....................................................................................................................................................
These values will be added to the
State implementation plan (SIP)
provisions for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166 (as
an optional screening tool) and the
Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21,
as well as under the preconstruction
review permit requirements at 40 CFR
51.165(b) and part 51, Appendix S. See
a more detailed discussion of the SILs,
as well as the relevant comments and
our responses to them, in section VI of
this preamble. The SILs for PM2.5 are
incorporated into the Federal PSD
program as well as into the regulations
for State-implemented PSD programs,
although they are regarded as optional
for State programs. The effective date for
implementing the SILs under the
Federal PSD program is the effective
date of this final rule. See section VIII
of this preamble for further discussion
of the effective date.
C. Significant Monitoring Concentration
This final rule establishes the SMC for
PM2.5 as 4 μg/m3 PM2.5 (24-hour
average). This value has been developed
pursuant to proposed Option 1;
however, it should be noted that the
value being established in this final rule
is lower than the proposed value of 10
μg/m3 that was originally developed
under Option 1. A more detailed
discussion of the proposed SMC is
presented in section VII of this
preamble, describing the rationale for
altering the proposed SMC, and the
relevant comments on the proposed
SMC and our responses to them. The
SMC for PM2.5 is incorporated into the
Federal PSD program as well as into the
regulations for State-implemented PSD
programs, although they are regarded as
optional for State programs. As with the
SILs for PM2.5, the effective date for
implementing the SMC under the
Federal PSD program is the effective
date of this final rule. See section VIII
of this preamble for further discussion
of the effective date.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
IV. Background
A. PSD Program
The NSR provisions of the Act are a
combination of air quality planning and
air pollution control technology
program requirements for new and
modified stationary sources of air
pollution. In brief, section 109 of the
Act requires us to promulgate primary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
NAAQS to protect public health and
secondary NAAQS to protect public
welfare. Once we have set these
standards, states must develop, adopt,
and submit to us for approval SIPs that
contain emission limitations and other
control measures to attain and maintain
the NAAQS and to meet the other
requirements of section 110(a) of the
Act. Part C of title I of the Act contains
the requirements for a component of the
major NSR program known as the PSD
program. This program sets forth
procedures for the preconstruction
review and permitting of new and
modified major stationary sources of air
pollution locating in areas meeting the
NAAQS (‘‘attainment’’ areas) and areas
for which there is insufficient
information to classify an area as either
attainment or nonattainment
(‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas). Most states have
SIP-approved preconstruction permit
(major NSR) programs. The Federal PSD
program at 40 CFR 52.21 applies in
some states that lack a SIP-approved
permit program, and in Indian country.1
The applicability of the PSD program to
a major stationary source must be
determined in advance of construction
and is a pollutant-specific
determination. Once a major source is
determined to be subject to the PSD
program (PSD source), among other
requirements, it must undertake a series
of analyses to demonstrate that it will
use the best available control technology
(BACT) and will not cause or contribute
to a violation of any NAAQS or
increment. For the latter demonstration,
the PSD regulations generally require
sources to submit for review and
approval a source impact analysis and
an air quality analysis.
The source impact analysis is
primarily a modeling analysis designed
to show that the allowable emissions
increase from the proposed project, in
conjunction with other emissions
increases from existing sources, will not
result in a violation of either the
NAAQS or increments. In cases where
the source’s emissions may adversely
affect an area classified as a Class I area,
additional review is conducted to
protect the increments and special
1 We have delegated our authority to some states
to implement the Federal PSD program. The EPA
remains the reviewing authority in non-delegated
states lacking SIP-approved programs and in Indian
country.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.06
0.07
Class II
0.3
1.2
Class III
0.3
1.2
attributes of such an area defined as ‘‘air
quality related values’’ (AQRVs).
The air quality analysis must assess
the ambient air quality in the area that
the proposed project would affect. For
this analysis, the owner or operator of
the proposed project must submit as
part of a complete permit application air
quality monitoring data that represent
the air quality in the area affected by the
proposed source for the 1-year period
preceding receipt of the application.
Where data may already exist to
represent existing air quality, it may be
used by the applicant; otherwise, the
source owner or operator is responsible
for the installation and operation of
monitors to collect the necessary data.
Historically, EPA has allowed the use
of several types of screening tools to
facilitate implementation of the
preconstruction review process to
reduce the permit applicant’s burden
and streamline the permitting process
for de minimis circumstances. These
tools include a significant emissions
rate (SER), SILs, and a SMC. The SER,
defined in tons per year (tpy) for each
regulated pollutant, is used to determine
whether the emissions increase from
any proposed source or modification
can be excluded from review on the
grounds that the increase of any
particular pollutant is de minimis. An
emission increase for a particular
pollutant that is greater than the SER
defined in the NSR regulations for that
pollutant is considered to be a
significant increase.
The SIL, expressed as an ambient
pollutant concentration (micrograms per
cubic meter (μg/m 3)), is used to
determine whether the ambient impact
of a particular pollutant (once it is
determined to be emitted in significant
amounts) is significant enough to
warrant a complete source impact
analysis involving modeling the
collective impacts of the proposed
project and emissions from other
existing sources.
The PSD regulations generally require
each PSD applicant to collect 1 year of
continuous air quality monitoring data
for any pollutant determined to be
subject to preconstruction review as part
of complete PSD permit application.
Using the SMC as a screening tool,
expressed as an ambient pollutant
concentration (μg/m3), sources may be
able to demonstrate that the modeled air
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
quality impact of emissions from the
new source or modification, or the
existing air quality level in the area
where the source would construct, is
less than the SMC, i.e., de minimis, and
may be allowed to forego the
preconstruction monitoring requirement
for a particular pollutant at the
discretion of the reviewing
authority.2 See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and
52.21(i)(5).
When the reviewing authority reaches
a preliminary decision to authorize
construction of a proposed major new
source or major modification, it must
provide notice of the preliminary
decision and an opportunity for
comment by the general public,
industry, and other persons that may be
affected by the emissions of the
proposed major source or major
modification. After considering these
comments, the reviewing authority may
issue a final determination on the
construction permit in accordance with
the PSD regulations.
B. History of Particulate Matter (PM)
NAAQS
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
1. Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)
and PM10 NAAQS
The EPA initially established NAAQS
for PM in 1971, measured by the TSP
indicator. Based on the size of the
particles collected by the ‘‘high-volume
sampler,’’ which at that time was the
reference method for determining
ambient concentrations, TSP included
all PM up to a nominal size of 25 to 45
micrometers. We established both
annual and 24-hour NAAQS for TSP.
On July 1, 1987, we revised the
NAAQS for PM and changed the
indicator from TSP to PM10; the latter
indicator includes particles with a mean
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 10 micrometers. The PM10 particles
are the subset of inhalable particles
small enough to penetrate to the
thoracic region (including the
tracheobronchial and alveolar regions)
of the respiratory tract (referred to as
thoracic particles). We established
annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10,
and revoked the NAAQS for TSP. (52 FR
24634).
2. PM2.5 NAAQS
On July 18, 1997, we again revised the
NAAQS for PM in several respects.
While we determined that the NAAQS
should continue to focus on particles
less than or equal to 10 micrometers in
diameter, we also determined that the
2 The basic monitoring exemption provision is
part of the original monitoring requirements
adopted in the 1980 PSD rulemaking. 45 FR 52676,
52710, August 7, 1980.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
fine and coarse fractions of PM10 should
be considered separately. We
established new annual and 24-hour
NAAQS using PM2.5 (referring to
particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 micrometers) as the indicator for
fine particles. The 1997 NAAQS rule
also modified the PM10 NAAQS for the
purpose of regulating the coarse fraction
of PM10 (referred to as thoracic coarse
particles or coarse-fraction particles;
generally including particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter
greater than 2.5 micrometers and less
than or equal to 10 micrometers, or
PM10–2.5); however, this part of the
rulemaking was vacated during
subsequent litigation, leaving the preexisting 1987 PM10 NAAQS in place (62
FR 38652).
3. Revised PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS
On October 17, 2006, we promulgated
revisions to the NAAQS for PM2.5 and
PM10 with an effective date of December
18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). We lowered the
24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/
m3 to 35 μg/m3, and retained the
existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/
m3. In addition, we retained the existing
PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m3, and
revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS (set at
50 μg/m3).
C. Implementation of NSR for PM2.5
After we established new annual and
24-hour NAAQS based on PM2.5 as the
indicator for fine particles in July 1997,
we issued a guidance document titled
‘‘Interim Implementation for the New
Source Review Requirements for PM2.5,’’
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA,
October 23, 1997. As noted in that
guidance, section 165 of the Act implies
that certain PSD requirements become
effective for a new NAAQS upon the
effective date of the NAAQS. Section
165(a)(1) of the Act provides that no
new or modified major source may be
constructed without a PSD permit that
meets all of the section 165(a)
requirements with respect to the
regulated pollutant. Moreover, section
165(a)(3) provides that the emissions
from any such source may not cause or
contribute to a violation of any
increment or NAAQS. Also, section
165(a)(4) requires BACT for each
pollutant subject to PSD regulation. The
1997 guidance stated that sources would
be allowed to use implementation of a
PM10 program as a surrogate for meeting
PM2.5 NSR requirements until certain
difficulties were resolved. These
difficulties included the lack of
necessary tools to calculate the
emissions of PM2.5 and related
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64867
precursors, the lack of adequate
modeling techniques to project ambient
impacts, and the lack of PM2.5
monitoring sites.
On April 5, 2005, we issued a
guidance document entitled
‘‘Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements in PM–2.5 Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA. This memorandum provided
guidance on the implementation of the
nonattainment major NSR provisions in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the
interim period between the effective
date of the PM2.5 NAAQS designations
(April 5, 2005) and when we promulgate
regulations to implement nonattainment
major NSR for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition to affirming the continued use
of the John S. Seitz guidance memo in
PM2.5 attainment areas, this memo
recommended that, until we
promulgated the PM2.5 major NSR
regulations, states should use a PM10
nonattainment major NSR program as a
surrogate to address the requirements of
nonattainment major NSR for the PM2.5
NAAQS.
On November 1, 2005, we proposed a
rule to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS,
including proposed revisions to the NSR
program. For those states with EPAapproved PSD programs, we proposed
to continue the 1997 NSR guidance to
use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, but
only during the SIP development
period. We also indicated in that
proposal that we would be developing
increments, SILs, and an SMC in a
separate rulemaking, i.e., this final rule.
Since there was an interim surrogate
NSR program in place, i.e., the PM10
Surrogate Policy, EPA decided to first
promulgate the non-NSR part of the
implementation rule (including
attainment demonstrations,
designations, control measures, etc.).
This rule was promulgated as the
CAFPIR on April 25, 2007 (72 FR
20586).
The NSR part of the implementation
rule was issued separately as a final rule
on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), and
included sets of NSR regulations for
both attainment (PSD) and
nonattainment areas (nonattainment
NSR) for PM2.5. In the May 16, 2008 rule
we added one of the important
screening tools—the SER—for PM2.5.
The SER for PM2.5 is defined as an
emissions rate of 10 tpy for direct PM2.5
emissions. We also listed sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) as
precursors of ambient PM2.5 and defined
‘‘significant’’ as 40 tpy or more of either
precursor pollutant. States were allowed
up to 3 years from the date of
publication in the Federal Register to
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64868
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
revise their SIPs and submit their
revised NSR programs to EPA for
approval.
D. Increments Under the PSD Program
Under section 165(a)(3) of the Act, a
PSD permit applicant must demonstrate
that emissions from the proposed
construction and operation of a facility
‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air
pollution in excess of any (A) maximum
allowable increase or maximum
allowable concentration for any
pollutant * * *.’’ The ‘‘maximum
allowable increase’’ of an air pollutant
that is allowed to occur above the
applicable baseline concentration for
that pollutant is known as the PSD
increment. By establishing the
maximum allowable level of ambient
pollutant concentration increase in a
particular area, an increment defines
‘‘significant deterioration’’ of air quality
in that area.
For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline
area for a particular pollutant emitted
from a source includes the attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the source
is located, as well as any other
attainment or unclassifiable area in
which the source’s emissions of that
pollutant are projected (by air quality
modeling) to result in a significant
ambient pollutant increase. See, e.g., 40
CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). Once the baseline
area is established, subsequent PSD
sources locating in that area need to
consider that a portion of the available
increment may have already been
consumed by previous emissions
increases.
In general, the submittal date of the
first complete PSD permit application in
a particular area is the operative
‘‘baseline date.’’ 3 On or before the date
of the first complete PSD application,
emissions generally are considered to be
part of the baseline concentration,
except for certain emissions from major
stationary sources, as explained in the
following discussion of baseline dates.
Most emissions increases that occur
after the baseline date will be counted
toward the amount of increment
consumed. Similarly, emissions
decreases after the baseline date restore
or expand the amount of increment that
is available.
In practice, three dates related to the
PSD baseline concept are important in
understanding how to calculate the
amount of increment consumed—
3 Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a
complete PSD application establishes the baseline
date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that
are projected to be emitted in significant amounts
(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s
new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) Trigger date; (2) major source
baseline date; and (3) minor source
baseline date. The first relevant date is
the trigger date. The trigger date, as the
name implies, triggers the overall
increment consumption process
nationwide. Specifically, this is a fixed
date, which must occur before the minor
source baseline date can be established
for the pollutant-specific increment in a
particular attainment area. See, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(ii) and 52.21(b)(14)(ii). For
PM (regulated as TSP) and SO2,
Congress defined the applicable trigger
date as August 7, 1977—the date of the
1977 amendments to the Act when the
original statutory increments were
established by Congress. For nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), we selected the trigger
date as February 8, 1988—the date on
which we proposed increments for NO2.
See 53 FR 40656, 40658; October 17,
1988. In this final rule, as described
later, we are establishing a separate
trigger date for purposes of
implementing the PM2.5 increments. See
section V.F of this preamble for
additional discussion of the trigger date
for PM2.5.
The two remaining dates—‘‘minor
source baseline date’’ and ‘‘major source
baseline date’’—as described later, are
necessary to properly account for the
emissions that are to be counted toward
the amount of increment consumed
following the national trigger date, in
accordance with the statutory definition
of ‘‘baseline concentration’’ in section
169(4) of the Act. The statutory
definition provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a
particular baseline area is generally the
air quality at the time of the first
application for a PSD permit in the area.
Consequently, any increases in actual
emissions occurring after that date (with
some possible exceptions that we will
discuss later) would be considered to
consume the applicable PSD increment.
However, the statutory definition in
section 169(4) also provides that
‘‘[e]missions of sulfur oxides and
particulate matter from any major
emitting facility on which construction
commenced after January 6, 1975, shall
not be included in the baseline and
shall be counted in pollutant
concentrations established under this
part.’’
To make this distinction between the
date when emissions resulting from the
construction at a major stationary source
consume the increment and the date
when emissions changes in general (i.e.,
from both major and minor sources)
begin to consume the increment, we
established the terms ‘‘major source
baseline date’’ and ‘‘minor source
baseline date,’’ respectively. See 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
51.166(b)(14) and 52.21(b)(14).
Accordingly, the ‘‘major source baseline
date,’’ which precedes the trigger date, is
the date after which actual emissions
increases associated with construction
at any major stationary source consume
the PSD increment. In accordance with
the statutory definition of ‘‘baseline
concentration,’’ the PSD regulations
define a fixed date to represent the
major source baseline date for each
pollutant for which an increment exists.
Congress defined the major source
baseline date for the statutory
increments for PM and SO2 as January
6, 1975. For the NO2 increments, which
we promulgated in 1988 under our
authority to establish an increment
system under section 166(a) of the Act,
the major source baseline date we
selected was February 8, 1988—the date
on which we proposed increments for
NO2. 53 FR 40656. In both instances, the
major source baseline date for the
individual increments was set as a date
which preceded the date on which the
regulations pertaining to those
increments were issued. In this final
rule, as described later, we are
establishing a separate major source
baseline date for implementing the
PM2.5 increments. See section V.F of this
preamble for further discussion of the
major source baseline date for PM2.5.
The ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ is
the earliest date after the trigger date on
which a source or modification submits
the first complete application for a PSD
permit in a particular area. After the
minor source baseline date, any increase
in actual emissions (from both major
and minor sources) consumes the PSD
increment for that area.
Once the minor source baseline date
is established, the new emissions
increase from that major source
consumes a portion of the increment in
that area, as do any subsequent actual
emissions increases that occur from any
new or existing source in the area.
When the maximum pollutant
concentration increase defined by the
increment has been reached, additional
PSD permits cannot be issued until
sufficient amounts of the increment are
‘‘freed up’’ via emissions reductions that
may occur voluntarily, (e.g., via source
shutdowns) or by mandatory control
requirements imposed by the reviewing
authority. Moreover, the air quality in a
region cannot deteriorate to a level in
excess of the applicable NAAQS, even
if all the increment in the area has not
been consumed. Therefore, new or
modified sources located in areas where
the air pollutant concentrations are near
the level allowed by the NAAQS may
not have full use of the amount of
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
pollutant concentration increase
allowed by the increment.
Under EPA guidance, the actual
increment analysis that a proposed new
or modified source undergoing PSD
review must complete depends on the
area impacted by the source’s new
emissions. We have provided approved
air quality models and guidelines for
sources to use to project the air quality
impact of each pollutant (over each
averaging period) for which an
increment analysis must be done.4 In
addition, we established SILs for each
pollutant under the permit requirements
applicable to new and modified major
stationary sources locating in attainment
areas that would cause or contribute to
a violation of any NAAQS. See 40 CFR
51.165(b) and part 51, Appendix S,
section III.A. These SILs have also been
used for implementing the PSD program
to identify levels below which the
source’s modeled impact of a particular
pollutant is regarded as de minimis. In
this final rule, we are establishing SILs
(24-hour and annual) for PM2.5 that are
being added to the aforementioned
regulations containing SILs for other
pollutants, as well as to the PSD
regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.
See further discussion of the SILs for
PM2.5 in section VI of this preamble.
In the event that a source’s modeled
impacts of a particular pollutant are
below the applicable SIL at all ambient
air locations modeled, i.e., de minimis
everywhere, EPA’s policy for PSD
provides that no further modeling
analysis is required for that pollutant.
Our longstanding policy under the PSD
program is that when a preliminary
screening analysis based on the SIL is
sufficient to demonstrate that the
source’s emissions throughout the area
modeled will not cause or contribute to
a violation of the increment, there is no
need for a comprehensive source impact
analysis involving a cumulative
evaluation of the emissions from the
proposed source and other sources
affecting the area.
Within the impact area of a source
subject to PSD, that is, the area within
which the proposed project’s emissions
increase does have a significant impact,
increment consumption is calculated
using the source’s proposed emissions
increase, along with other actual
emissions increases or decreases of the
particular pollutant from any sources in
the area, which have occurred since the
minor source baseline date established
for that area. In addition, the emissions
increases or decreases from any major
source that has commenced
4 See EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ at
40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
construction since the major source
baseline date (which precedes the minor
source baseline date) will consume or
expand increment. Thus, an emissions
inventory of sources whose emissions,
in whole or in part, of a particular
pollutant consume or expand the
available increment in the area must be
compiled. The inventory of incrementconsuming emissions includes not only
sources located directly in the impact
area, but sources outside the impact area
that affect the air quality for the
particular pollutant within the impact
area.
The inventory of incrementconsuming emissions includes
emissions from increment-affecting
sources at two separate time periods—
the baseline date and the current period
of time. For each source that was in
existence on the relevant baseline date
(major source or minor source), the
inventory includes the source’s actual
emissions on the baseline date and its
current actual emissions. The change in
emissions over these time periods
represents the emissions that consume
increment (or, if emissions have gone
down, expand the available increment).
For sources constructed since the
relevant baseline date, all their current
actual emissions consume increment
and are included in the inventory.
When the inventory of incrementconsuming emissions has been
compiled, computer modeling is used to
determine the change in ambient
concentration that will result from these
emissions when combined with the
proposed emissions increase from the
new major source or major modification
that is undergoing PSD review. The
modeling has generally been guided by
the ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’
(40 CFR part 51, Appendix W), which
includes provisions on air quality
models and the meteorological data
input into these models. The model
output (expressed as a change in
concentration) for each relevant
averaging period is then compared to
the corresponding allowable PSD
increment.
E. Historical Approaches for Developing
Increments
1. Congressional Enactment of
Increments for PM and SO2
Congress established the first
increments defining significant
deterioration of air quality in the 1977
Amendments to the Act. These
amendments, among other things, added
part C to title I, setting out the
requirements for PSD. In section 163,
Congress included numerical
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64869
increments for PM and SO2 for Class I,
II, and III areas.
The three area classes are part of the
increment system originally established
by Congress. Congress designated Class
I areas (including certain national parks
and wilderness areas) as areas of special
national concern, where the need to
prevent deterioration of air quality is the
greatest. Consequently, the allowable
level of incremental change is the
smallest relative to the other area
classes, i.e., most stringent, in Class I
areas. The increments of Class II areas
are larger than those of Class I areas and
allow for a moderate degree of
emissions growth. For future
redesignation purposes, Congress
defined a ‘‘Class III’’ classification to
allow the redesignation of any existing
Class II area for which a State may
desire to promote a higher level of
industrial development (and emissions
growth). Thus, Class III areas are
allowed to have the greatest amount of
pollutant increase of the three area
classes while still achieving the
NAAQS. To date, there have been no
redesignations made to establish a Class
III area.
In establishing these PSD increments,
Congress used the then-existing NAAQS
for those pollutants as the benchmark
for determining what constitutes
‘‘significant deterioration.’’ Congress
established the increments for PM as a
percentage of the then-existing PM
NAAQS. At the time the Act was
amended in 1977, the NAAQS for PM
were expressed in terms of ambient
concentrations of TSP. Thus, EPA
interpreted the statutory increments for
PM using the same ambient TSP
‘‘indicator.’’
2. EPA’s Promulgation of Increments for
NO2 and PM10
Congress also provided authority for
EPA to promulgate additional
increments and to update the original
PM increments created by statute. The
EPA has promulgated two regulations
pursuant to this authority.
a. Increments for NO2 Using the
‘‘Contingent Safe Harbor’’ Approach
Under Section 166(a) of the Act
Based on section 166(a) of the Act, on
October 17, 1988, EPA promulgated
increments for NO2 to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
due to emissions of NOX (53 FR 40656).
The EPA based these increments on
percentages of the NAAQS in the same
way that Congress derived the statutory
increments for PM and SO2. Those NO2
increments were challenged in 1988 by
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
when EDF filed suit in the U.S. Court of
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64870
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit against the Administrator
(Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Reilly, No. 88–1882). The EDF
successfully argued that we failed to
sufficiently consider certain provisions
in section 166 of the Act. The court
remanded the case to EPA ‘‘to develop
an interpretation of section 166 that
considers both subsections (c) and (d),
and if necessary to take new evidence
and modify the regulations.’’ See
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA,
898 F.2d 183, 190 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (EDF
v. EPA). Section 166(c) of the Act
requires the PSD regulations to, among
other things, meet the goals and
purposes set forth in sections 101 and
160 of the Act. Section 166(d) requires
these regulations be at least as effective
as the increments established for PM (in
the form of TSP) and SO2 in section 163
of the Act. The court considered the
NO2 increment values determined using
the percentage-of-NAAQS approach as
‘‘safe harbor’’ increments which met the
requirements of section 166(d) of the
Act. However, the court also determined
that EPA’s reliance on such increment
levels was contingent upon our
completing the analyses required under
section 166(c), which provided that the
final increment values must address the
goals of sections 101 and 160 of the Act
to protect public health and welfare,
parks, and AQRVs 5 and to insure
economic growth.
In response to the court’s decision, we
proposed rulemaking on increments for
NO2 on February 23, 2005 (70 FR 8880)
and finalized the rule on October 12,
2005 (70 FR 59582). In the final rule, we
established our policy on how to
interpret and apply the requirements of
sections 166(c) and (d) of the Act. In
accordance with the court ruling, we
conducted further analyses (considering
the health and welfare effects of NOX)
and concluded that the existing NO2
increments were adequate to fulfill the
requirements of section 166(c). See 70
FR 59586 for our detailed analysis of
how pollutant regulations satisfy the
requirements of section 166 of the Act.
Hence, we retained the existing NO2
5 The term ‘‘air quality related values’’ is not
defined in the Act, but the legislative history
provides language saying that ‘‘The term ‘air quality
related values’ of Federal lands designated as Class
I includes the fundamental purposes for which such
lands have been established and preserved by the
Congress and the responsible Federal agency. For
example, under the 1916 Organic Act to establish
the National Park Service (16 U.S.C. 1), the purpose
of such national park lands ‘is to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment
of the same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations.’ ’’ S. Rep. No. 95–127 at 36
(1977).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
increments along with other parts of the
existing framework of pollutant-specific
NO2 increment regulations. We also
amended the PSD regulations under 40
CFR 51.166 to make it clear that states
may seek EPA approval of SIPs that
utilize a different approach than EPA
used to establish these NO2 increments.
To receive our approval of an alternative
program, a State must demonstrate that
its program satisfies the requirements of
sections 166(c) and 166(d) of the Act
and prevents significant deterioration of
air quality from emissions of NOX.6
b. Increments for PM10 Using
‘‘Equivalent Substitution’’ Approach
Under Section 166(f) of the Act
On October 5, 1989, we proposed
PM10 increments. See 54 FR 41218.
Although section 163 did not expressly
define the existing statutory increments
for PM in terms of a specific indicator,
EPA reasoned that Congress’ knowledge
that TSP was the indicator for the PM
NAAQS, and that the TSP standards
were the starting point for the
increments levels when the increments
were established in 1977, meant that
TSP was also the appropriate measure
for the PM increments in section 163.
As a consequence, EPA believed that the
statutory PM increments could not
simply be administratively redefined as
PM10 increments, retaining the same
numerical values, following the revision
of the PM NAAQS. Rather, we stated
our belief that with the promulgation of
the PM10 NAAQS, EPA had both the
responsibility and the authority under
sections 166 and 301 of the Act to
promulgate new increments for PM to
be measured in terms of PM10. We
further concluded that promulgating
PM10 increments to replace, rather than
supplement, the statutory TSP
increments under section 163
represented the most sensible approach
for preventing significant deterioration
with respect to PM. See 54 FR 41220–
41221.
We promulgated PM10 increments to
replace the then-existing TSP
increments on June 3, 1993 (58 FR
31622). In the interim between proposal
and promulgation, Congress enacted the
1990 CAA Amendments. As part of
these amendments, Congress amended
section 166 to add a new section 166(f).
This section specifically authorized EPA
to substitute PM10 increments for the
existing section 163 PM increments
based on TSP, provided that the
substituted increments are ‘‘of equal
6 Under the 2005 NO regulation, states can adopt
X
measures other than increments as long as they can
demonstrate that the measures selected comply
with the same criteria and goals of sections 166(c)
and (d) of the Act that must be met for increments.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
stringency in effect’’ as the section 163
increments.
Thus, we were able to replace the TSP
increments under section 163 of the Act
using PM10 increments based directly on
the newly enacted authority under
section 166(f) of the Act. In the PM10
rule, we maintained the existing
baseline dates and baseline areas for PM
that had been previously established
using the TSP indicator. Also, as
proposed, we promulgated PM10
increments based on an approach we
called the ‘‘equivalent to statutory
increments’’ approach. Under this
approach, we used the original TSP
increments as a benchmark for
calculating the PM10 increments,
thereby retaining roughly the same
limitations on future deterioration of air
quality as was allowed under the TSP
increments.
In using this approach, we considered
the historical consumption of TSP
increment by a sample population of
permitted PSD sources, and then
determined the PM10 increments for
each area classification and averaging
time that would provide approximately
the same percentage of PM10 increment
consumption, on average, by the same
population of sources. Then, all future
calculations of increment consumption
after the PM10 implementation date
would be based on PM10 emissions. See
58 FR 31622 and 31625.
V. Final Action on PM2.5 Increments
In this section of the preamble, we
will summarize the considerations that
went into our proposed action and
describe the final action being taken
regarding new regulations for
preventing significant deterioration of
PM2.5 air quality—including PM2.5
increments (sections V.A through V.E,
baseline dates and other permit
requirements for PM2.5 (section V.F),
baseline areas for PM2.5 (section V.G),
and PM10 increments (section V.H).
A. Decision To Establish PM2.5
Increments Using ‘‘Contingent Safe
Harbor Approach’’ Under Section 166(a)
The EPA’s 2007 NPRM contained
three options for developing numerical
PM2.5 increments. Option 1 used the
authority of section 166(a) of the Act to
establish increments for PM2.5 as a new
pollutant for which NAAQS were
established after August 7, 1977, and
established 24-hour and annual PM2.5
increments (Class I, II, and III) based on
the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach.
Options 2 and 3 used the contingent
safe harbor approach under section
166(a) to only develop 24-hour PM2.5
increments (Class I, II, and III), while
using the ‘‘equivalent substitution’’
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
approach under section 166(f) of the Act
to develop annual PM2.5 increments.
Each of these options is discussed in
detail in the 2007 NPRM. 72 FR 54123–
54138. In addition, significant
comments on each of the three options,
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
On the other hand, this commenter
noted that by its terms, section 166(f) is
limited to authorizing the adoption of
PM10 increments as a substitute for the
statutory TSP increments and does not
provide for substitution of PM2.5
increments for TSP or PM10 increments.
The opposing commenters did not
believe that section 166(a) provides a
legal basis for EPA to promulgate PM2.5
increments. One of these commenters
stated that section 166(a) can only be
used for a new pollutant, and PM2.5 is
not a new pollutant.
Another commenter who opposed the
use of section 166(a) authority argued
that nothing in section 166(a) of the Act
can be interpreted to allow it to be used
as the basis of increments when EPA
revises an existing NAAQS. The
commenter explained that, on its face,
section 166(a) can only be interpreted to
apply to pollutants other than PM and
SO2 since increments for these
pollutants were enacted by Congress in
section 163 of the Act. The commenter
added that it can be argued that
Congress intended to have section
166(a) apply to the four other pollutants
specifically listed there.
This commenter found unpersuasive
our argument that we are not
‘‘substituting’’ increments (as section
166(f) requires for PM10) but rather
adding PM2.5 increments to the existing
PM10 increments, and that only section
166(a) allows such an approach (72 FR
54121). The commenter asserted that if
EPA had defined a coarse fraction to the
particulate matter standards, then that
fraction, together with the PM2.5
standards, would form the set of
‘‘substituted’’ new standards for the
existing PM10 standards, and, thus, the
increments.
The commenter also disagreed with
EPA’s argument that it can treat PM2.5 as
a new pollutant under section 166(a) of
the Act since it has been demonstrated
that sub-PM2.5 particles have distinctly
different health and welfare effects than
the other forms of PM (i.e., coarse or
PM10). The commenter indicated that
just as EPA replaced the TSP standards
PO 00000
Increments (μg/m3)
NAAQS
(μg/m3)
Annual ..............................................................................................................................
24-hour .............................................................................................................................
B. Rationale for the Applicability of
Section 166(a)
In the 2007 NPRM, we expressed our
belief that it is permissible to interpret
section 166(a) to apply to PM2.5. Section
166(a) requires EPA to develop
regulations to prevent the significant
deterioration of air quality due to
emissions of certain named pollutants,
and to develop such regulations for any
pollutants for which NAAQS are
subsequently promulgated. Although
EPA has generally characterized the
NAAQS for PM2.5 as a NAAQS for a new
indicator of PM, EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for
PM2.5 when the latter NAAQS were
promulgated in 1997. Rather, EPA
retained the annual and 24-hour PM10
NAAQS (retaining PM10 as an indicator
of coarse particulate matter), and
established new annual and 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5 as if PM2.5 was a new
pollutant, even though EPA had already
developed air quality criteria for PM
generally. Thus, for purposes of section
166(a), the promulgation of a NAAQS
for PM2.5 established a NAAQS for an
additional pollutant after 1977.
Nine commenters supported our
proposed Option 1, although only three
of these explicitly expressed support for
the use of section 166(a) authority to
promulgate PM2.5 increments. Ten other
commenters specifically opposed the
use of section 166(a) authority and/or
supported the use of section 166(f)
authority (on which the annual
increments under Options 2A and 2B
were based).
One of the commenters who explicitly
agreed with our proposed use of section
166(a) authority stated that it is the only
option that is legally available. This
commenter asserted that section 166(a)
plainly applies to PM2.5 because PM2.5 is
a pollutant for which NAAQS were
promulgated after August 7, 1977. This
commenter held that EPA’s rulemaking
duty under section 166(a) is not
confined to ‘‘new pollutants,’’ but is
triggered by post-1977 NAAQS
promulgations, regardless of whether for
new or previously regulated pollutants.
increments for PM2.5 using the
‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach in
accordance with the authority provided
in section 166(a) of the Act.
This final rule establishes increments
for PM2.5 at the following levels:
and our responses to them, are provided
in this section V of this preamble.
In this final rule, after considering the
available information and comments
from interested parties, EPA has
decided to select Option 1 and establish
Averaging period
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64871
Class I
15
35
Class II
1
2
Class III
4
9
8
18
by PM10 as a better indicator of health
effects, ongoing research has led to
establishment of the PM2.5 standards as
a better indicator of certain health
effects, and it is the natural outcome of
such research that has enabled EPA to
separate the effect of total particulate
matter into two fractions with distinct
effects. The commenter added that given
that the definition of particulate matter
includes a vast conglomeration of solids
and liquids, the finding of differing
effects should not come as a surprise.
The commenter explained that as is the
case of different pollutants having
similar effects that are, nonetheless,
treated as separate pollutants, the same
concept should apply to a range or
fraction of particulate matter found to
have different effects in establishing it
as another indicator and not a different
pollutant.
The commenter did not disagree with
the specific numerical increments
proposed by EPA under Option 1, but
did have concerns with the potential
consequences of the section 166(a)
approach. The commenter’s primary
concern was the proposal to allow states
to substitute other measures in the place
of uniform national increments for
PM2.5. (This is discussed further in
section V.C.5 of this preamble.) Another
commenter also expressed this concern.
Another commenter who opposed the
section 166(a) approach believes that
the legal and congressional history
regarding the establishment of PM
increments shows that Congress added
section 166(f) to the Act based on the
conviction that without it, EPA had no
authority to revise the PM increments
for PM10 (citing and quoting from S.
Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 75
(1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3461). The commenter concluded
that EPA did not have authority in 1987
under section 166(a) to adopt PM10
increments, and does not have authority
now under section 166(a) to adopt PM2.5
increments.
We read section 166(a) to authorize
EPA to promulgate pollutant-specific
PSD regulations meeting the
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64872
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of sections 166(c) and
166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977. Most
of the pollutants identified in section
166(a) (NOX, photochemical oxidants,
carbon monoxide) are pollutants for
which EPA had established NAAQS in
1977 when Congress adopted section
166 of the Act. There was no need for
Congress to list other criteria pollutants,
SO2 and PM, in section 166(a) because
Congress had already established
increments for these pollutants in
section 163 of the Act. In addition to
requiring regulations for the enumerated
pollutants, we conclude that under
section 166 of the Act Congress
intended to authorize EPA to establish
additional pollutant-specific PSD
regulations, potentially containing
increments, for any additional
pollutants for which EPA promulgated a
NAAQS under section 109 of the Act.
Furthermore, because the Act refers to
pollutants for which EPA promulgates
NAAQS after 1977, and does not use the
phrase ‘‘additional pollutants,’’ section
166(a) provides authority for EPA to
promulgate new increments after
revising an existing NAAQS (including
NAAQS first promulgated before 1977),
when we find that such action is
appropriate.
Moreover, any new increments
developed pursuant to section 166(a)
have no effect on existing increments, as
there is no indication therein that an
existing increment should be revoked or
replaced when additional increments
are promulgated. This was the situation
following the promulgation of new
NAAQS for PM in 1987 when EPA
replaced the old NAAQS based on TSP
with new ones based on PM10. Had
Congress not added new section 166(f)
in 1990, increments for PM10 could have
been developed pursuant to section
166(a) of the Act, but such increments
would have had no effect on the original
statutory increments for PM (based on
TSP). Consequently, seeing no basis for
retaining the original increments,
Congress added section 166(f) which
explicitly provides for the replacement
of the existing increments with PM10
increments.
One commenter asserted that if EPA
establishes increments for PM2.5 under
the authority of section 166(a) on the
basis that PM2.5 is a new pollutant, then
it must also establish PM10 increments
under section 166(a) because (according
to the commenter’s analysis) PM10 is
also a new pollutant. In the same
analysis, the commenter concluded that
EPA must adopt new measures to
prevent significant deterioration from
coarse PM based on section 166(a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
In this final rule, EPA is not setting or
amending any increments for PM10 or
otherwise taking action with respect to
PM10 increments. The preexisting
annual and 24-hour increments for PM10
are being retained. See section V.H.
Similarly, EPA is not taking any action
with respect to coarse PM in this rule.
For these reasons, the commenter’s
arguments on what authority must be
used to set increments for PM10 and/or
coarse PM, and that EPA has some
obligation to take action with respect to
coarse PM, are not on point for this rule.
Thus, no substantive response to this
comment is needed. Nevertheless, as
mentioned earlier, Congress provided
explicit authority under section 166(f) of
the Act to address increments for PM10,
because it intended for such increments
to be substitute increments for the
original statutory increments for PM
measured as TSP. Thus, the PM10
increments legally supersede the
original statutory increments for PM.
Had the PM10 increments been
developed under section 166(a), which
prior to the 1990 Act Amendments was
the only authority available for
developing new increments, then the
original statutory PM increments would
have remained in effect in addition to
the PM10 increments.
One commenter expressed general
objections to EPA’s legal rationale for
the PM2.5 increments proposal, asserting
that we failed to expressly state and
support our legal authority for the PM2.5
increments, offering two possible
sources of authority (‘‘contingent safe
harbor,’’ ‘‘equivalent substitution,’’ or
possibly a combination of the two) but
never stating our legal position with
clarity. The commenter agreed with
EPA’s assessment that the PM2.5
increments should and must fulfill the
legal requirements of the Act (72 FR
54121), and added that it is the
government’s burden of proof to
establish its legal authority for action.
The commenter stated that it would be
arbitrary and capricious to promulgate
these regulations for which EPA has not
stated legal authority.
We do not disagree that the 2007
NPRM described two different legal
authorities for the two different options
for establishing increments, but we
disagree that these discussions did not
clearly present the alternative legal
bases that the Agency was considering
for taking action in this rule. In
particular, we clearly described our
legal authority for developing the 24hour and annual PM2.5 increments
under section 166(a) of the Act, which
is the basis on which we are taking final
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
action in this rule.7 First, we expressly
stated that Option 1 was based on the
statutory authority of section 166(a) of
the Act. See 72 FR 54123 (Under the
first option, ‘‘we would use the authority
of section 166(a) of the Act to develop
new increments for PM2.5’’). Second, we
provided a discussion of this authority
both in general (see 72 FR 54118–54119
and 54120–54123), and how it would be
applied to establish increments for
PM2.5 (see 72 FR 54119–120 and 54123–
136).
We now believe that section 166(a)
provides the most straightforward
approach for developing increments for
a pollutant or pollutant indicator for
which no increments have yet been
established. Our position is also
consistent with the comments we
received which supported the delay in
implementation of the PM2.5
increments, opposed the potential for
two sets of definitions for ‘‘major source
baseline date’’ and ‘‘trigger date’’ for the
PM2.5 increment system, and
highlighted the complexities involved
with having to establish and maintain
two sets of emissions inventories for the
24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments.
(See further description of relevant
comments in section VIII of this
section.)
C. EPA’s Interpretation of the
Requirements Under Sections 166(a)–(d)
of the Act
In section 166(a) of the Act, Congress
directed EPA to develop pollutantspecific regulations to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality.
Congress further specified that such
regulations meet specific requirements
set forth in sections 166(c) and 166(d) of
the Act. We stated in the 2007 NPRM
that because we believed that section
166(a) could be applied to the
development of increments for PM2.5,
we would follow the interpretation of
sections 166(a)–(d) that the Agency
adopted in its most recent NO2
increments rule. 70 FR 59582, October
12, 2005. That particular interpretation
and application was upheld in
Environmental Defense v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1320 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
The EPA’s interpretation of these
provisions is grounded on five
principles and conclusions. First, we
read section 166 of the Act to direct EPA
to conduct a holistic analysis that
considers how a complete system of
regulations will collectively satisfy the
7 We also believe that we sufficiently described
how section 166(f) might provide alternative
authority for establishing increments for PM2.5 (see,
e.g., 72 FR 54120–54121), but will not address that
in detail here because the increments in this rule
are not based on section 166(f) authority.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
applicable criteria, rather than
evaluating one individual part of a
regulatory scheme in isolation. Second,
we use a ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’
approach which calls for EPA to first
determine an increment that is at least
as effective as the increments in section
163 of the Act, as required under section
166(d) and then to conduct further
analysis to determine if additional
measures are necessary to fulfill the
requirements of section 166(c). Third,
we interpret section 166(c) of the Act to
identify eight statutory factors that EPA
must apply when promulgating
pollutant-specific regulations to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality.
Fourth, where these factors are at odds
with each other, we interpret the statute
to require EPA to use its judgment to
balance the conflicting factors. Fifth, we
recognize that the requirements of
section 166 may be satisfied by adopting
other measures besides an increment
and that EPA may allow states to
demonstrate that alternatives to
increments contained in a SIP meet the
requirements of sections 166(c) and
166(d). Below is a brief discussion of
each of these five principles and
conclusions. A more detailed
description of each of these is contained
in the 2007 NPRM at 72 FR 54121–
54123.
1. Regulations as a Whole Should Fulfill
Statutory Requirements
Section 166(a) of the Act directs EPA
to develop pollutant-specific regulations
to prevent the significant deterioration
of air quality. Sections 166(c) and 166(d)
provide detail on the contents of those
regulations, but do not necessarily
require the same type of increment
system Congress created in section 163
of the Act. The EPA interprets section
166 to require that the entire system of
PSD regulations (the framework and
details, as described in section V.D of
this preamble) for a particular pollutant
must, as a whole, satisfy the criteria in
sections 166(c) and 166(d) of the Act.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
2. Contingent Safe Harbor Approach
Section 166(c) of the Act describes the
kinds of measures to be contained in the
regulations to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality called for in
section 166(a) and specifies that these
regulations are to ‘‘fulfill the goals and
purposes’’ set forth in sections 160 and
101 of the Act. Section 166(d) of the Act
directs EPA to ‘‘fulfill such goals and
purposes’’ by providing ‘‘specific
measures at least as effective as the
increments established in section 163
* * *.’’ Thus, EPA reads section 166(d)
to require that the Agency identify ‘‘safe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
harbor’’ pollutant-specific PSD
regulations adopted under section 166.
The EPA reads section 166(c) to
require that the Agency conduct further
review to determine whether, based on
the criteria in section 166(c), EPA’s
pollutant-specific PSD regulations
under section 166 should contain
measures that are different from the
‘‘safe harbor’’ identified under section
166(d). The EPA construes section
166(d) to require that the measures be
‘‘at least as effective’’ as the statutory
increments set forth in section 163.
To apply the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’
approach for PM2.5, we first identified
‘‘safe harbor’’ increments for each area
classification (Class I, II, or III), using:
(1) Equivalent percentages of the
NAAQS as the percentages used for
developing the statutory increments; (2)
the same pollutant as the NAAQS, i.e.,
PM2.5, and (3) the same time (averaging)
periods as were used for the PM2.5
NAAQS. We concluded that this
approach would ensure that the
increments would be ‘‘at least as
effective as the increments established
in section 163,’’ as required by section
166(d). Second, EPA conducted further
review to determine whether the ‘‘safe
harbor’’ increments, in conjunction with
existing elements of the PSD program or
additional measures proposed under
section 166 to augment the increments,
sufficiently fulfill the criteria in
subsection (c) of section 166.
In this review, we weighed and
balanced the criteria set forth in
subsection (c) (and, as provided in
subsection (c), the incorporated goals
and purposes of the Act in section 101
and the PSD program in section 160) to
determine whether additional measures
might be needed to satisfy the criteria in
subsection (c). See section V.E.6 of this
preamble for further discussion of our
evaluation, comments on the evaluation,
and our response to them.
3. The Statutory Factors Applicable
Under Section 166(c)
The EPA interprets section 166(c) of
the Act to establish eight factors to be
considered in the development of PSD
regulations for the pollutants covered by
this provision. These eight factors
included the three criteria stated in
section 166(c) and the five goals and
purposes identified in section 160 of the
Act (which, as noted below, also cover
the goals and purposes set forth in
section 101). The three stated criteria in
section 166(c) indicate that PSD
regulations for specific pollutants
should provide: (1) Specific numerical
measures for evaluating permit
applications; (2) a framework for
stimulating improved control
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64873
technology, and (3) protection of air
quality values. The five goals and
purposes in section 160 are
incorporated into the analysis by virtue
of the fourth criterion in section 166(c),
which directs that EPA’s pollutantspecific PSD regulations ‘‘fulfill the
goals and purposes’’ set forth in sections
160 and 101 of the Act. We construed
the term ‘‘fulfill the goals and purposes,’’
as used in section 166(c), to mean that
EPA should apply the goals and
purposes listed in section 160 as factors
applicable to pollutant-specific PSD
regulations established under section
166. The Agency’s view is that PSD
measures that satisfy the specific goals
and purposes of section 160 also satisfy
the more general purposes and goals
identified in section 101 of the Act. See
72 FR 54122.
One commenter disagreed with our
interpretation that the goals and
purposes of section 160 also satisfy all
of those in section 101. This commenter
asserted that although there is some
overlap between the two sections, they
are not identical. As an example, the
commenter noted that section 101
expressly states that a primary goal of
the Act is to promote pollution
prevention—a goal not stated in section
160. The commenter asserted that,
although the proposed increments
would limit some pollution increases,
there was no provision in the proposal
that would require or promote pollution
prevention.
We disagree with the commenter and
continue to believe that measures that
satisfy the specific goals and purposes
of section 160 also satisfy the more
general purposes and goals identified in
section 101 of the Act. As we stated in
the 2005 NO2 increment rulemaking, the
overall goals and purposes of the Act
listed in sections 101(b) and 101(c) are
general goals regarding protecting and
enhancing the nation’s air resources and
controlling and preventing pollution.
Because these broad goals are given
more specific meaning in section 160,
EPA does not believe it is necessary to
consider them in detail when evaluating
whether PSD regulations satisfy the
criteria in section 166(c). 70 FR 59587
FN 3.
Regarding pollution prevention
specifically, we believe that this general
goal is encompassed in, and given more
specific meaning by, sections 160(1),
160(2), and 160(4) of the Act. These
sections spell out the specific purposes
under the PSD program for the general
section 101 goals of controlling and
preventing pollution. We believe that
any requirement to limit or reduce
emissions serves to promote pollution
prevention, which is often the most cost
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64874
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
effective means of lowering pollutant
emissions.
In addition to citing the purposes set
out in section 160, section 166(c)
includes the criterion that pollutantspecific PSD regulations should provide
a framework for stimulating improved
control technology. As discussed
subsequently in sections V.D.1 and
V.D.6 of this preamble, we believe that
this criterion is fulfilled by the system
of increments for PM2.5 and by the
requirement for PSD permittees to apply
BACT to minimize PM2.5 emissions. In
stimulating improved control
technology generally, these elements of
the PSD program also promote pollution
prevention. As noted previously,
pollution prevention is often the most
cost effective means of control,
particularly for new sources and new
process lines at existing sources. In
addition, because BACT is a case-bycase determination that considers cost
and collateral environmental impacts,
pollution prevention, where technically
feasible, often fairs well in BACT
analyses because it is typically free from
the negative environmental impacts that
result from the use of add-on air
pollution control devices.
4. Balancing the Factors Applicable
Under Section 166(c)
While the eight factors in section
166(c) are generally complementary,
there are circumstances where some of
the objectives may be in conflict with
each other. In these situations, some
degree of balance or accommodation is
inherent in the requirement to establish
regulations that satisfy all of these
factors. As first discussed in our 2005
NO2 increments rulemaking (70 FR
59582 at 59587), we believe this
balancing test derives primarily from
the third goal and purpose set forth in
section 160: To insure economic growth
consistent with the preservation of
existing clean air resources. A more
detailed discussion of how the
balancing of factors should be
interpreted is contained in the 2007
NPRM at 72 FR 54122–54123.
One commenter claimed that EPA
‘‘incorrectly and repeatedly asserts’’ that
a goal of section 160 of the Act is to
insure economic growth. The
commenter claimed that neither section
160 nor section 101 of the Act uses
language to support a goal of promoting
or maximizing opportunities for
economic growth. Instead, the
commenter asserted that both sections
state only that any growth that does
occur must be consistent with
protection of air quality. The commenter
concluded that ‘‘EPA’s notion that the
need to satisfy the other requirements of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Section 166 and other goals and
purposes in Sections 101 and 160 can
never preclude additional emissions
from economic growth unlawfully
elevates such growth over all other
statutory factors.’’
The language in section 160(3)
provides that one of the purposes of the
PSD program is ‘‘to insure that economic
growth will occur in a manner
consistent with the preservation of
existing clean air resources.’’ The
commenter suggests that this language
can only be read as if the statutory
phrase ‘‘economic growth’’ actually said
‘‘any economic growth that does occur’’
such that section 160(3) says ‘‘to insure
that any economic growth that does
occur will occur in a manner consistent
with the preservation of existing clean
air resources.’’ We disagree; the phrasing
used by Congress is ‘‘to insure that
economic growth will occur.’’ Thus, we
believe the plain language of the statute
supports EPA’s reading that section
160(3) requires a balancing of the goals
of (1) economic growth and (2)
preservation of existing clean air
resources. At a minimum, if the
language were to be considered
ambiguous enough to allow the
commenter’s reading, then the Agency’s
interpretation is also a reasonable
reading of the statutory language.
5. Authority for States To Adopt
Alternatives to Increments
While section 166 of the Act
authorizes EPA to promulgate
increments for pollutants listed under
section 166(a), we have also interpreted
the section to allow states to employ
approaches other than increments to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, so long as such an approach
otherwise meets the requirements of
sections 166(c) and 166(d). This
interpretation was explained in the 2005
NO2 increment rulemaking (70 FR
59611–59612), in which we amended
the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 by
adding new paragraph (c)(2) to codify
this statutory authority. Under the
existing provision in 40 CFR
51.166(c)(2), states may seek EPA
approval of SIPs that use an alternative
approach to increments if the State can
demonstrate that the alternative
program satisfies the requirements of
sections 166(c) and 166(d). However,
the current language at paragraph (c)(2)
states the authority for states to adopt
alternative measures only with respect
to increments for NO2. To clarify our
interpretation that the authority to adopt
alternative measures covers any
pollutant listed in section 166(a), we are
revising 40 CFR 51.166(c)(2) to make it
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inclusive to all applicable pollutants
rather than just NO2.
Two commenters supported our
proposal to revise paragraph (c)(2) to
include PM2.5, while four State/local
agency commenters expressed
opposition. An environmental
commenter agreed that the Act allows
for other approaches, but believes that
such approaches must be in addition to
the national increments. Specifically,
this commenter stated that ‘‘although
EPA can provide for states to adopt
approaches in addition to increments in
order to fulfill the statutory purposes,
the agency must make clear that states
cannot adopt approaches that are less
protective that the national increments.’’
This commenter further stated that ‘‘to
the extent that EPA is suggesting that it
can allow states to adopt PSD programs
that do not include the minimum
Federal increments, that position is
contrary to the statute.’’
As in the 2005 NO2 increment
rulemaking, we are codifying the basic
principle that states can seek to use
alternative measures without defining
any specific type of alternative program
that would be approved or otherwise
creating standards beyond the
requirements of sections 166(c) and
166(d). Instead, we plan to make
determinations on a case-by-case basis
when a State submits a specific
alternative approach for EPA to approve
as part of a SIP. In making those
determinations, we will address the
specific alternative measures as states
propose them to the Agency in light of
the requirements of sections 166(c) and
166(d), including whether the
alternative program is ‘‘at least as
effective as the increments established
in section 163,’’ as required in section
166(d).
The four State/local agency
commenters opposing the revision to 40
CFR 51.166(c)(2) expressed the
importance of using uniform national
increments for PM2.5. One commenter
argued that a nationally inconsistent
approach to PM2.5 in attainment areas
could result in a patchwork of State PSD
regulations—and the exact kinds of
economic repercussions that Congress
wished to avoid. The same commenter
argued that varying incrementequivalent measures could also result in
an uneven playing field for industry and
could exacerbate difficulties between
states experiencing transport problems.
Another opposing commenter was
concerned that allowing states to adopt
alternatives to increments would likely
lead to a ‘‘mish-mash’’ of State
approaches which defeats the intention
of Congress that there be uniformity in
PSD rules to avoid economic
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
dissimilarities from State to State that
could allow interstate competition for
industry based upon which State offers
the best (least expensive) environmental
compliance regulations. Another
commenter objected to allowing the use
of alternatives to increments by stating
that such alternative allowances
undermine the desired national
consistency, and EPA has failed to even
identify any Act programs which would
benefit from this approach.
While we acknowledge the potential
problems identified by the commenters
associated with allowing states to adopt
alternative approaches to the numerical
increments that we are establishing, we
also note that section 166(d) expressly
gives EPA some latitude in
promulgating regulations that will be at
least as effective as the increments in
section 163, by stating that such
regulations ‘‘may contain air quality
increments, emission density
requirements, or other measures.’’ Thus,
EPA is authorized to provide that states
may consider alternatives to the
increments established in this rule. That
said, the statutory authority is not a
blank check for states to do as they
please, but enables states to consider
options that may provide a meaningful
way for them to manage their air
resources within the framework allowed
by the statutory PSD requirements.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
D. Framework for Pollutant-Specific
PSD Regulations for PM2.5
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed to
apply the same basic framework for
pollutant-specific PSD regulations for
PM2.5 that we used in our 2005 NO2
increments regulations. Specifically, we
proposed adopting an increment and
area classification system for PM2.5 and
applying the statutory AQRV review
process to PM2.5 as well. We also
indicated that while some of the factors
applicable under section 166(c) are
fulfilled by using this type of framework
for pollutant-specific PSD regulations
under section 166(a) of the Act, this
framework of regulations also needs to
satisfy the other applicable factors.
Thus, the details of our regulations
(such as the characteristics of the
increments themselves) are important,
and we evaluated the effectiveness of
the framework in conjunction with more
detailed elements of our regulations. As
discussed in the following subsections,
we believe our obligations under section
166(c) of the Act are satisfied when the
PSD regulations collectively satisfy the
factors applicable under 166(c) of the
Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
1. Increment System
An increment-based program satisfies
the requirements under 166(c) to
provide ‘‘specific numerical measures
against which permit applications may
be evaluated.’’ An increment is the
maximum allowable level of ambient
pollutant concentration increase that is
allowed to occur above the applicable
baseline concentration in a particular
area. As such, an increment defines
‘‘significant deterioration.’’ Establishing
an increment system for PM2.5 will
fulfill two of the factors applicable
under section 166(c): (1) Providing
specific numerical measures to evaluate
permit applications, and (2) stimulating
improved control technology.
First, under section 165(a)(3) of the
Act, a permit applicant must
demonstrate that emissions from the
proposed construction and operation of
a facility ‘‘will not cause, or contribute
to, air pollution in excess of any (A)
maximum allowable increase or
maximum allowable concentration for
any pollutant * * *.’’ Once the baseline
date associated with the application for
the first new major stationary source or
major modification in an area is
established, the new emissions from
that source consume a portion of the
increment in that area, as do any
subsequent emissions increases that
occur from any source in the area. When
the maximum pollutant concentration
increase defined by the increment has
been reached, additional PSD permits
cannot be issued until sufficient
amounts of the increment are ‘‘freed up’’
via emissions reductions that may be
required by the reviewing authority.
Thus, an increment is a quantitative
value that establishes a ‘‘maximum
allowable increase’’ for a particular
pollutant. It functions, therefore, as a
specific numerical measure that can be
used to evaluate whether an applicant’s
proposed project will cause or
contribute to air pollution in excess of
allowable levels.
Increments also satisfy the second
factor in section 166(c) by providing ‘‘a
framework for stimulating improved
control technology.’’ Increments
establish an incentive to apply
improved control technologies in order
to avoid violating the increment and to
‘‘free up’’ available increment to promote
continued economic growth. These
control technologies may become the
basis of BACT determinations
elsewhere, as the technologies become
more commonplace and the costs tend
to decline.
One commenter stated that, although
increments may encourage the use of
existing control technologies, EPA has
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64875
not cited any evidence that increments
actually stimulate the development of
improved technologies. Moreover, the
commenter asserted that even if
increments provide the incentive
asserted by EPA, any encouragement of
improved control technology is wholly
incidental and hardly amounts to a
‘‘framework’’ whose purpose is to
stimulate such technology.
We continue to believe that the total
program, encompassing increments and
BACT, does provide an appropriate
framework to stimulate BACT in such a
way that it is not simply ‘‘wholly
incidental,’’ as the commenter claims.
The fact that economic growth in an
area must occur within a defined
amount of allowable air quality
deterioration should logically lead to
the application of improved pollution
control technology as the amount of
deterioration increases, and should not
be regarded as an incidental
consequence. As stated in the 2007
NPRM, Congress envisioned that the
increments they originally established
would serve as an incentive: ‘‘The
incremental ceiling should serve as an
incentive to technology, as a potential
source may wish to push the frontiers of
technology in a particular case to obtain
greater productive capacity with the
limits of the increments.’’ S. Rep. 95–
127 at 18, 30 (3 LH at 1392, 1404). We,
too, believe that as the available
increment in an area becomes smaller,
and as states try to preserve some of the
remaining increments for future growth,
it will be necessary to require sources to
install more stringent controls in that
area. Such levels of control ultimately
must be considered in subsequent BACT
evaluations in other PSD areas
throughout the country. Admittedly, the
increasing stringency of control
technologies over time, as observed in
EPA’s BACT/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse,
supports but cannot in itself
conclusively demonstrate that the PSD
program has already stimulated
development of improved control
technology; there are undoubtedly a
number of factors that could cause such
trends. Nevertheless, even the need to
require a more stringent BACT
determination in only a few PSD areas
(due to dwindling increment
availability) necessitates consideration
of that level of control for all other PSD
sources wherever they may decide to
locate. In any event, while the
commenter generally questions the
effectiveness of the increments as an
incentive for tightening BACT, they
provided no evidence that more
stringent BACT is not related to the
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64876
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
increment system established as an
integral part of the PSD program.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
2. Area Classifications
In this final rule, EPA is establishing
the same three-tiered area classification
system for PM2.5 that is applicable to the
increments for NO2 and other pollutants
under the PSD program and the Act.
Accordingly, areas that are currently
Class I for other pollutants will also be
Class I for PM2.5 and all other areas will
be Class II for PM2.5 unless we
redesignate the area based on a request
by a State or tribe pursuant to the
process in section 164 of the Act and
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(g)
and 52.21(g).
As explained earlier in section IV.E.1,
Class I areas are areas where very clean
air is most desirable. In contrast, Class
III areas are designed as those areas in
which a State wishes to permit the
highest relative level of industrial
development, and thus allow the largest
incremental increase in pollution. Areas
that are not especially sensitive and
where states have not provided for a
higher level of industrial growth are
classified as Class II. When Congress
established this three-tiered scheme for
SO2 and PM, it intended that Class II
areas be subject to an increment that
allows ‘‘moderately large increases over
existing pollution.’’ H.R. Rep. 95–294, 4
LH at 2609.
Establishing increments at different
levels for each of the three area
classifications helps to fulfill two of the
factors applicable under section 166(c)
of the Act. First, establishing the
smallest increments in Class I areas
helps fulfill EPA’s obligation to
establish regulations that ‘‘preserve,
protect, and enhance the air quality’’ in
parks and special areas. Class I areas are
primarily the kinds of parks and special
areas covered by section 160(2) of the
Act. Second, by providing for two
additional area classifications with
increment levels that are higher but still
protective, the area classification system
helps satisfy the goal in section 160(3)
of the Act that EPA ‘‘insure that
economic growth will occur in a manner
consistent with preservation of clean air
resources.’’ In those areas where clean
air resources may not require as much
protection, more growth is allowed. By
employing an intermediate level (Class
II areas) and higher level (Class III
areas), this classification scheme helps
ensure that growth can occur where it
is needed (Class III areas) without
putting as much pressure on existing
clean air resources in other areas where
some growth is still desired (Class II
areas).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
By requesting that EPA redesignate an
existing Class II area to Class III, states
may accommodate economic growth
and air quality in areas where the Class
II increment is too small to allow the
siting of new or modified sources. The
procedures specified by the Act for such
a redesignation require a commitment
by the State government to create such
an area, extensive public review, local
government participation in the SIP area
redesignation process, and a finding that
the redesignation will not result in the
applicable increment being exceeded in
a nearby Class I or Class II area. See
sections 164(a) and (b) of the Act. (No
State has yet requested a Class III
redesignation.) The EPA believes that
the three-tiered classification system has
allowed for economic growth, consistent
with the preservation of clean air
resources.
However, an area classification
system alone may not completely satisfy
the factors applicable under section
166(c) of the Act. The increment that is
employed for each class of area is also
relevant to an evaluation of whether the
area classification system achieves the
goals of the PSD program. We briefly
discuss the characteristics of increments
in section V.E.5.
One commenter took issue with our
assessment of the two factors that we
believe a classification system helps to
fulfill. As discussed previously in
section V.C.4, the commenter asserted
that EPA has unlawfully interpreted
section 160(3) of the Act to elevate
economic growth over all other statutory
factors. As explained in greater detail in
section V.C.4, we disagree that our
interpretation elevates economic growth
over other factors, and believe that the
plain language of the statute supports
EPA’s reading that section 160(3)
requires a balancing of the goals of (1)
economic growth and (2) preservation of
existing clean air resources.
The commenter also stated that EPA
has failed to demonstrate that the
classification system and safe harbor
increments, in combination with the
other elements of the regulatory
framework, will ‘‘preserve, protect, and
enhance the air quality’’ in parks and
special areas as required under section
160(2) of the Act. These comments and
our response to them are found in
section V.E.6 of this preamble where we
discuss our evaluation of the safe harbor
increments.
3. Permitting Procedures
Two of the factors applicable under
section 166(c) are fulfilled by the caseby-case permit review procedures that
are built into our existing PSD
regulations. The framework of our
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
existing PSD regulations employs the
preconstruction permitting system and
procedures required under section 165
of the Act. These requirements are
generally reflected in 40 CFR 51.166 and
52.21 of EPA’s PSD regulations. These
permitting and review procedures,
which apply to construction of new
major sources and to major
modifications, fulfill the goals set forth
in sections 160(4) and 160(5) of the Act.
These goals require that PSD programs
in one State not interfere with the PSD
programs in other states and that PSD
programs assure that any decision to
permit increased air pollution is made
after careful evaluation and public
participation in the decision-making
process. For the same reasons discussed
in our proposal for the pollutantspecific NO2 increments regulations (70
FR 8896, February 23, 2005), we believe
these factors are also fulfilled for PM2.5
by employing the permit review
procedures.
4. AQRV Review by Federal Land
Manager and Reviewing Authority
In this final rule, we apply the
existing requirements to evaluate
impacts on AQRVs in Class I areas (see
existing 40 CFR 51.166(p) and 52.21(p))
to PM2.5. The existing requirements for
an AQRV review, which Congress
applied to SO2 and TSP, provide
Federal land managers (FLMs) with the
responsibility to review source impacts
on site-specific AQRVs in Class I areas
and to bring any alleged adverse
impacts to the attention of the reviewing
authority. Under an increment
approach, we consider this review to be
an additional measure that helps satisfy
the factors in sections 166(c) and 160(2)
which require EPA’s pollutant-specific
PSD regulations to protect (1) air quality
values, and (2) parks and other special
areas, respectively.
Two State/local agency commenters
supported our proposal to apply the
requirements to evaluate impacts on
AQRV in Class I areas to PM2.5 review.
However, one commenter indicated that
FLM review does not and cannot assure
the prevention of all significant PM2.5related deterioration because it applies
only to the construction or modification
of very large stationary sources (e.g.,
factories and power plants) affecting
Class I areas. This commenter pointed
out that Class I areas do not include
Bureau of Land Management wilderness
and wilderness study areas
(encompassing more than 15 million
acres), 341 of the nation’s 390 national
park units (only 49 national parks are
Class I), and many U.S. Forest Service
lands (including a number of wilderness
areas). The commenter added that FLM
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
review does not help to fulfill section
160(2)’s goal of preserving and
protecting air quality in ‘‘other areas of
special national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value,’’
such as State and local parks, wildlife
refuges, recreation areas, lakes, and
historic areas, none of which are Class
I areas. In addition, the commenter
noted that FLM review does not apply
to emissions increases from sources of
PM2.5 and precursor pollution other
than major stationary sources, such as
motor vehicles and non-major industrial
sources (which are sources that emit
substantial amounts of PM2.5 and
precursors). Alabama Power v. Costle,
636 F.2d 323, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(Alabama Power) (expressly recognizing
that ‘‘[s]ignificant deterioration may
occur due to increased emissions from
unregulated minor sources.’’).
The commenter also asserted that
FLM review is of limited reach even
where it does apply. Under the current
PSD regulations, a State must consider
an FLM’s objections and must justify its
decision in writing when it disagrees
with those objections, but the State can
still issue a PSD permit over those
objections unless emissions are
predicted to cause an exceedance of the
applicable increment. The commenter
believes that, given these limitations,
EPA cannot plausibly claim that the
existing provision for FLM review
ensures the preservation, protection,
and enhancement of air quality for parks
and natural areas throughout the nation
as required by section 160(2) of the Act.
In our rulemakings addressing PSD
for NOX, EPA extended the AQRV
review procedures set forth in 40 CFR
51.166(p) and 52.21(p) to cover NO2.
These AQRV review procedures were
established based on section 165(d) of
the Act, and they were originally
applied only in the context of the
statutory increments for PM and SO2.
However, because they also address
many of the factors applicable under
section 166(c) of the Act, EPA also
applied them to NOX through
regulation. In this final rule, we are
amending the existing PSD regulations
to extend, as proposed, the AQRV
review procedures to include PM2.5 by
explicitly including PM2.5 in the
regulatory text that now simply
references ‘‘particulate matter.’’ See new
40 CFR 51.166(p)(4) and 52.21(p)(5).
Section 165(d) creates a scheme in
which the FLM and reviewing authority
must review the impacts of a proposed
new or modified source’s emissions on
AQRVs. The Act assigns to the FLM an
‘‘affirmative responsibility’’ to protect
the AQRVs in Class I areas. This is in
notable contrast to the reviewing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
authority’s responsibility for protecting
the increments—including Class I
increments. The FLM may object to or
concur in the issuance of a PSD permit
based on the impact, or lack thereof,
that new emissions may have on any
affected AQRV that the FLM has
identified and for which information is
available to the general public. If the
proposed source’s emissions are shown
not to cause or contribute to a violation
of a Class I increment, the FLM may still
prevent issuance of the permit by
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
reviewing authority that the source or
modification will have an adverse
impact on AQRVs. Section 165(d)(2)(C).
On the other hand, if the proposed
source is shown to cause or contribute
to a violation of a Class I increment, the
reviewing authority (State or EPA) shall
not issue the permit unless the owner or
operator demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the FLM that there will be no adverse
impact on AQRVs.8 Thus, the showing
of compliance with the increment
determines whether the FLM or the
permit applicant has the burden of
satisfactorily demonstrating whether or
not the proposed source’s emissions
would have an adverse impact on
AQRVs.9 In any event, the FLM plays an
important and material role by raising
these issues for consideration by the
reviewing authority, which in the
majority of cases will be the State.
Extending the AQRV review
procedures of the PSD regulations to
PM2.5 helps to provide protection with
respect to potential adverse effects from
PM2.5 for parks and special areas (which
are generally the Class I areas subject to
this review) not afforded by the
increment system alone. As discussed
later, we believe the factors applicable
under section 166(c) of the Act can be
fulfilled when the review of AQRVs is
8 Even if such a waiver of the Class I increment
is allowed upon a finding of no adverse impact, the
source must comply with such emissions
limitations as may be necessary to ensure that
alternative increments specified in the rules for SO2
or PM are not exceeded. The alternative increments
are generally at the level of the Class II increments,
with the lone exception being a more restrictive 3hour increment for SO2. Section 165(d)(2)(C)(iv).
The EPA made this provision applicable to the PSD
provisions for NOX at the level of the NO2 Class II
increment (53 FR 3704; 53 FR 40656) and
substituted the PM10 Class II increments for the
statutory alternative PM increments, which were
based on TSP (58 FR 31622). This final rule
expands this provision to include the PM2.5 Class
II increments as well. See 40 CFR 51.166(p)(4) and
52.21(p)(5).
9 In response to concerns that Class I increment
would hinder growth in areas surrounding the Class
I area, Congress established Class I increments as a
means of determining where the burden of proof
should lie for a demonstration of adverse effects on
AQRVs. See Senate Debate, June 8, 1977 (3 LH at
725).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64877
applied in conjunction with increments
and other aspects of our PSD
regulations. In those cases where the
increment is not violated and the
reviewing authority agrees that a
proposed project will adversely affect
AQRVs, the parks and other special
areas will be protected by denying
issuance of the permit or by requiring
the applicant to modify the project to
alleviate the adverse impact.
We read the legislative history to
show that Congress intended the AQRV
review provisions of section 165(d) to
provide a special layer of protection,
beyond that provided by increments.
The Senate committee report stated the
following:
A second test of protection is provided in
specified Federal land areas (Class I areas),
such as national parks and wilderness areas;
these areas are also subjected to a review
process based on the effect of pollution on
the area’s air quality related values.’’
S. Rep. 95–127, at 17, 4 LH at 1401.
As we stated in the NO2 increment
rule, we believe the term ‘‘air quality
values’’ should be given the same
meaning as ‘‘air quality related values.’’
Legislative history indicates that the
term ‘‘air quality value’’ was used
interchangeably with the term ‘‘air
quality related value’’ (AQRV) regarding
Class I lands.10
The commenter is correct that the
FLM (or AQRV) review applies only to
Class I areas, and not to other ‘‘special’’
areas such as the numerous State and
local parks and some other areas that
could be seen as being covered by the
protective purposes of section 160(2) of
the Act. This level of coverage by FLM
review to protect AQRVs was
established by Congress when it enacted
the PSD program, including the
purposes set out in section 160(2). Thus,
we conclude that Congress believed that
the special areas not designated as Class
I areas were properly addressed by the
other elements of the PSD program. As
discussed further in the next section,
one such element is the requirement for
sources to conduct an ‘‘additional
impacts analysis,’’ which includes an
10 See S. Rep. 95–127, at 12, reprinted at 3 LH at
1386, 1410 (describing the goal of protecting ‘‘air
quality values’’ in ‘‘Federal lands—such as national
parks and wilderness areas and international
parks,’’ and in the next paragraph and subsequent
text using the term ‘‘air quality related values’’ to
describe the same goal); id. at 35, 36 (‘‘The bill
charges the Federal land manager and the
supervisor with a positive role to protect air quality
values associated with the land areas under the
jurisdiction of the [FLM]’’ and then describing the
statutory term as ‘‘air quality related values’’). H.R.
Report 95–564 at 532 (describing duty of
Administrator to consider ‘‘air quality values’’ of the
tribal and State lands in resolving an appeal of a
tribal or State redesignation, which is described in
the final bill as ‘‘air quality related values’’).
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64878
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
analysis of the impacts on visibility,
soils, and vegetation of the proposed
source and associated growth, regardless
of the classification of the area impacted
by the source. Note also that states have
the option under the Act of designating
additional areas as Class I areas and
providing for AQRV review for these
State Class I areas if they believe that
there are areas within their borders that
merit such protection.
The commenter is not correct in
saying that the review to protect AQRVs
does not apply to emissions increases
from sources other than major stationary
sources. While it is generally true that
a major stationary source may trigger the
analysis as part of the required PSD
review for new major stationary sources
and major modifications where such
source’s emissions increase may affect a
Class I area, the review itself includes
the impacts on an AQRV of other
emissions in the area, including
emissions from non-major sources. In
addition, states may adopt requirements
in their State implementation plans to
require certain minor sources seeking a
permit to undergo an AQRV analysis if
they choose to do so.
We agree with the commenter that the
AQRV review has certain limitations in
that a State can, under some
circumstances, issue a PSD permit over
the objection of the FLM. Here again,
Congress enabled this outcome when it
provided that a permit would not be
issued when the FLM demonstrates ‘‘to
the satisfaction of the State’’ that the
source will have an adverse impact on
AQRVs in a Class I area. Section
165(d)(2)(C)(ii). We read this provision
to reflect Congress’s judgment on the
appropriate balance between State and
FLM discretion in the reach of AQRV
review. That said, when a reviewing
authority declines to follow a
determination of adverse impact by the
FLM, the reviewing authority is
expected to provide a rational basis for
doing so, and a reviewing authority’s
rejection of an FLM’s finding may not be
arbitrary and capricious. As stated by
EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board in
In the Matter of: Hadson Power 14—
Buena Vista, 4 E.A.D. 258, 1992 WL
345661 (October 5, 1992)(in Section
II.A):
States do not have unfettered discretion to
reject an FLM’s adverse impact
determination. If a State determines that an
FLM has not satisfactorily demonstrated an
adverse impact on AQRVs from the proposed
facility, the State must provide a ‘‘rational
basis’’ for such a conclusion, ‘‘given the
FLMs’ affirmative responsibility and
expertise regarding the Class I areas within
their jurisdiction.’’ 50 FR 28549, July 12,
1985. Arbitrary and capricious rejections of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
adverse impact determinations are not
sustainable. (citations omitted).
In sum, the commenter correctly
enumerated some of the limitations of
the AQRV review under the Act.
However, such review is only one
element of the full PSD program, which
must be evaluated against the statutory
requirements in their entirety. We
continue to believe, as previously
stated, that under an increment
approach, FLM review for AQRV
impacts is an additional measure that
helps satisfy the factors in sections
166(c) and 160(2) of the Act (which
require EPA’s pollutant-specific PSD
regulations to protect (1) air quality
values, and (2) parks and other special
areas, respectively) in balance with the
other statutory factors. We add that the
AQRV review requirements of the
existing regulations mirror these
requirements in the Act, which reflect
Congress’ judgment of how AQRV
review should properly be used to
promote the purposes of the program as
set out in section 160 of the Act.
5. Additional Impacts Analysis
The ‘‘additional impacts analysis’’
requirements set forth in our part 51 and
52 PSD regulations also help fulfill the
criteria and goals and purposes in
sections 166(c) and 160. The additional
impacts analysis involves a case-by-case
review of potential harm to visibility,
soils, and vegetation in Class II and III
areas that could occur from the
construction or modification of a PSD
source.
Sections 51.166(o)(1) and 52.21(o)(1)
of the PSD regulations require that a
permit provide the following analysis:
An analysis of the impairment to visibility,
soils and vegetation that would occur as a
result of the source or modification and
general commercial, residential, industrial
and other growth associated with the source
or modification. The owner or operator need
not provide an analysis of the impact on
vegetation having no significant commercial
or recreational value.
This requirement was based on
section 165(e)(3)(B) of the Act, which
provides that EPA establish regulations
that require ‘‘an analysis of the ambient
air quality, climate and meteorology,
terrain, soils and vegetation, and
visibility at the site of the proposed
major emitting facility and in the area
potentially affected by emissions from
such facility * * *.’’
As mentioned in the previous section,
one commenter argued that the
provisions for protection of Class I areas
are of no help in fulfilling the goal set
forth in section 160(2) of the Act to
preserve and protect air quality in the
countless ‘‘other areas of special
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value’’
such as State and local parks, wildlife
refuges, recreation areas, lakes and
historic areas, none of which were
originally defined by Congress as Class
I areas.
We acknowledge that the special
provisions for protecting Class I areas
are not applicable for protecting areas
that are not designated as ‘‘Class I.’’
However, we believe that the
‘‘additional impacts analysis’’ provisions
are especially helpful for satisfying the
requirements of section 166(c) in Class
II and Class III areas, including the types
of areas described by the commenter,
that are not Class I areas but are worthy
of special protection beyond what might
be provided by the NAAQS and
increments. 40 CFR 51.166(o) and
52.21(o). These areas are not subject to
the special AQRV review that applies
only in Class I areas. While the
additional impacts analysis is not as
intensive a review as the AQRV analysis
required in Class I areas, the
requirement to consider impairments to
visibility, soils, and vegetation through
the additional impacts analysis
contributes to satisfying the factors
applicable under section 166(c) of the
Act in all areas, including Class II and
Class III areas.
6. Installation of BACT
The requirement that new sources and
modified sources subject to PSD apply
BACT is an additional measure that
helps to satisfy the factors in sections
166(c), 160(1), and 160(2) of the Act.
This requirement, based on section
165(a)(4) of the Act, is already included
in EPA’s PSD regulations for all
pollutants generally and thus, in the
2007 NPRM we considered it to be a
part of the regulatory framework for the
Agency’s pollutant-specific regulations
for PM2.5. 40 CFR 51.166(j) and 52.21(j).
Our existing regulations define ‘‘best
available control technology’’ as ‘‘an
emission limitation * * * based on the
maximum degree of reduction for each
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act * * * which the Administrator, on
a case-by-case basis, taking into account
energy, environmental, and economic
impacts and other costs, determines is
achievable for such source through
application of production processes or
available methods, systems, and
techniques * * *.’’ 40 CFR
51.166(b)(12) and 52.21(b)(12). This
pollutant control technology
requirement, in practice, has required
significant reductions in the pollutant
emissions increases from new and
modified sources while also stimulating
the on-going improvement of control
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
technology. The control of PM2.5
emissions through the application of
BACT helps to protect air quality
values, public health and welfare, and
parks and other special areas.
E. Final PM2.5 Increments
Based on our evaluation of the effects
of PM2.5 and a balancing of the criteria
in section 166(c) of the Act (and the
incorporated goals and purposes of the
Act contained in section 101 and the
statutory PSD program in section 160 of
the Act), EPA has concluded that the
‘‘safe harbor’’ increments for PM2.5
(which satisfy section 166(d) of the Act)
are sufficient to fulfill the criteria in
section 166(c) when combined with the
other measures described earlier that we
apply to PM2.5. Since several of the eight
factors applicable under section 166(c)
are satisfied by adopting the framework
and other measures described earlier,
our development of these increments for
PM2.5 was guided by the four remaining
factors that may not be fully satisfied by
the framework and other measures: (1)
Protecting AQRVs; (2) protecting the
public health and welfare from
reasonably-anticipated adverse effects;
(3) protecting the air quality in parks
and special areas, and (4) insuring
economic growth.11 In accordance with
the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach,
to determine the specific characteristics
of the proposed increments, we first
established safe harbor increments
representing the level of effectiveness
necessary to satisfy the ‘‘at least as
effective as’’ requirement in section
166(d) of the Act and then conducted
further analysis to determine if
additional measures are necessary to
fulfill the requirements of section
166(c).
1. Identification of Safe Harbor
Increments
Using the percentage-of-NAAQS
approach under proposed Option 1, as
explained in section V.C.2 of this
preamble, we derived the following safe
harbor increments for PM2.5:
Increments (μg/m3)
NAAQS
(μg/m3)
Averaging period
64879
Class I
Class II
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Annual ..............................................................................................................................
24-hour .............................................................................................................................
15
35
The table shows PM2.5 NAAQS levels
(primary and secondary NAAQS) at 15
μg/m3 for the annual averaging time and
35 μg/m3 for the 24-hour averaging time.
See 40 CFR 50.7. From these NAAQS
levels, we calculated the safe harbor
increments based on the same
percentages that were used by Congress
to establish the original PM increments
(measured as TSP) in section 163 of the
Act, i.e., 6.6 percent of the NAAQS for
Class I areas, 25 percent of the NAAQS
for Class II areas, and 50 percent of the
NAAQS for Class III areas. We have
concluded that increments with these
characteristics are sufficient to satisfy
the requirement in section 166(d) that
we adopt increments (or other PSD
regulations) that are ‘‘at least as effective
as’’ the increments established in section
163 of the Act. See EDF v. EPA, 898
F.2d at 188, 190.
Nine commenters supported proposed
Option 1, either explicitly or implicitly
supporting our method of calculating
the safe harbor increments used to
develop increments for PM2.5. One of
these commenters, while agreeing with
the safe harbor increment approach
under Option 1, disagreed with our
analysis of the adequacy of the safe
harbor increments, as discussed in other
sections of this preamble. One
commenter who opposed Option 1
(based on the belief that section 166(a)
of the Act is not the appropriate basis
for PM2.5 increments) nevertheless
supported the percentage-of-NAAQS
approach for developing PM2.5
increments under the statutory authority
at section 166(f).
A commenter who opposed our
proposal to calculate increments using
percentages of the NAAQS argued that
this approach for setting the PM2.5
increments is not scientifically
supported. This commenter indicated
that basing the PM2.5 increments on the
same percentage of the NAAQS that
were used to set PM10 increments based
on the TSP NAAQS ignores the
relationship between PM10 and PM2.5
emissions, which may be much different
than the relationship between TSP and
PM10 emissions. The commenter argued
that, because the ratio of PM2.5 to PM10
emissions is 0.8, it appears that using
the percentages proposed by EPA would
indirectly restrict PM10/TSP emissions
and air quality impacts to
proportionally lower levels than the
PM10 increments in order to avoid
exceeding the PM2.5 increments. The
commenter conceded that using the 0.8
factor to set PM2.5 increments may seem
too high, but asserted that using the safe
harbor approach would set increments
for PM2.5 that are too low.
We conclude that the commenter is
mistaken in saying that the PM2.5
increments use the same percentage of
the NAAQS that were used to set the
PM10 NAAQS. We adopted the PM10
increments using the ‘‘equivalent
substitution’’ approach set forth under
section 166(f) of the Act. Under that
approach, rather than calculating the
PM10 increments as specific percentages
of the PM10 NAAQS (using the same
percentages that Congress used for
setting the statutory increments for PM
and SO2), EPA determined the levels of
the PM10 increments that could
represent an equivalent amount of
increment consumed, as if the TSP
increments were still in effect. See 58
FR 31622, June 3, 1993, at 31626–31627.
Nevertheless, the commenter is correct
that, in cases where the ratio of PM2.5 to
PM10 emissions is 0.8 for an individual
source, the source may have to reduce
its PM10 emissions more than would
otherwise be necessary to meet the PM10
increments in order to control its PM2.5
emissions sufficiently to meet the safe
harbor PM2.5 increments.12 This is
because the safe harbor PM2.5
increments are less than 80 percent of
the PM10 increments. For example, the
Class II 24-hour PM2.5 safe harbor
increment (9 μg/m3) is only 30 percent
of the corresponding PM10 increment
(30 μg/m3).
The underlying reason that the safe
harbor PM2.5 increments are so much
less than the PM10 increments is that the
PM2.5 NAAQS are much less than the
PM10 NAAQS.13 This is the result of the
evolution in our knowledge about the
health and welfare effects of PM, in
particular the effects of the fine PM
11 We have paraphrased these factors here and in
other sections to facilitate the explanation of our
reasoning. However, we recognize, as we did in our
regulation for NOX, that the statutory language is
broader than the shorthand we use here for
convenience.
12 Note that the PM
10 increment may still be more
limiting in areas where much of that increment has
already been consumed.
13 The 24-hour PM
3
2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m ) is about
23 percent of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS (150 μg/
m3).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
1
2
Class III
20OCR3
4
9
8
18
64880
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
represented by PM2.5. We believe that it
is fitting for PM2.5 increments to reflect
our greater knowledge about PM2.5
effects (as embodied in the NAAQS),
rather than to simply maintain the
control level required by the PM10
increments as suggested by the
commenter. If this results in PM2.5
increments that are more limiting than
PM10 increments, we believe that this
outcome is appropriate in light of our
statutory requirement to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality as
it relates to PM2.5.
2. Data Used by EPA for the Evaluation
of the Safe Harbor Increments for PM2.5
We evaluated whether measures other
than the safe harbor increments are
necessary by analyzing primarily the
scientific and technical information on
the health and welfare effects of PM2.5
contained in the June 2005 OAQPS Staff
Paper which accompanied the last full
review of the PM NAAQS completed in
2006.14
Section 166(a) of the Act provides that
EPA establish pollutant-specific PSD
regulations, such as increments, after
the establishment of a NAAQS for the
applicable pollutants. The Act provides
that EPA will promulgate new PSD
regulations under section 166, including
new increments if appropriate, within 2
years from the promulgation of any
NAAQS after 1977. Within that time
frame, the health and welfare
information used for the setting of the
NAAQS would also be ‘‘current’’ for
purposes of establishing pollutantspecific PSD regulations. We believe
this timing reflects congressional intent
that EPA consider the same body of
information concerning a pollutant’s
health and welfare effects when it
promulgates the NAAQS and
subsequent PSD increments (or other
measures) defining significant air
quality deterioration for the same
pollutant. However, when we used that
same information as the basis for our
proposed pollutant-specific PSD
regulations, we evaluated that
information under the legal criteria in
section 166 of the Act rather than the
criteria in section 109 applicable to the
promulgation of NAAQS. See EDF v.
EPA, 898 F.2d at 190.
At the time of our proposal of PM2.5
increments, we had just completed a
review of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, the
information used in the NAAQS review
was current and timely for purposes of
establishing pollutant-specific PSD
regulations for PM2.5. On October 17,
14 The review completed in 2006 updated the
previous review, which began in 1994 and resulted
in revised standards for PM in 1997.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:30 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
2006, based primarily on considerable
new data on the air quality and human
health effects for PM2.5 directly, EPA
revised the primary and secondary
NAAQS to provide increased protection
of public health and welfare by
retaining the level of the annual
standard and tightening the level of the
24-hour standard from 65 to 35 μg/m3
while retaining the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS and revoking the annual PM10
NAAQS. The information contained in
both the 2004 Criteria Document and
2005 Staff Paper that was used for the
latest review of the PM NAAQS was
also considered for the purpose of
evaluating the PM2.5 increments that we
have established in this final rule.
The 2004 Criteria Document and 2005
Staff Paper are the products of a
rigorous process that is followed to
validate and interpret the available
scientific and technical information,
and provided the basis for
recommending the PM2.5 NAAQS. In
accordance with the Act, the NAAQS
process begins with the development of
‘‘air quality criteria’’ under section 108
for air pollutants that ‘‘may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare’’ and that come from
‘‘numerous or diverse’’ sources. Section
108(a)(1). For each NAAQS review, the
Administrator must appoint ‘‘an
independent scientific review
committee composed of seven members
of the National Academy of Sciences,
one physician, and one person
representing State air pollution control
agencies,’’ known as the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC). Section 109(d)(2)(A). The
CASAC is charged with recommending
revisions to the criteria document and
NAAQS, and advising the Administrator
on several issues, including areas in
which additional knowledge is required
to appraise the adequacy and basis of
existing, new, or revised NAAQS.
Section 109(d)(2)(B),(C).
‘‘Air quality criteria’’ must reflect the
latest scientific knowledge on ‘‘all
identifiable effects on public health or
welfare’’ that may result from a pollutant
presence in the ambient air. Section
108(a)(2). The scientific assessments
constituting air quality criteria generally
take the form of a ‘‘criteria document,’’
a rigorous review of all pertinent
scientific studies and related
information. The EPA also develops a
‘‘staff paper’’ to ‘‘bridge the gap’’ between
the scientific review and the judgments
the Administrator must make to set
standards. See Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA (‘‘NRDC ’’), 902
F.2d 962, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Both
documents undergo extensive scientific
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
peer review as well as public notice and
comment. See, e.g., 62 FR 386542.
3. Scope of Effects Considered
The effects of ambient PM2.5
concentrations may include effects from
secondarily-formed PM2.5. Thus, when
we analyzed the data in this rulemaking,
we evaluated the health and welfare
effects of both direct PM2.5 and
secondarily-formed PM2.5 that may
result from the transformation of other
pollutants such as SO2 and NOX. This
was consistent with the approach we
described for addressing these effects in
the review of our pollutant-specific NO2
increments regulations. 70 FR 59590.
4. Evaluation of the Health and Welfare
Effects of PM2.5
Airborne PM is not a specific
chemical entity, but rather is a mixture
of liquid and solid particles from
different sources and of different sizes,
compositions, and properties. Particle
size distributions show that atmospheric
particles exist in two classes: Fine
particles and coarse particles. The
indicator for fine particles is PM2.5,
which represents that population of
particles that is mostly less than 2.5
micrometers in size. The indicator for
thoracic coarse particles is ‘‘PM10–2.5,’’
which represents particles sized
between 2.5 and 10 micrometers. In the
last two reviews of the PM NAAQS,
EPA concluded that these two
indicators, because of their different
sources, composition, and formation
processes, should be treated as separate
subclasses of PM pollution for purposes
of setting ambient air quality standards.
Fine PM is derived directly from
combustion material that has volatilized
and then condensed to form primary PM
or from precursor gases, such as SO2
and NOX, reacting in the atmosphere to
form secondary PM. Major components
of fine particles are sulfates, strong acid,
ammonium nitrate, organic compounds,
trace elements (including metals),
elemental carbon, and water. Primary
and secondary fine particles have long
lifetimes in the atmosphere (days to
weeks) and travel long distances
(hundreds to thousands of kilometers).
They tend to be uniformly distributed
over urban areas and larger regions,
especially in the eastern United States.
As a result, they are not easily traced
back to their individual sources.
a. Health Effects
The EPA reported important progress
since the last PM NAAQS review in
advancing our understanding of
potential mechanisms by which ambient
PM2.5, alone and in combination with
other pollutants, is causally linked to a
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
number of key health effects. The more
extensive and stronger body of evidence
used by EPA to study the health effects
of PM2.5 in our latest review identified
a broader range of effects than those
previously documented, involving
premature mortality and indices of
morbidity (including respiratory
hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, school absences, work loss
days, restricted activity days, effects on
lung function and symptoms,
morphological changes, and altered host
defense mechanisms) associated with
both long-term and short-term exposure
to PM2.5. A more detailed discussion of
the health effects associated with PM2.5
is contained in the 2007 NPRM. 72 FR
54127–54128. In addition, an overview
of the scientific and technical evidence
considered in the 2004 Criteria
Document and 2005 Staff Paper can be
found in our proposed rule for revising
the NAAQS for PM (71 FR 2619, January
17, 2006).
b. Welfare Effects
Ambient PM alone, and in
combination with other pollutants, can
have a variety of effects on public
welfare. While visibility impairment is
the most noticeable effect of fine
particles present in the atmosphere,
both fine and coarse particles can have
other significant welfare-related effects,
including effects on vegetation and
ecosystems, materials (e.g., soiling and
corrosion), and climate change
processes.
In reaching our decision in 2006 to
revise the suite of PM secondary
standards, EPA factored in several key
conclusions from the scientific and
technical information contained in the
2004 Criteria Document and 2005 Staff
Paper. These conclusions included the
following: (1) PM-related visibility
impairment is principally related to fine
particle levels, and most directly related
to instantaneous levels of visual air
quality associated with short-term
averaging periods; (2) PM2.5
concentrations can be used as a general
surrogate for visibility impairment in
urban areas; (3) any secondary NAAQS
for visibility protection should be
considered in conjunction with the
regional haze program as a means of
achieving appropriate levels of
protection against PM-related visibility
impairment in urban, non-urban, and
Class I areas nationwide; (4) the
available evidence is not sufficient to
support distinct secondary standards for
fine or coarse particles for any nonvisibility related welfare effects; and (5)
the secondary standards should be
considered in conjunction with
protection afforded by other programs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
intended to address various aspects of
air pollution effects on ecosystems and
vegetation, such as the acid deposition
program and other regional approaches
to reducing pollutants linked to nitrate
or acidic deposition.
In this rulemaking, EPA has reviewed
the scientific and technical information
concerning welfare related effects
considered in the 2004 Criteria
Document and 2005 Staff Paper to
determine whether there is any basis for
modifying the safe harbor increments
developed for PM2.5 to satisfy the
criteria under sections 166(c) and 160 of
the Act. Our review included
information on visibility impairment,
and effects on vegetation and other
ecosystem components, materials and
soiling, and climate changes. A detailed
discussion of the various welfare effects
we considered for evaluating the safe
harbor increments for PM2.5 is contained
in the 2007 NPRM. 72 FR 54128–54133.
5. Fundamental Elements of Increments
As we have previously noted, under
the model established in the Act and
prior EPA regulations, the function of an
increment is not like that of the NAAQS
in that an increment is not intended to
set a uniform ambient pollutant
concentration ‘‘ceiling’’ across the
United States. See 70 FR 59600. Instead,
while both increments and NAAQS
generally serve to limit ambient air
pollution levels, increments are
designed to allow a uniform amount of
pollutant concentration increase for
each area in the United States having a
particular classification, i.e., Class I, II,
or III. The amount of the allowable
increase is measured against a baseline
air quality level that is typically
different for each particular area.15
Because the baseline air quality level
varies from one location to another, and
is not established for a particular area
until a source proposing to construct in
that area submits a complete PSD permit
application, it is not possible to
determine what the maximum ambient
pollutant concentration attainable will
be for a given area (to be used to
determine the protection afforded by an
increment against potential adverse
environmental effects) until the specific
baseline air quality level is known.
For the reasons described in our NO2
increments rule, our objective is to
establish uniform increments, consistent
with the increments for SO2 and PM
originally established by Congress, that
allow the same level of deterioration for
15 It should be noted, however, that an increment
does not allow air pollution levels in an area to
increase beyond the ambient concentration of a
pollutant that would exceed the level allowed by
the NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64881
each area of the country having the
same classification. 70 FR 59601. It is
important to understand that increments
are not intended to reduce ambient
concentrations of an air pollutant below
existing baseline levels in each area, but
rather to define a level of allowable
increase in pollutant concentrations
above baseline levels, and to identify
the level at which ‘‘significant’’
deterioration occurs for each area, in
accordance with its specific
classification. 70 FR 59600.
6. Evaluation of the Safe Harbor
Increments
As indicated earlier (in section V.E.2
of this preamble), mindful of the
considerations made about the
fundamental characteristics of the
increments, we reviewed the scientific
and technical evidence available for the
2005 review of the NAAQS for PM in
order to determine whether, and to what
extent, the ‘‘safe harbor’’ increments
might need to be modified in order to
protect air quality values, health and
welfare, and parks while insuring
economic growth consistent with the
preservation of clean air resources in
accordance with sections 166(c) and 160
of the Act. As we did in our evaluation
of the safe harbor NO2 increments (70
FR 59603–59606), we relied on an
approach that evaluates how protective
the safe harbor PM2.5 increments are by
comparing the marginal pollutant
concentration increases allowed by the
safe harbor increment levels against the
pollutant concentrations at which
various environmental responses occur.
We analyzed the available evidence
from both a quantitative and qualitative
perspective to reach a decision about
whether we should modify the
contingent safe harbor PM2.5 increments
and whether we have sufficient
information to select a specific
alternative level, averaging time, or
pollutant indicator for the increments.
As a result of our analysis, we proposed
to conclude that it was not necessary to
modify the safe harbor increments to
protect human health, address nonvisibility welfare effects, or further
protect visibility. This analysis is
described in detail in the 2007 NPRM.
After considering the comments on
our evaluation of the safe harbor
increments and the conclusions we
reached in the 2007 NPRM (summarized
in the following paragraphs), we
continue to believe that the safe harbor
increments for PM2.5 (which satisfy
section 166(d) of the Act) are sufficient
to fulfill the criteria in section 166(c) of
the Act (and the incorporated goals and
purposes of the Act in section 101 and
the PSD program in section 160) when
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64882
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
combined with the other measures
described earlier that we apply to PM2.5.
Consequently, this final rule establishes
the PM2.5 increments at the level of the
proposed safe harbor increments.
An environmental group submitted
extensive comments arguing that the
PM2.5 safe harbor increments are not
sufficient to meet the Act’s requirements
for PSD and that our analysis was
inadequate, and two other commenters
submitted more narrowly targeted
comments in this area. A summary of
the major comments, along with our
responses, follows. A more detailed
treatment of the comments can be found
in the Response to Comments document
for this rulemaking, which is available
in the rulemaking docket.16
The environmental group commenter
stated that EPA has not complied with
section 166(c) of the Act because the
Agency has not made a finding or
demonstrated that the PM2.5 PSD rules
will (as required by section 160(2) of the
Act) preserve, protect, and enhance the
air quality in parks and special areas.
The commenter asserted that EPA
offered only vague assertions that the
proposed increments would ‘‘satisfy’’ the
statutory factors and that they, along
with other programs, would ‘‘help’’ to
fulfill the statutory purposes. The
commenter went on to argue that EPA
sought to excuse its failure to show
fulfillment of the statutory purposes by
asserting that it cannot develop a
uniform, quantitative, dose-response
relationship between fine particle levels
and certain ecosystem impacts (citing 72
FR 54134), but that, even if true, such
a claim does not excuse the agency from
satisfying its statutory duty under
section 166(c).
We conclude that the 2007 NPRM
demonstrated that the safe harbor
increments, in combination with the
other aspects of the regulatory
framework, fulfill the statutory
requirements despite the scientific
uncertainties. We reiterate that finding
today. The fact that we did not, in the
2007 NPRM, explicitly state this as a
finding does not diminish the
demonstration made there and
reiterated in this preamble.
The environmental group commenter
believes that the relationship between
PM2.5 and adverse effects can be
quantified to a greater extent than stated
by EPA. Regarding acid rain and other
adverse ecological impacts, the
commenter asserted that critical loads
can be established as a way of
quantifying and limiting the PM2.5
contribution to degradation, and noted
16 Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605 can be
accessed on line at https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
that critical loads are now used by
authorities in Europe, have been
endorsed by leading North American
scientists, and have been used by
Federal land management agencies. To
comply with section 166(c), the
commenter believes that EPA must
establish a mechanism to supplement
the nationally uniform increments with
additional measures, including a
requirement to establish area-specific
critical loads or equally protective
limits, where necessary to protect and
enhance air quality in specific parks and
natural areas.
With regard to the critical load
concept, we agree conceptually with the
commenter that critical loads could be
used to supplement the existing
increments, especially as a means of
protecting the known sensitive
ecosystems within Class I areas. While
we disagree that the critical loads
concept can be used as an effective
replacement to increments for limiting
air quality degradation, we believe that
the concept offers considerable promise
in helping to protect sensitive receptors
in specific Class I areas. However, we do
not believe that it would be appropriate
at this time to establish a requirement
for area-specific critical loads under the
PSD program. In our 2005 PSD rule for
NO2 increments, we indicated that
states could propose using information
on critical loads as part of their
approach for managing air quality in
their individual SIP-approved PSD
programs, but sufficient information
was not yet available for EPA to
incorporate the use of critical loads into
the national PSD program. See 70 FR
59613.
The concept of critical loads is useful
for estimating how much pollution a
particular ecosystem can experience on
a prolonged basis without showing
adverse effects. In addition to
addressing the opportunity for using
critical loads under its NO2 increment
rule, EPA has addressed the concept of
critical loads in the last review of the
PM NAAQS and currently in the
secondary NO2/SO2 NAAQS review.17
To date in the United States, critical
loads have had their primary
application in the area of atmospheric
deposition of sulfur (S) and nitrogen
(N). In the last review of the PM
NAAQS, EPA found that ambient PM
was contributing to the total load of
pollutants entering the U.S. ecosystem
17 In the 2005 OAQPS Staff Paper reviewing the
NAAQS for PM, EPA cited the following accepted
definition of ‘‘critical load’’: ‘‘quantitative estimate
of an exposure to one or more pollutants below
which significant harmful effects on specified
sensitive elements of the environment do not occur
according to present knowledge.’’ See page 6–45.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
annually. However, the review also
concluded that there were ‘‘insufficient
data for the vast majority of U.S.
ecosystems that differentiate the PM
contribution to total N [nitrate] or S
[sulfate] deposition to allow for
practical application of this approach as
a basis for developing national
standards to protect sensitive U.S.
ecosystems from adverse effects related
to PM deposition.’’ The 2005 Staff Paper
for the PM NAAQS, in reaching this
conclusion, addressed various
important factors, including (1) the lack
of a long-term, historic database of
annual speciated PM deposition rates to
establish relationships between PM
deposition and ecosystem responses;
(2) uncertainty in predicting the amount
of PM deposited to sensitive receptors
from measured concentrations of PM in
the ambient air; and (3) the unique
nature of each ecosystem and the
current inability to extrapolate with
confidence any effect from one
ecosystem to another. The 2005 Staff
Paper recommended that EPA give
serious attention to the critical load
concept and recommended the
collection of data from a ‘‘greater variety
of ecosystems over longer time scales to
determine how ecosystems respond to
different loading rates over time.’’ 2005
Staff Paper at page 7–19.
The review of the secondary NAAQS
for NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX), which
is currently underway, is evaluating
ecological effects due to the atmospheric
deposition of NOX and SOX. The two
main targeted effects are acidification
and nutrient enrichment in both aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems. This review
is attempting to use critical loads to
evaluate the impact of current
depositional loads and alternative loads
in several case study areas. However, as
mentioned earlier, the estimation of
ecosystem critical loads expressed in
terms of PM requires long-term
ecosystem-level data on speciated PM
deposition rates for which an adequate
database is currently lacking for most
sites in the United States.
The environmental group commenter
also asserted that the safe harbor
increments would allow PM2.5 air
quality to deteriorate to the level of the
NAAQS in many locations. According
to the commenter’s analysis, at 55
percent of the locations with PM2.5
monitors that were not already
exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS, 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations would be allowed
to increase up to the level of the
NAAQS. In addition, the analysis
showed that for 84 percent of locations
not already exceeding the NAAQS, the
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations would be
allowed to increase to a level of 30 μg/
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
m3 or more. The commenter believes
that allowing such levels would not be
protective of public health, given that
we stated in the 2007 NPRM that we
had previously found that PM2.5
concentrations less than a range of 30–
35 μg/m3 (24-hour average) were
protective of public health (citing 72 FR
54128).
The environmental group
commenter’s analysis showed similar
results for the proposed annual PM2.5
increments. The commenter asserted
that PM2.5 concentrations would be
allowed to increase up to the level of the
annual NAAQS in 55 percent of the
locations that are currently in
attainment, and that 87 percent of these
sites would be allowed PM2.5
concentrations of 12 μg/m3 or higher.
Again, the commenter believes that
allowing annual concentrations at or
above 12 μg/m3 would not be protective
of public health, based on our statement
in the 2007 NPRM that we had
previously found that PM2.5
concentrations less than a range of 12–
15 μg/m3 (annual average) were
protective of public health (citing 72 FR
54128).
We do not believe that increments
must be set at levels that ensure that the
full amount of increment will be
available in all locations. The statutory
provisions in the PSD program have
always been clear that a source must
demonstrate that it will comply with
both the NAAQS and increments for any
pollutant. Consistent with congressional
intent, the PSD program does not allow
a source to violate the NAAQS just
because its emissions will not cause the
increments to be exceeded. If the
increments were to be developed in
such a way that all areas, taking into
account current ambient air quality
status, would be able to utilize the full
amount of increment, then the
increment levels would have to be
unnecessarily stringent in areas that are
substantially cleaner than levels
allowed by the NAAQS.
Congress recognized that all areas of
the country might not be able to utilize
the full amount of increment when they
provided provisions within the Act
requiring that both the NAAQS and
increments must continue to be met at
all times. In areas where the full amount
of increment is not available due to
levels of pollution approaching the
NAAQS, states may need to require
emissions reductions at existing sources
to accommodate the desired amount of
economic growth. Hence, we do not
believe it is reasonable to unduly
restrict economic growth in cleaner
areas by setting more restrictive
increments to help maintain air quality
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
levels below the NAAQS in areas which
are currently only marginally
attainment.
In addition, we disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the
increments will not protect public
health. In setting the PM2.5 NAAQS at
35 μg/m3 (24-hour) and 15 μg/m3
(annual), EPA concluded that these
levels protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. Regardless of
the level at which the increments are
set, no source is permitted to cause the
NAAQS to be exceeded. That is, as
noted previously, the upper bound on
the permissible concentration of PM2.5 is
determined by the increment or the
NAAQS, whichever is more restrictive
in each particular case. Thus, the entire
framework of the PM2.5 regulations,
including the safe harbor increments, is
protective of public health. In asserting
otherwise, the commenter has
misconstrued our statements in this
regard.
In the 2007 NPRM section on the
health effects of PM2.5 (72 FR 54127–
54128), we discussed the fact that we
considered setting the 24-hour NAAQS
in the range of 30 to 35 μg/m3 and the
annual NAAQS in the range of 12 to 15
μg/m3. However, we concluded in
setting the NAAQS that 35 μg/m3 (24hour) and 15 μg/m3 (annual) are
protective of public health with an
adequate margin of safety. We did not
say, nor do we believe, that PM2.5
concentrations must be below 30 μg/m3
(24-hour average) or 12 μg/m3 (annual
average) to protect public health.
The environmental group commenter
believes that there is a quantifiable
relationship between visibility
impairment and PM2.5 levels, citing the
2007 NPRM discussion (72 FR 54135) as
well as the most recent Criteria
Document and Staff Paper for PM2.5. The
commenter pointed out that in the 2007
NPRM (72 FR 54135), EPA observed that
the proposed Class II short-term safe
harbor increment of 9 μg/m3, if
combined with the estimated daily
background levels in most areas (i.e., 10
μg/m3), would be below the minimum
values recommended in the 2005 Staff
Paper for the secondary short-term
standard for PM2.5 (which was 20 μg/
m3). Rather than supporting the
adequacy of 9 μg/m3 as an increment
level to protect visibility, the
commenter believes that this shows that
the safe harbor increment is inadequate
because consumption of an increment of
9 μg/m3 combined with background
levels alone would cause an area to
reach within 1 μg/m3 of the staffrecommended value of 20 μg/m3. The
commenter added that most areas would
have PM2.5 pollution from motor
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64883
vehicles and stationary sources in
concentrations substantially greater than
background levels, easily placing these
areas above 20 μg/m3 (citing the 2005
Staff Paper at 2–77).
The environmental group commenter
went on to assert that the safe harbor
PM2.5 increments will not be sufficient
to protect visibility in parks and other
natural areas. In the 2007 NPRM, we
stated that a 24-hour average PM2.5
concentration of 20 μg/m3 correlates to
a visual range of approximately 25 to 35
kilometers. 72 FR 54129. The
commenter asserted that this visual
range distance falls far short of what the
National Park Service considers to be
good visibility for national parks,
adding that the National Park Service
has stated that visibility used to be 90
miles (145 km) on average in eastern
parks, and 140 miles (225 km), on
average in western parks.18 The
commenter stated that the safe harbor
increments would allow parks and other
natural areas to experience PM2.5
pollution that is correlated with a
25–35 km visual range.
The visibility impairment issue is
more complex than suggested by the
environmental group commenter. In
addition to predicting what the
maximum ambient change in air quality
is for a particular area, a visibility
impairment assessment considers such
things as the frequency, magnitude, and
duration of visibility impacts in order to
conclude that an adverse impact will
occur.
In addition, the environmental group
commenter misconstrued the
illustration we included in the 2007
NPRM. We noted that the lowest level
we considered as a secondary PM2.5
NAAQS was 20 μg/m3, which was
considered to address visibility issues in
urban areas. We also noted that in most
areas, the estimated 98th percentile of
daily background concentrations is less
than 10 μg/m3. In adding the Class II
safe harbor increment (9 μg/m3) to the
98th percentile of background levels, we
were simply showing that even in the
worst case, the combination of the safe
harbor increment and background PM2.5
would not exceed the most stringent
level we considered for the secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter
presented this rough, worst-case
calculation as if it represented the
typical situation that would result from
the safe harbor increments. In addition,
the environmental group commenter’s
statements do not apply to parks and
special areas that are classified as Class
18 The commenter cited https://www.nps.gov/
shen/naturescience/visibility_and_haze.htm for
historic visibility in national parks.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64884
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
I areas because the safe harbor
increments for such areas are much
lower.
Another commenter stated that the
proposed 24-hour Class I increment (2
μg/m3) would not be protective of
AQRVs, particularly visibility. This
commenter noted that the National Park
Service uses a 5 percent change in light
extinction from estimated natural
conditions as the threshold for ‘‘adverse
impacts’’ to Class I visibility. The
commenter indicated that depending on
the constituents of the ambient PM2.5
and the humidity, a concentration of 2
μg/m3 in a typical Class I area would
result in a change in light extinction
ranging from 13 to 80 percent in the
Western United States and from 8 to 50
percent in the Eastern United States
and, therefore, would likely constitute
‘‘adverse impacts’’ to Class I visibility.
While acknowledging that the FLM may
still determine that the visibility in the
Class I area is adversely affected by an
increase in concentration that is less
than the increment, this commenter
pointed out that we stated in the 2007
NPRM that ‘‘generally speaking an
increment should not be so large that it
routinely results in substantially more
pollution in Class I areas than is
generally acceptable under the AQRV
approach’’ (citing 72 FR 54135). The
commenter concluded that the proposed
24-hour PM2.5 increment does not meet
this test and recommended that EPA set
a lower PM2.5 24-hour increment.
This commenter appears to have
identified a worst-case scenario in terms
of increment concentrations, and
although we agree with the visibility
impacts related to those concentrations
discussed in the comment, we do not
believe the proposed increment level
compromises the protection of visibility
or other AQRVs. Although the ‘‘AQRV
test’’ uses 5 percent light extinction as
a screening threshold, the determination
of adverse impact is made on a case-bycase basis taking into account the
geographic extent, intensity, duration,
frequency, and time of visibility
impairment and how these factors
correlate with visitation to the Class I
area. The suggestion that the 5 percent
threshold is routinely exceeded by PSD
sources or that an absolute worst-case
scenario is occurring to the geographic
extent, intensity, duration, and
frequency that would warrant an
adverse impact determination is
unsupported, especially considering the
relatively few adverse impact
determinations that have been made in
the past. It is, however, important to
note that the AQRV analysis is
independent of the PSD increment
analysis; whether or not the increment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
is projected to be exceeded does not
determine the need for an AQRV
analysis. The determination that a
facility does or does not cause an
adverse impact on a Class I area is not
solely contingent upon the PSD
increment, so we do not believe that
lowering the proposed increment is
necessarily more protective of the
AQRV.
With respect to these two
commenters’ concerns about visibility
protection, we continue to believe that
the increments cannot be expected to be
the sole means of protecting various
welfare concerns. In the 2007 NPRM, we
stated that ‘‘visibility protection in Class
I areas is more adequately provided by
the AQRV process.’’ Congress defined
AQRVs to specifically include visibility
and left it for the FLMs to define other
special attributes of Class I areas that
warranted special protection. We also
noted that Congress has established
several visibility programs that target
emissions reductions to achieve desired
visibility benefits. See 72 FR 54135.
Collectively, these protective programs,
along with the totality of the PSD
program, offer an effective means of
addressing unique local problems that
cannot be addressed solely by uniform
national increments.
However, the environmental group
commenter asserted that these other
programs will not fulfill the statutory
purposes. As discussed previously in
sections V.D.4 and 5, the commenter
does not believe that FLM review in the
AQRV process and the air quality
impacts analysis required by section
165(a) of the Act are adequate. We
disagree; see sections V.D.4 and 5 for
more detail on the comments and our
responses.
The environmental group commenter
also noted that we cited the regional
haze program as a justification for
adopting less protective PSD rules
(referring to 72 FR 54135), but the
commenter pointed out that the haze
program applies only to Class I areas
and does not apply at all to the majority
of the nation, which is Class II. The
commenter further noted that we stated
in the 2007 NPRM that ‘‘some State and
local governments have also developed
programs to improve visual air quality
in specific urban areas’’ (citing 72 FR
54135), and pointed out that we gave no
specific information on such programs,
nor any information about the visibility
protection that they provide beyond that
provided by the proposed increments.
The commenter asked that we identify
the specific State and local programs,
and that we specify how much visibility
protection such programs are providing.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The commenter is correct that the
regional haze program directly
addresses only Class I areas. As we have
discussed before, these are the areas that
Congress defined as deserving of the
most protection under PSD, including
the visibility protection provisions in
subpart 2 of title I, part C of the Act,
which is the statutory basis for the
regional haze program. While Class I
areas are the target for the regional haze
program, we believe that many areas of
the nation will receive collateral
visibility benefits from this program. As
emissions of the pollutants that cause
regional haze are reduced, many areas
in the paths of transport will benefit. In
addition, as discussed previously in
section V.D.5 of this preamble, PSD
applicants must prepare an analysis of
‘‘other impacts,’’ including visibility
impacts, in areas other than Class I
areas.
Regarding State and local visibility
programs, in the 2005 Staff Paper EPA
described several existing programs to
improve visual air quality in urban
areas. These programs were located in
Denver, CO; Phoenix, AZ; and Lake
Tahoe, CA. Also, the states of California
and Vermont have each established
standards to protect visibility. See the
2005 Staff Paper, pages 6–17 through
6–23.
The environmental group commenter
cited the 2007 NPRM (72 FR 54135)
where we said that the use of ‘‘distinct
PM increments for visibility protection
is not the most effective means of
addressing the visibility problem.’’ The
commenter believes that this claim is
based on false premises, including the
idea (discussed previously) that other
programs effectively protect visibility
nationwide, and the idea that the only
option is a ‘‘distinct’’ PM increment for
visibility protection. As to the latter, the
commenter stated that EPA can
strengthen the safe harbor increment to
ensure visibility protection and need
not adopt a separate ‘‘visibility’’
increment. In addition, the commenter
asserted that EPA has ignored the
statutory mandate that the PSD rules
fulfill the statutory goals and purposes,
and that we cannot shirk that statutory
duty merely because we claim some
other type of action would be ‘‘more
effective.’’
We continue to believe that Class I
area visibility protection under the PSD
program is appropriately addressed via
the AQRV process. As mentioned
previously, Congress explicitly included
‘‘visibility’’ as an AQRV for which FLMs
would have an affirmative responsibility
to protect in Class I areas under their
jurisdictions. Where the FLM
successfully demonstrates that there
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
would be an adverse impact on the
AQRV (e.g., visibility), a State cannot
issue a PSD permit, even when the
source’s emissions do not violate the
PM2.5 increments. In addition, we
continue to believe that the analysis of
other impacts, including visibility, in
non-Class I areas is the appropriate
means of addressing visibility
protection in these areas, as envisioned
by Congress when it enacted the PSD
provisions of the Act.
As a result, we do not believe it is
necessary to create a distinct increment
(e.g., with a different averaging period)
or to lower the safe harbor increments
to protect visibility in urban, non-urban,
or Class I areas across the United States.
We reach this conclusion in proper
consideration of the other, more direct
approaches being used to address
visibility problems in the United States.
The primary such approach, the
regional haze program, is within the
PSD framework for PM2.5. Note that part
C of title I of the Act, ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,’’
includes subpart 2, which is the
statutory basis for the regional haze
program. Regarding our consideration of
other State and local visibility
protection measures that are outside the
PSD framework, we do not believe it is
reasonable to disregard these areaspecific measures that focus on the
preferences of individual communities
where a uniform national increment for
visibility protection generally cannot.
The environmental group commenter
also stated that the proposed PSD rules
fail to ensure fulfillment of the
‘‘enhancement goal’’ set out in the Act.
The commenter noted that section
101(a) states as the Act’s first purpose:
‘‘to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation’s air resources,’’ while
section 160(2) states that the purpose of
the PSD program is to ‘‘preserve, protect,
and enhance’’ air quality in parks and
other special areas. The commenter
asserted that the proposed rule did not
address these enhancement
requirements or explain how the
proposed increments would fulfill those
requirements.
This same issue was raised in the
2005 PSD rule affirming the NO2
increments. At that time we expressed
our belief that the goal to enhance air
quality in national parks and wilderness
areas is implemented through the
regional haze program while the PSD
program focuses on preserving and
protecting air quality in these areas.
However, when a PSD increment
violation is identified, we agree that
EPA may require a State to revise its SIP
to correct the violation. See 40 CFR
51.166(a)(3). Otherwise, we do not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
interpret these PSD provisions to
authorize us to direct states in their SIPs
to achieve reductions in emissions from
existing sources for PSD purposes.
We recognized at that time, and
continue to believe, that the growth
management goals of PSD may also be
fulfilled when the states adopt controls
on existing sources that would reduce
emissions and allow growth from new
sources and major modifications to
existing sources without causing
significant deterioration. Under the
increment approach, we have
interpreted the PSD rules to allow states
to require reductions from existing
sources in order to expand the allowable
increments and, thereby, allow for more
growth under the PSD program.
However, we have never required states
to do so because, in the absence of an
increment violation, we do not believe
section 166 and other provisions in part
C of title I of the Act give us the legal
authority to mandate such reductions
for PSD purposes.
Another commenter stated that the
PM2.5 increments should be twice the
recommended levels because scientific
studies do not support the need for such
low levels for protection of health and
welfare. The commenter believes that
increments at the proposed levels would
jeopardize the goal of providing
opportunities for economic growth. The
commenter expressed concern over
EPA’s use of epidemiologic studies and
questioned the ability of such studies to
provide a reliable evaluation of health
risks. The commenter claimed that
epidemiologic studies are capable of
finding association between a substance
or exposure and a health effect but
rarely capable of determining if there is
causation, while toxicological studies
using randomized trials are specifically
designed to determine causation. The
commenter added that other factors
providing evidence for causation
include dose-response relationships,
consistency, and repeatability of
studies, which the commenter said are
not present in the studies cited by EPA.
The commenter specifically referred to
two studies, acknowledged by EPA to
show no evidence of a dose-response
relationship gradient between PM2.5 and
specific health related effects.
We disagree with the commenter’s
recommendation that the increments
should be twice the proposed (and final)
levels. The scientific studies to which
the commenter referred pertain to
studies that EPA used to determine the
health-based NAAQS for PM2.5, and we
do not believe it is relevant to this rule
to respond to comments related to the
setting of the NAAQS. The NAAQS are
designed to protect public health and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64885
welfare; increments then are intended to
insure that air quality in clean areas is
not allowed to deteriorate significantly,
and the PSD regulations insure that any
such deterioration does not lead to air
pollution levels that exceed the levels
defined by the NAAQS.
As discussed previously, we are
finalizing this rulemaking using the safe
harbor approach under section 166(a) of
the Act. Using this approach, we
calculated the ‘‘safe harbor’’ increments
as percentages of the NAAQS
comparable to the percentages that
Congress used to establish the original
statutory increments for PM and SO2.
These values represent the level of
effectiveness necessary to satisfy section
166(d) of the Act, and could be
tightened if necessary based on further
analysis to determine if additional
measures are necessary to fulfill the
requirements of section 166(c) of the
Act. Thus, under this approach and on
this record, we do not conclude that it
is appropriate to finalize increments at
levels any less stringent than the safe
harbor increments, as the commenter
recommends.
7. Compliance Determinations for the
PM2.5 Increments
a. Modeling Compliance With PM2.5
Increments
Section 163(a) of the Act provides that
‘‘In the case of any maximum allowable
increase * * * for a pollutant based on
concentrations permitted under the
national ambient air quality standards
for any period other than an annual
period, such regulations shall permit
such maximum allowable increase to be
exceeded during one such period per
year [emphasis added].’’ Accordingly,
the existing PSD rules allow one
exceedance per year of each short-term
increment defined by the rules. See 40
CFR 51.166(c) and 52.21(c). With the
addition of the PM2.5 increments to the
list of maximum allowable
concentrations in the PSD rules, the
existing provision allowing one
exceedance per year applies equally to
the 24-hour PM2.5 increments as well.
Thus, when modeling increment
compliance, the highest value of the
second-highest modeled increase in
estimated PM2.5 concentrations at each
model receptor for the 24-hour
averaging time should be less than or
equal to the maximum allowable
increase for PM2.5. For the annual
increments, the modeled annual
averages should not exceed the annual
maximum allowable increase for PM2.5.
See EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality
Models’’ at 40 CFR part 51 appendix W,
section 10.2.3.3.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64886
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
We did not expressly state in the 2007
NPRM the implications of adding PM2.5
increments to the existing list of
increments in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and
52.21(c) of the PSD regulations.
Nevertheless, it should have been clear
at the time that, in the absence of
alternative language for PM2.5, the
existing provision allowing one
exceedance for the short-term
increments would apply to the
increments for PM2.5 along with the
increments already listed. We did not
receive any comments either supporting
or opposing these methods for
determining compliance with the PM2.5
increments.
We recognize that the above approach
for determining compliance with the 24hour PM2.5 increments differs from the
approach contained in guidance that we
provided in a March 23, 2010 memo
titled ‘‘Modeling Procedures for
Demonstrating Compliance with PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ which sets forth a procedure
designed to demonstrate compliance
with a statistically based standard that
is met when the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration is less than or equal to
35 ug/m3. A similar dichotomy exists for
the 24-hour PM10 increments and
NAAQS, where compliance with the 24hour PM10 NAAQS is based on an
expected exceedance form of the
standard.
b. Condensable PM
Initially, the EPA will not require PSD
applicants under the Federal PSD
program to consider condensable PM in
emissions calculations to determine
whether a proposed project is subject to
the PSD requirements. In addition, we
will not require the condensable portion
to be considered in the required PM2.5
air quality analyses. In our May 2008
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, we
announced that we would not require
that states address condensable PM in
establishing enforceable emissions
limits for either PM10 or PM2.5 in NSR
permits until the completion of a
transition period. Further, we indicated
that the transition period would end
January 1, 2011 unless EPA advanced
the date through the rulemaking
process. We also indicated that such
rulemaking would involve the
assessment and possible revision of test
methods for measuring condensable
emissions and taking comment on an
earlier closing date for the transition
period in the NSR program if we are on
track to meet our expectations to
complete the test methods rule much
earlier than January 1, 2011.19 In
19 We proposed test methods for measuring PM
10
and PM2.5, including condensable PM emissions,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:30 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
addition, states that have developed the
necessary tools are not precluded from
acting to include condensable PM
emissions in NSR permit actions prior
to the end of the transition period,
especially if it is required in an
applicable SIP. See 73 FR 28334–28336.
c. PM2.5 Precursors
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed to
add SILs for PM2.5 to the PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.
(The SILs are described more fully in
section VI of this preamble.)
Accompanying these SILs, we proposed
to add a new paragraph to the
regulations explaining that the
requirements for a source impact
analysis for PM2.5 would be considered
to be satisfied, without further air
quality modeling, if it were to be shown
that the increase in direct PM2.5
emissions from the source or
modification will cause air quality
impacts less than the prescribed SILs for
PM2.5. The reasoning at the time was
that state-of-the-art modeling would not
be available to adequately account for
secondary PM2.5 impacts resulting from
emissions of precursors of PM2.5, e.g.,
SO2 and NOX. Nevertheless, the existing
PSD rules currently define potential
precursors of PM2.5. Based on the
proposed language, the required
compliance demonstration for the PM2.5
NAAQS and the PM2.5 increments
(when promulgated) would be limited
by regulation to an analysis of direct
PM2.5 emissions, and would not include
consideration of emissions of PM2.5
precursors for comparing the modeled
source impacts to the prescribed SILs
for PM2.5.
The impacts of PM2.5 precursors on
ambient concentrations of PM2.5 cannot
be determined from the dispersion
models that EPA has currently approved
for modeling individual PSD sources.
Such models are not designed to
consider chemical transformations that
occur in the atmosphere after the
precursor emissions have been released
from the source. Consideration of these
transformations is necessary to be able
to add precursor impacts into the total
modeled ambient PM2.5 concentrations
for comparison to the SILs for PM2.5.
The technical tools needed to
complete a comprehensive analysis of
all emissions that contribute to ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 are only in the
developmental stage; nevertheless, we
from stationary sources on March 25, 2009 (74 FR
12970). In the same notice, we sought comments on
whether to end the NSR transition period for
condensable PM earlier than January 1, 2011. We
anticipate publication of a final rule announcing
our decision on the NSR transition period in July
2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
believe that it would be inappropriate to
restrict the regulatory language in such
a way that future regulatory
amendments would be required to
enable the inclusion of precursor
impacts in the PM2.5 analysis as the
necessary technical tools become
available. Estimating techniques are
being developed that will be able to be
applied to the PM2.5 analysis in the near
future, which could not be required if
the regulatory language precluded them.
We acknowledge the concerns that have
been expressed by some commenters
about the shortcomings of not
considering the impacts of PM2.5
precursors under the PM2.5 air quality
analyses. Accordingly, we believe that
the new provision for applying the SILs
for PM2.5 to the required analyses for the
NAAQS and increments should not be
self-limiting by specifying the use of
only direct PM2.5 emissions. Instead, the
new provision contained in this final
rule provides that the test will be based
on whether ‘‘the emissions increase
* * * would cause * * * air quality
impacts less than [the PM2.5 SILs].’’ See
new 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
52.21(k)(2). We believe that it would be
more effective to rely on interim policy
and guidance as appropriate to help
determine the best methods available to
make the required assessment of source
impacts on ambient PM2.5 resulting from
any emissions.
F. Final Action on Trigger and Baseline
Dates for PM2.5 Increments
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed as
part of Option 1 to require the
implementation of the PM2.5 increment
system (annual and 24-hour increments)
with new baseline areas, baseline dates,
and trigger date. Specifically, we
proposed that the major source baseline
date and trigger date, both fixed dates,
would be defined as the effective date
of the final rule and would reflect a date
1 year from the date of promulgation, in
accordance with section 166(b) of the
Act. In contrast, under Option 2 (both
2A and 2B), we proposed to establish
new baseline dates for the 24-hour PM2.5
increments, but to retain the existing
baseline areas and dates for the annual
PM2.5 increments because the annual
increments would be equivalent
substitutes for the existing annual PM10
increments.
In light of the then-current and
expected trends in PM2.5 concentrations,
our judgment was that starting with new
baseline dates on or after the effective
date of this rule would make the PSD
increments for PM2.5 more protective.
We proposed that any emissions
reductions occurring prior to the
effective date of this rule would lower
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the baseline concentration rather than
be used for expanding the PM2.5
increment. If a retroactive baseline date
were to apply, emissions reductions
occurring prior to the effective date of
this rule would serve to expand the
available increments, enabling more
new pollution than would otherwise be
allowed to occur.
We also expressed our belief that
starting with different baseline dates to
implement increments for PM2.5 would
be appropriate because Option 1 treats
PM2.5 essentially as a ‘‘new’’ pollutant
for purposes of PSD and section 166 of
the Act. We continue to believe that
establishing a new baseline also
overcomes significant implementation
concerns that would otherwise exist if
the existing PM baseline were
maintained. In particular, if we were to
require sources and reviewing
authorities to conduct PM2.5 increment
analyses based on the minor source
baseline dates previously established
years or even decades ago under the
TSP or PM10 program, they would have
to attempt to recreate the PM2.5
emissions inventory as of the minor
source baseline date in order to
determine the baseline PM2.5
concentration for the area. For early
minor source baseline dates in
particular (e.g., 1976 in some areas of
the United States), establishing the
emissions inventory for PM2.5 would be
extremely difficult, cumbersome, and
potentially inaccurate because historic
emissions inventories did not include
PM2.5 emissions. For all of these
reasons, we proposed Option 1 as our
preferred option and requested
comment on this contingent safe harbor
approach for annual and 24-hour PM2.5
increments under Option 1.
Under Option 1, we proposed that the
PM2.5 increments would be subjected to
a 1-year delay consistent with the
procedures under section 166(b) of the
Act, which provides in general that
these rules ‘‘shall become effective one
year after the date of promulgation.’’
Alternatively, we sought comment on a
60-day delay as part of our proposal
under Option 1. In the proposal we
requested comment on the argument
that, while the Act includes a 1-year
implementation delay for new
increments, the same provision calls for
EPA to promulgate new increments
within 2 years of the promulgation of
the NAAQS. Given that these PM2.5
increments are being promulgated more
than 2 years after promulgation of the
NAAQS, we expressed our belief that
the overall congressional intent
reflected in section 166 of the Act could
possibly be met by setting the effective
date of the PM2.5 increments earlier than
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the ‘‘one year after the date of
promulgation’’ provided in section
166(b) of the Act.
Twelve commenters supported our
proposal under Option 1 to establish
new trigger and baseline dates for PM2.5,
regardless of the particular increment
option that they otherwise supported.
These commenters generally saw new
dates as being the best approach because
of various problems that would result
from retaining existing trigger and
baseline dates. Some commenters
claimed that it would be technically
difficult to try to reconstruct old
inventories to determine the amount of
PM2.5 emitted by sources in the past.
One commenter stated that
establishing PM2.5 increment
inventories using existing PM10 baseline
dates would be ‘‘extremely difficult,
cumbersome, and necessarily inaccurate
and unreliable as historic emissions did
not speciate PM2.5 emissions.’’ A State/
local agency commenter said that it
would be ‘‘virtually impossible for
States to calculate the PM2.5 component
of previously consumed PM10
increments because data on the fine and
coarse fractions of source emissions are
largely unavailable.’’
Yet another commenter claimed that
‘‘resurrecting PM2.5 inventories based on
the PM10 baseline dates would be
insurmountable.’’ Similar comments
were echoed by several commenters
who supported the use of legal authority
set forth in section 166(f) (‘‘equivalent
substitution’’ approach) for developing
the numerical values for the PM2.5
increments. One of these commenters
stated that he did not ‘‘believe the
establishment of new baseline dates for
PM2.5 would abandon past cases of
increment consumption for PM10,
because the 24-hour PM10 increments
would still be in effect * * *.’’
One commenter suggested that ‘‘EPA
establish the trigger date as of the date
when it officially established the nonattainment and attainment areas for
PM2.5; that is, April 5, 2005.’’ The
commenter explained that this approach
is consistent with the PSD regulations
from their inception and partially
mitigates EPA’s delays in implementing
the PSD program for PM2.5. The
commenter believes ‘‘that States should
be required to use the baseline areas
previously established for their PSD
program, unless the process for
redefining these areas strictly follow
procedures in the PSD regulations and
EPA policy.’’ The commenter claimed,
‘‘this will minimize any inconsistent
applications of the regulations for
PM2.5.’’
One commenter noted that our
proposed PM2.5 increments were very
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64887
low and ‘‘facilities may find themselves
immediately out of compliance with the
PM2.5 increments upon promulgation of
the rule, based on a January 1975 or
1977 baseline date.’’
One commenter indicated that the
historic TSP/PM10 baseline dates should
be retained. This commenter favored the
equivalent substitution approach under
section 166(f) and, consistent with that
approach, retention of the existing
baseline dates.
Having considered all the comments,
we believe that the most reasonable
approach for addressing the relevant
dates associated with the PM2.5
increments is to start anew with the
baseline date concept. As already
mentioned, the commenters have
identified difficulties that would occur
if the PM2.5 emissions inventory for
increment analyses had to be created for
an earlier period of time, and the
existence of these difficulties supports
the approach under Option 1 to
establish new dates for implementing
the PM2.5 increments. Also, these new
baseline dates for PM2.5 increments will
not undo the current protection
provided by the existing increments for
PM because we are not revoking the 24hour or annual PM10 increments under
this new rule. Accordingly, this final
rule establishes independent PM2.5
increments using a ‘‘trigger date’’ and
‘‘major source baseline date’’ that are
separate from the dates defined for the
PM10 increments. Consequently, new
minor source baseline dates and the
corresponding baseline areas will be
used for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
increments, and will be established
when a source applies for a PSD permit
any time on or after the new trigger date
for PM2.5. (See also the discussion about
changes to the definition of ‘‘baseline
area’’ in section V.G of this preamble.)
The ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for
PM2.5 is being set as October 20, 2010—
the date of publication of this final rule.
The setting of this date differs from
previous major source baseline dates
which were set as the date of
publication of the proposed rule, but is
similar to the major source baseline date
set for the other increments in that the
date precedes the effective date for
implementing the increments, and
thereby requires that certain major
source emissions increases that occur
before the trigger date retroactively
count toward the amount of increment
consumed.
The ‘‘trigger date’’ is being set at
October 20, 2011, which is 1 year after
the date of promulgation of this final
rule. We are using this approach to
define the date on which the PM2.5
increments become effective as 1 year
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64888
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
from the date of publication, consistent
with the 1-year delay required under
section 166(b) of the Act. This date for
the ‘‘trigger date’’ separates the
applicability date of the PM2.5
increments from the effective date of
this final rule in general, but also
ensures that the ‘‘minor source baseline
date’’ for PM2.5 for any particular PM2.5
attainment or unclassifiable area cannot
be established until after the increments
become effective in this final rule. The
implementation of these dates as part of
the PM2.5 increment system is discussed
in greater detail in section VIII of this
preamble.
We recognize that some may still have
a concern about our decision to set the
major source baseline date as the date of
publication of this final rule in light of
the fact that the PM2.5 NAAQS have
been in place since 1997; however, we
believe that the selection of possible
earlier dates would require states to
retroactively establish PM2.5 emissions
inventories for increment analyses
during a period when sources were
generally not required to conduct PM2.5
air quality analyses. Hence, given the
lack of information, and considering the
technical difficulties in doing so, we do
not believe that it would be appropriate
to require states and sources to
retroactively account for PM2.5
increment consumption by setting the
major source baseline date at an earlier
date than the date we have selected.
G. Definition of ‘‘Baseline Area’’ for
PM2.5
No changes were proposed with
respect to the definition of ‘‘baseline
area’’ for PM2.5 increments. One
commenter, however, noted that fact in
claiming that we did not adequately
account for significant impacts of PM2.5
for purposes of defining the ‘‘baseline
area’’ for the PM2.5 increments. Under
the existing regulations, the
establishment of a baseline area for any
PSD increment results from the
submittal of the first complete PSD
application, and is based on both the
location of the proposed source and the
impact of the source’s emissions on the
area. In accordance with the definition,
the attainment or unclassifiable area in
which the proposed source would
construct is always part of the baseline
area in which the minor source baseline
date is established and the increment
analysis is conducted. In addition, the
definition provides that any
surrounding attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the
proposed source’s impact is greater than
1 μg/m3, annual average, would also
become part of the baseline area,
assuming the area had not already been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
established as a baseline area by a
previous application for a PSD permit.
See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15) and
52.21(b)(15).
As explained in the preamble for the
1980 PSD regulations, EPA selected an
impact of 1 μg/m3, annual average, for
the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ because
that value was considered the level of
significance for both SO2 and PM when
the definition was originally
established.20 There was no mandate at
that time that a 1 μg/m3 impact be used
to determine the baseline area for
increments for other pollutants;
however, the use of a 1 μg/m3 impact in
the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ was not
changed when EPA developed
increments for NO2 in 1988 because
EPA also defined ‘‘significant’’ for NO2
using the same annual average
concentration of 1 μg/m3. The EPA has
determined, however, that ‘‘significant’’
for PM2.5 ambient impacts should be
considered to occur at a lower
concentration than 1 μg/m3. Elsewhere
in this preamble, we have indicated that
the SIL for PM2.5 in this final rule is 0.3
μg/m3, annual average. Consequently,
although no change to the definition of
‘‘baseline area’’ was proposed in this
rule, we believe it is necessary and
appropriate to define in this final rule
a level of significance of 0.3 μg/m3,
annual average, for establishing a new
baseline area for purposes of PM2.5
increments. See revised 40 CFR
51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i).
Had we established the SIL at
1 μg/m3, annual average, as proposed
under Option 1 for SILs, then the
definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ would not
need to be revised. However, the revised
definition in this final rule is consistent
with our decision to establish a SIL of
0.3 μg/m3, annual average, for PM2.5. We
consider this action to be a logical
outgrowth of our decision to establish a
SIL for PM2.5 and the comment
concerning the effect of that action on
the definition of ‘‘baseline area.’’ Thus,
we believe that our failure to initially
propose this change to the definition of
‘‘baseline area,’’ based on the possibility
of selecting Option 3 for defining the
SIL for PM2.5, does not warrant a
reproposal.
H. No Final Action With Respect to the
Proposed Revocation of PM10 Annual
Increments
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed to
either revoke or replace the annual
20 ‘‘A source will be considered to impact an area
if it has an impact of 1 μg/m3 or more of SO2 or
PM on an annual basis. This figure has been
selected because it corresponds to levels of
significance used in previous Agency
determinations for SO2 and PM. 45 FR 52716.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
increments (Class I, II, and III) for PM10
to conform to the earlier revocation of
the annual PM10 NAAQS. We proposed
to revoke the annual increments, based
on the same technical evidence that led
us to revoke the annual PM10 NAAQS,
if we decided to use Option 1 for
adopting PM2.5 increments, and
discussed our authority and rationale
for doing so. 72 FR 54136.
As an alternative, under Options 2A
and 2B we proposed to replace the
existing annual PM10 increments with
equivalent substitute PM2.5 increments
using the authority under section 166(f)
of the Act. After further analysis and
consideration of the comments on this
issue, we have decided not to take any
final action on our proposal to revoke
the existing increments for PM10 as part
of this rulemaking. The effect of not
taking final action with respect to the
PM10 annual increments is to leave
those increments in place and
unchanged.
Three commenters agreed with EPA’s
proposal to ‘‘adopt the 24-hour and
annual PM2.5 increments and to revoke
the annual PM10 increments.’’ One
commenter stated, ‘‘counting and
tracking increment is confusing enough
without adding the confusion of
potentially overlapping PM standards.’’
The commenter noted that the ‘‘cleanest
approach is to establish a single new
PM2.5 increment and work from there.’’
The commenter suggested that EPA first
‘‘develop a coarse fraction increment,
once EPA establishes coarse PM
NAAQS.’’ The commenter added that
the removal of the PM10 annual
increment is supported by the removal
of the ‘‘health based standard for annual
PM10.’’
One of the commenters agreed, ‘‘it
makes no sense for EPA’s regulations to
contain an annual increment for PM10
even though an annual PM10 NAAQS no
longer exists.’’ The commenter added,
‘‘EPA is without authority under Section
166(f) to retain the PM10 annual
increment if it adopts a PM2.5 annual
increment.’’ This commenter explained,
‘‘EPA is compelled by law to eliminate
the PM10 annual increment.’’
We agree with this commenter that
section 166(f) is a ‘‘substitution’’
approach; however, as we stated in our
2007 NPRM, we expressed some
concern about using section 166(f) to
substitute PM2.5 increments for PM10
increments. In fact, some commenters
challenged our authority under section
166(f) to replace the PM10 increments. In
our response to the following
comments, we address the legal issues
that we believe prevent us from simply
revoking the PM10 increments.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
One environmental commenter
claimed, ‘‘the agency has no authority to
repeal an existing PM10 increment
without at the same time restoring the
corresponding TSP increment.’’ The
commenter noted, ‘‘Congress established
the TSP increments by statute and gave
EPA no authority to revoke them,’’ and
‘‘instead, Congress gave EPA only
limited authority to substitute PM10
increments for TSP increments under
the conditions specified in Section
166(f).’’ The commenter explained, ‘‘EPA
cannot revoke the annual PM10
increments, either by ‘‘replacing’’ them
with PM2.5 increments or otherwise,
unless EPA at the same time restores the
annual TSP increment.’’ The commenter
noted, ‘‘retention of the PM10 annual
increment is also entirely compatible
with the statutory purposes,
notwithstanding EPA’s revocation of the
annual PM10 NAAQS.’’ The commenter
further noted the following examples/
evidence that retention of the annual
PM10 increments is important to
achieving the goals of the Act’s PSD
provisions:
• ‘‘While EPA attributes the visibility
impairing impacts of PM pollution
primarily to elevated short term fine
particle concentrations, EPA recognizes
that PM10 plays a significant role in the
other welfare related impacts of PM
pollution.’’ 72 FR 54136.
• ‘‘EPA also states that the most
significant PM-related ecosystem-level
effects result from long term cumulative
deposition * * * that exceeds the
natural buffering or storage capacity of
the ecosystem and/or affects the
nutrient status of the ecosystem.’’ 72 FR
54131.
Five State/local agency commenters
opposed the revocation of PM10 annual
increments ‘‘until EPA makes a
determination on a PM-coarse NAAQS’’
and/or ‘‘establishes equivalent
increments for PM-coarse.’’ One of these
commenters added, ‘‘it is prudent to
maintain the PM10 increments until EPA
makes a determination on the health
and environmental effects of the coarse
fraction of PM.’’ The commenter claimed
that, ‘‘if EPA retains the annual PM10
increments’’ ‘‘then the determination of
PM2.5 increments can complement the
continuation of PM10 increment
determinations without any
discontinuities or unwanted
degradation concerns.’’
Another one of these commenters
stated, ‘‘the basis for dismissing the
annual PM10 NAAQS by the substitution
of fine particle NAAQS to address
certain health and welfare effects does
not provide a basis for dismissing a PSD
increment which is meant to stop
significant degradation of air quality.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
The commenter noted, ‘‘as refinements
are made to estimation of fine particle
emissions or in instances where these
are deemed not to be a major component
of particulate emissions, the PM10
annual increment could prevent long
term deterioration of air quality
associated with the coarse component.’’
One State/local agency commenter
noted, ‘‘EPA also proposes to replace the
PM10 annual increment with the
corresponding PM2.5 increment under
the Section 166(f) options 2A and 2B as
well, but does not provide a substantive
basis for such an action.’’ The
commenter does ‘‘not see the tension
noted by EPA between Sections 166(a)
and (f) with respect to reaching a
holistic solution if EPA views PM2.5 as
a new indicator of PM, as we believe it
can.’’ The commenter explained, ‘‘under
this approach, if EPA determines that
coarse particle levels are necessary to
protect the public from certain
exposures not addressed by PM2.5, then
it will be appropriate for EPA to define
complementary increments for coarse
particulates as another indicator of PM.’’
The commenter also asserted that the
24-hour increments for PM2.5 must be
based on section 166(f) authority, but
believes that the PM2.5 increment need
not replace the PM10 increment for this
averaging period.
One commenter requested that EPA
‘‘keep the PM10 PSD program (especially
the increments) in place until the full
PM2.5 program is adopted and in place.’’
One commenter ‘‘does not support
revoking the annual PM10 increments,’’
because the commenter feels that ‘‘there
are too many uncertainties regarding
PM2.5.’’ The commenter provided the
following example: ‘‘The program has
been dragging for years, analytical
methods are not formulated, the NSR
part of the implementation rule has not
issued, condensables are not yet
included, and the impact of precursors
has not been definitively explored.’’ The
commenter explained that ‘‘under these
conditions, nothing concerning PM10
should be revoked until the reasons for
doing so are clearly understood and the
overall impact on ensuring clean air and
the public health and welfare have been
fully explored.’’ The commenter
suggested, ‘‘PM10 increments and
NAAQS should remain in effect until
these issues have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the Administrator.’’ This
commenter believed that Options 2A
and 2B must be based entirely on
section 166(f) of the Act, but that the
presence of increments for both PM10
and PM2.5 can be supported under this
section because the two sets of
increments complement each other. The
commenter indicated that the problem
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64889
will be resolved when sufficient data are
available to revoke the PM10 NAAQS
and increments and/or PM10 is replaced
by PM10–2.5.
One State/local agency association
commenter recommended that ‘‘EPA can
and should continue both the 24-hour
and annual average PM10 PSD increment
program until PM10¥2.5 standards are
promulgated.’’ The commenter
explained that ‘‘EPA has the discretion
to accomplish this under CAA § 166(f)’’
and ‘‘at a minimum, the agency should
continue the 24-hour PM10 increments
in conjunction with the continuation of
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.’’
As stated previously, in this rule we
are taking no final action on our
proposal to revoke the annual PM10
increments even though the annual
PM10 NAAQS has been revoked. Based
on comments and our own legal
analysis of the PM10 increments, we
have concluded that there is a strong
legal basis for not revoking the annual
increments at this time. The PM10
increments were promulgated on June 3,
1993 (58 FR 31622) as replacement
increments for the then existing
statutory increments for PM measured
as TSP. The fact that EPA promulgated
the PM10 increments as ‘‘equivalent’’
replacements for the TSP increments
under the authority of section 166(f) of
the Act is important in that EPA does
not have authority to simply remove the
TSP increments that were explicitly
defined within the PSD program
requirements in the Act. Accordingly,
we believe that the annual TSP
increments would be restored by default
should we decide to revoke the annual
PM10 increments as proposed. However,
even if the original annual TSP
increments were not restored, there is
no basis for automatically revoking the
annual PM10 increments simply because
we have revoked the annual PM10
NAAQS, because annual increments are
not contingent upon the existence of
annual NAAQS. This is clear from the
court’s decision in the earlier NO2
increment litigation stating that
increments for a particular pollutant do
not necessarily need to match the
averaging periods that have been
established for NAAQS for the same
pollutant. EDF v. EPA, at 189–190
(‘‘* * * the ‘goals and purposes’ of the
PSD program, set forth in § 160, are not
identical to the criteria on which the
ambient standards are based.’’).
I. Other Comments on Increments
Ten commenters (including State/
local agencies and industry
commenters) supported section 166(f) of
the Act as the basis for PM2.5
increments. These commenters typically
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64890
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
voiced the belief that when Congress
enacted section 166(f), it authorized
EPA to update PM increments when
another indicator was defined, and that
section 166(f) allows EPA to continue
do so as long as these increments are of
equal stringency to the prior increments.
Some of these commenters believe that
section 166(f) is the only legitimate
approach under the Act, while others
indicated simply that it is preferable to
section 166(a). Some of the commenters
believe that section 166(f) authority can
be used to add PM2.5 increments to the
existing PM10 increments. Others
believe that PM2.5 increments finalized
under section 166(f) must fully replace
the existing PM10 increments, and
recommended doing so.
For the reasons discussed previously
in this preamble, EPA has decided to
finalize the PM2.5 increments under the
authority of section 166(a) of the Act.
With respect to the potential creation of
PM2.5 increments under section 166(f)
(as discussed in the 2007 NPRM at 72
FR 54120–54121), we have not reached
any final conclusion as to whether that
approach is authorized by the statute,
but believe that such an approach raises
significant legal issues. Because the
Agency is not relying on section 166(f)
in this rulemaking, we do not address
these issues in this preamble, though
some additional discussion is included
in the Response to Comments document
for this rule.
One industry association that
supported the Option 1 approach based
on section 166(a) authority also
acknowledged that EPA is authorized to
use the Option 2 approach based on
section 166(f) authority. An industry
commenter indicated that 2007 NPRM’s
arguments regarding the alternative
legal authorities under section 166(a)
and (f) were not compelling; the
commenter recommended setting the
PM2.5 increments at the levels proposed
as Option 2B because they would have
the lowest economic impact.
As noted previously, we have decided
to finalize Option 1 based on section
166(a) authority because we believe that
provision provides the clearest statutory
authority for purposes of developing
increments based on PM2.5. We would
point out, however, that any conclusion
as to which option would yield
increments that ‘‘have the lowest
economic impact’’ must include a
consideration of not only the levels of
the increments but also the associated
baseline dates that define when
emissions changes must be considered
to affect the amount of increment
consumed. Under Options 2 and 3, the
PM2.5 increments would be regarded as
replacement increments for the PM10
increments and, as such, would include
amounts of increment (based upon the
PM2.5 component) already consumed
under the existing PM10 increment
system. Thus, portions of the substitute
PM2.5 increments could have already
been consumed by previous PSD
sources that emit PM. If, in fact, a
portion of the PM2.5 increments had
already been consumed by the prior
PM10 increment consumption process,
than there would be a basis to conclude
that less additional economic growth
would be allowed under a set of
replacement PM2.5 increments as
compared to PM2.5 increments based on
separate, independent baseline dates.
One industry commenter suggested
that EPA develop geographic areaspecific increments (and SILs and
SMCs) that take local conditions into
account. The commenter pointed out
that PM2.5 levels in PSD areas proximate
to international borders may be elevated
by sources outside the legal and
practical control of the United States
and State authorities. The commenter
also noted that PM2.5 levels may be
elevated by natural conditions, such as
drought, fires, geologic formations
(sandy or fine-grained surface features),
high winds, etc., leading to excessively
dusty ambient conditions over which
the local area has no control. The
commenter indicated that local area
baselines must reflect these PM
emissions, though they are not reflected
in the local area’s emissions inventory.
The commenter urged EPA not to
penalize such PSD areas by imposing
uniform national PSD increments (or
SILs or SMCs) where the conditions of
concern are not capable of control.
As previously discussed, this final
rule establishes an area classification
system with prescribed, uniform PM2.5
increments for each class. We do not
believe that it is necessary to develop
different increments (or SILs or SMC)
for different areas of the country.
Emissions from natural conditions such
as those described by the commenter
would not consume increment due to
their natural and temporary nature. In
addition, if a State wishes to disregard
new emissions from sources outside the
United States, the State’s PSD program
may provide that such emissions do not
consume increment (see 40 CFR
51.166(f)(1)(iv)).
VI. Final Action on PM2.5 SILs
A. EPA’s Determination on SILs for
PM2.5
It is EPA’s longstanding policy to
allow the use of the SILs as de minimis
thresholds under the NSR programs at
40 CFR 51.165(b) and part 51, Appendix
S, to determine whether the predicted
ambient impact resulting from the
emissions increase at a proposed major
new stationary source or modification is
considered to cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. We have also
allowed the SILs under the PSD
program to determine: (1) When a
proposed source’s ambient impacts
warrant a comprehensive (cumulative)
source impact analysis; (2) the size of
the impact area within which the air
quality analysis is completed, and (3)
whether the emissions increase from a
proposed new major stationary source
or major modification is considered to
cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS.
We proposed three separate options
for setting SILs for PM2.5. The first
option relied upon the same approach
we proposed for PM10 in the 1996 NSR
Reform proposal. This set included
Class I SILs set at 4 percent of the Class
I PM2.5 increments. For class II and III
areas, we proposed to codify the SIL
values that already existed for PM10, i.e.,
1.0 μg/m3 (annual) and 5.0 μg/m3 (24hour). Options 2 and 3 relied on scaling
the PM10 SILs, as codified in 40 CFR
51.165(b), by a particular ratio.
Specifically, for Option 2, the multiplier
was the emissions ratio of PM2.5 to PM10
for point sources in the 1999 NEI; for
Option 3 the multiplier was the ratio of
the PM2.5 NAAQS to the PM10 NAAQS.
The resulting SILs were proposed as
follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Proposed SILs (μg/m3)
Class I
Option
Annual
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.04
0.16
0.06
Class II
24-hr
0.08
0.24
0.07
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
Annual
1.0
0.8
0.3
20OCR3
Class III
24-hr
5.0
4.0
1.2
Annual
1.0
0.8
0.3
24-hr
5.0
4.0
1.2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
We have decided to finalize the PM2.5
SILs proposed under Option 3. As
explained earlier, these values will be
used in the Federal PSD preconstruction
review process consistent with our
proposal. See 72 FR 54138–41 and
54143.
States are not required to adopt SILs
in their NSR or PSD programs; the
analyses for PM2.5 required by each
applicable regulation can be carried out
without using a SIL.21 Therefore, we do
not intend for any specific deadlines to
apply under the regulations at 40 CFR
51.165(b), 51.166, or part 51, Appendix
S for states to submit SILs for PM2.5,
should they choose to do so, as part of
their revisions to incorporate the final
rules for PM2.5 into SIPs. Nonetheless,
we believe that the availability of SILs
as a screening tool greatly improves PSD
program implementation by
streamlining the permit process and
reducing labor hours necessary to
submit and review a complete permit
application where the projected impact
of the proposed source is de minimis in
the relevant area. For these reasons, we
are including the PM2.5 SILs in the
Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21
to screen proposed projects concerning
the need for a cumulative source impact
analysis for PM2.5.
B. Response to Comments Concerning
the SILs
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
The primary purpose of the SILs is to
identify a level of ambient impact that
is sufficiently low relative to the
NAAQS or increments that such impact
can be considered trivial or de minimis.
Hence, the EPA considers a source
whose individual impact falls below a
SIL to have a de minimis impact on air
quality concentrations that already
exist. Accordingly, a source that
demonstrates that the projected ambient
impact of its proposed emissions
increase does not exceed the SIL for that
pollutant at a location where a NAAQS
or increment violation occurs is not
considered to cause or contribute to that
violation. In the same way, a source
with a proposed emissions increase of a
particular pollutant that will have a
significant impact at some locations is
not required to model at distances
beyond the point where the impact of its
proposed emissions is below the SILs
for that pollutant. When a proposed
21 We note that, under the 2007 NPRM, we
proposed that the SILs for PM2.5 would not be
treated as a minimum program element for State
PSD programs; however, the proposed regulatory
language at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) incorrectly stated
the ‘‘the plan shall provide that,’’ which would
indicate that the use of the SILs for PM2.5 was
required in the State plan. This final rule corrects
this error.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
source’s impact by itself is not
considered to be ‘‘significant,’’ EPA has
long maintained that any further effort
on the part of the applicant to complete
a cumulative source impact analysis
involving other source impacts would
only yield information of trivial or no
value with respect to the required
evaluation of the proposed source or
modification.
While some commenters opposed all
of the proposed options for PM2.5 SILs,
most commenters generally supported
the use of a SIL as a screening tool for
PM2.5 air quality analyses. Commenters
who supported one of the proposed
options for the SILs were divided as to
their support of a particular approach
for selecting the SIL value, with each
option receiving some support.
Commenters also tended to agree that
the SILs should not be used for
determining significant impacts on
AQRVs in Class I areas.
Those commenters supporting the
concept of the SILs, yet opposing all
proposed options, believed that all
options yielded SILs that were too low.
Another commenter, an environmental
group, presented extensive legal and
policy arguments against the SILs
concept in general. Some of the
significant comments and our responses
to them are addressed herein, while
others are covered in the Response to
Comments document which we have
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. Legal Basis for SILs
One commenter opposed all three
proposed options on both legal and
policy grounds claiming that EPA has
no legal authority to promulgate SILs
and that the de minimis doctrine
endorsed by the court does not apply to
increment analyses, where Congress has
expressly directed that the letter of the
law applies in all circumstances, as it
has in this case. (The commenter’s
policy concerns about SILs are
discussed later in this section of this
preamble.) The commenter stated that
‘‘Congress codified increments in
section 163 of the Act, directing that
SIPs contain measures assuring that the
increments shall not be exceeded.’’
According to the commenter, ‘‘The Act
plainly provides that no major source
may be constructed unless it meets this
requirement, and may not contribute to
an exceedance ‘for any pollutant in any
area.’ ’’ The commenter further stated
that ‘‘the de minimis doctrine is
inapplicable because it applies only
where the regulations will yield a gain
that is demonstrably trivial or zero.’’
We disagree with this commenter’s
claim that there is no legal basis for
SILs. As stated in the 2007 NPRM, the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64891
concept of a SIL is grounded on the de
minimis principles described by the
court in Alabama Power at 323, 360. In
this case reviewing EPA’s 1978 PSD
regulations, the court recognized that
‘‘there is likely a basis for an implication
of de minimis authority to provide
exemption when the burdens of
regulation yield a gain of trivial or no
value.’’ Alabama Power at 360. See the
2007 NPRM for more on how we have
applied the de minimis principle in the
past. See also, Sur Contra La
Contaminacion v. EPA, 202 F.3d 443,
448–49 (1st Cir. 2000) (upholding EPA’s
use of SILs to allow permit applicant to
avoid full impact analysis.)
2. Levels of the SILs
Several commenters opposed all three
proposed options on the grounds that all
yielded levels of SILs that are too low.
One of these commenters argued that
the proposed SILs ‘‘imply a level of
monitoring and modeling sophistication
that is currently absent in our regulatory
scheme.’’ This commenter
recommended that EPA ‘‘rethink the
level of the proposed SILs and select
concentrations less likely to be within
the level of error inherent in current
monitoring and modeling methods.’’
We disagree with these commenters’
concerns about all the proposed SILs
being too low. While we did not select
the Option 1 levels, the Class II and III
SILs for PM2.5 under that option were
the same ambient concentration levels
that are used for the SILs for the other
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR
51.165(b), and those existing SILs values
are associated with NAAQS that are
considerably higher than the NAAQS
for PM2.5. Clearly, it would have been
inappropriate to select Class II and III
SILs for PM2.5 that represent relatively
higher values than the existing SIL
values for other pollutants in light of the
more stringent NAAQS levels that exist
for PM2.5. We also disagree that the SILs
should be consistent with current
monitoring capabilities for PM2.5. The
SILs are a screening tool used in
comparison with modeled predictions—
not monitored concentrations—of PM2.5.
Monitoring accuracy is not a relevant
concern in predicting with air quality
dispersion models the concentrations of
a pollutant that a source will cause if its
construction and operation are allowed
to occur.
Two commenters expressed concern
about national de minimis values. One
stated that ‘‘the idea that a single
national number can define ‘trivial’ is
flawed, given that even very small
impact can be of great significance in an
area that is close to an increment or
NAAQS.’’ The other commenter
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64892
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
recommended that EPA ‘‘develop
geographic area-specific * * * levels
that take local conditions into account.’’
This commenter reasoned that some
PSD areas ‘‘should not be ‘penalized’ by
a single, national PSD increment,
significant impact levels and significant
monitoring level, where the conditions
of concern are not capable of control.’’
With regard to the first of these
commenters, our longstanding policy
has been that when a source has a de
minimis impact on an existing air
quality problem, that source should not
necessarily be required to bear the
burden of addressing its small
contribution to a problem caused
primarily by other sources. However,
notwithstanding the existence of a SIL,
permitting authorities should determine
when it may be appropriate to conclude
that even a de minimis impact will
‘‘cause or contribute’’ to an air quality
problem and to seek remedial action
from the proposed new source or
modification.
We do not agree with the second of
these comments concerning the
development of regional SILs based on
a concern that some amounts of PM2.5 in
a particular area are ‘‘not capable of
control.’’ The PM2.5 SILs define a
threshold level for determining whether
a predicted ambient impact by a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification of PM2.5 needs to
undergo a more thorough analysis of the
PM2.5 NAAQS or increments. This value
is not directly affected by the total
amounts of PM2.5 that may exist in an
area or by what causes the existing
PM2.5 concentrations, rather by the
impact of a single source relative to the
levels of the NAAQS and increments
that must be protected. Therefore, we do
not see why the SILs should be
influenced by the geographic area of
concern, or how different levels of SILs
for the same pollutant and averaging
period would be necessary.
With regard to the commenters that
supported at least one of the proposed
SILs options, they generally did not
prefer the entire suite of SILs (Class I,
II, and III SILs) from a single option, but
instead supported parts of different
options, primarily divided by drawing a
distinction between the Class I SILs and
the SILs for Class II and III areas.
Consistent with the way that
commenters addressed the Class I, II,
and III SILs, we will address the
comments separately herein as well.
a. Class I SILs
Support and opposition for the
proposed PM2.5 SILs for Class I areas
was fairly evenly divided. The PM2.5
SILs for Class I areas proposed under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
Option 2 received the support of some
commenters, but also received an equal
amount of opposition. Option 1, which
yielded the lowest (most restrictive)
values for the Class I area SILs for PM2.5
(annual and 24-hour averages), was
supported by some commenters,
including a Federal agency that serves
as a FLM for Federal Class I areas under
the PSD program, but was equally
opposed. Finally, comments supporting
the Class I SILs proposed under Option
3 (from which we derived the values
included in the final rules) were
matched by comments that opposed the
Class I SILs under Option 3.
One commenter opposing the Option
3 SILs for Class I areas said that the
values ‘‘appear to be unrealistically low
and, if selected, would point to the need
for EPA to conduct an economic impact
analysis.’’ We disagree that adopting the
Option 3 SILs for Class I areas (and
Class II and III areas) will result in
economic impacts significant enough to
warrant an economic impact analysis.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
EPA is required to analyze, and receive
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for, the
recordkeeping and reporting burden
imposed by its regulations (referred to
as the ‘‘Information Collection Request’’
or ‘‘ICR’’ for the regulation). For the PSD
program, this includes the burden
associated with the entire permitting
process, including any required
modeling analyses. In our analysis for
this rulemaking, we have concluded
that the number of PSD permits issued
annually will be unchanged (at an
estimated 274 per year), while the total
burden across all PSD permit applicants
of adding PM2.5 analyses will increase
by a total of approximately 29,000 hours
per year at a cost of approximately $2.8
million per year. This total annual
impact on industry is a small fraction of
the threshold ($100 million per year)
that is considered ‘‘significant’’ under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. See
sections X.B and X.D of this preamble
for more on the Paperwork Reduction
Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, respectively. Our analysis of the
recordkeeping and reporting burden of
this rulemaking can be found in the
docket for this ICR.22
Another commenter stated that the
use of a NAAQS-based ratio under
Option 3 for the proposed SILs does not
‘‘translate back to the emissions point
22 See ‘‘Information Collection Request (ICR) for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration for
PM2.5-Increments, Significant Impact Levels and
Significant Monitoring Concentration,’’ Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0628.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
level when comparing PM10 and PM2.5.’’
This commenter continued, ‘‘this is an
invalid method of proceeding because
EPA has not shown that there is a
correlation between the NAAQS and
direct PM2.5 since there is no accounting
for precursors and EPA does not have a
quantifiable sense of the portion of
PM2.5 that is condensable for various
industries.’’
We disagree with the commenter’s
concern that the use of NAAQS-based
ratios is an invalid method for
developing the PM2.5 SILs. The purpose
of using the NAAQS ratio with the PM10
SILs to develop PM2.5 SILs is to
establish values that have a comparable
relationship between ambient
concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 and
their respective NAAQS levels. Whether
a particular ambient concentration of
PM2.5 results from direct PM2.5
emissions or from precursor emissions
is not relevant to this particular
approach. The PM2.5 SILs in this final
rule are intended to be compared to the
ambient concentrations of PM2.5 that are
predicted by modeling the emissions of
a proposed new project. Ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 can be the result
of direct PM2.5 emissions, which may
include condensable particulate matter,
as well as precursor emissions, e.g., SO2
and NOX.
We note that the 2007 NPRM
included proposed regulatory language
providing that demonstrations of
whether the air quality impact of a
major new source or modification
would be less than the PM2.5 SILs be
based on direct PM2.5 emissions from
the proposed project. The intent of this
was to recognize the technical
limitations associated with modeling
precursor emissions to predict ambient
PM2.5 impacts. However, in this final
rule we have removed that limitation by
removing the reference to ‘‘direct’’ PM2.5
emissions.
One commenter, who did not support
any of the proposed SILs options, was
especially critical of the Class I SILs for
PM2.5 under Option 1, stating that
multiplying the proposed PM2.5
increment by 4 percent is without legal
or practical merit. The commenter
stated that just because ‘‘4 percent may
have been a reasonable multiplier to use
in establishing a significant emission
rate threshold does not mean that the
multiplier should be used for a
completely different regulatory
purpose.’’ The commenter added that if
the PM2.5 SILs for Class I areas under
Option 1 were codified, emissions from
even the most well-controlled coal-fired
electric generating station located as far
away as 300 km from a Class I area
could well exceed the threshold.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
In contrast, the Federal agency
commenter supporting the PM2.5 SILs
for Class I areas under Option 1
explained that they analyzed the
effectiveness of the three sets of
proposed SILs by modeling four
different coal-fired power plant
scenarios using an EPA-approved longrange transport model. The modeled
plants included a large 1,500 megawatt
(MW) facility, a moderate-sized 500 MW
facility, and two medium 800 MW
facilities. Based on this modeling
analysis, the commenter concluded that
the proposed levels of the Class I 24hour SILs based on Option 1 and Option
3 are ‘‘more appropriately protective of
the proposed Class I PM2.5 increment
and impacts to visibility than the level
obtained under Option 2.’’ This
commenter supported the consistency of
using 4 percent of the Class I increments
that was used by EPA in proposing
Class I SILs for SO2, NOX, and PM10 in
1996.
We chose the Class I SILs under
Option 3 because we believe that this
option yields the most appropriate
combination of SILs for all area
classifications. Whether a particular
source will have a significant impact on
an area is determined to some extent by
the amount of its emissions, but also by
other factors such as the height of
release, pollutant transport distance,
terrain features, and meteorological
factors. Thus, we did not select SILs
values to address a certain size source
or the degree of control of that source,
but the ambient impact of that source
relative to the NAAQS and increments
that will result from the source’s
emissions. While the annual Class I SIL
under Option 3 represents a level that
is somewhat greater than 4 percent of
the PM2.5 annual increment for Class I
areas, it is sufficiently close (as derived
from a ratio of the PM2.5 NAAQS to the
PM10 NAAQS) so as to provide a
reasonable threshold for defining de
minimis for purposes of conducting a
Class I increment analysis. We had
proposed the use of 4 percent of the
existing Class I increments to develop
SILs for pollutants in the 1996 NSR
Reform proposal; however, that
particular component of the proposal
was never finalized. See 61 FR 38250
beginning at 38291. We will further
discuss our rationale for selecting the
SILs under Option 3 in the discussion
which follows for the Class II and III
SILs.
b. Class II and III SILs
While many commenters tended to
favor Option 2 with regard to the
proposed Class I increments, they
tended clearly to support Option 1 for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
defining Class II and III SILs for PM2.5.
These particular SILs for PM2.5 were
proposed so as to be equal to the
existing Class II and III SILs for the
existing pollutants. In all, six
commenters supported Option 1. One of
these commenters stated that Option 1
SILs for Class II and III areas are
‘‘sufficiently stringent and fully
consistent with the de minimis
justification for SILs.’’ The commenter
added that ‘‘when conducting an air
quality impact analysis * * * most
applicants assume all coarse PM10 to be
PM2.5.’’ The commenter claimed that
this assumption is conservative and
‘‘overestimates the amount of fine
particles being emitted and renders the
effective SIL thresholds for PM2.5 lower
than those written into the regulations.’’
We strongly disagree that the SILs
proposed under Option 1 as applied to
PM2.5 are sufficiently stringent. The
application of such values as SILs for
PM2.5 would result in ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 that consume a
much larger portion of both the PM2.5
NAAQS and increments than either of
the other two options proposed for
PM2.5 in light of the correspondingly
more stringent levels of the PM2.5
NAAQS and increments than those for
the other pollutants. We believe that of
the 3 options proposed, the PM2.5 SILs
based on Option 3 represent values that
are more closely aligned percentagewise with the SILs that have been or are
being used for other forms of PM when
compared to their respective NAAQS
and increments.
We also disagree with the
commenter’s suggestion that the
development of the SILs for PM2.5, or
any other pollutant, should in any way
be influenced by the possibility that
some sources may use conservative
techniques for estimating a source’s
emissions rate. Such conservative
techniques may be needed to the extent
that technical issues associated with the
determination of PM2.5 emissions are
identified, and can certainly be used at
any time as a simplified methodology
for estimating PM2.5 emissions. But
when such an overly conservative
approach fails to yield de minimis
results, the source may find it necessary
to rely upon more accurate techniques
for determining the amount of PM2.5 that
the source will emit.
Finally, one commenter, objecting to
all of the proposed SILs, stated that EPA
must assure that SILs are truly de
minimis and must also include
limitations on the use of SILs as
necessary to prevent air quality from
significantly deteriorating. We
acknowledge that we did not conduct
any new modeling or other types of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64893
analyses of the proposed SILs in order
to explicitly show that the final PM2.5
SILs values in this final rule are de
minimis. Instead, we have relied on past
actions regarding the setting of de
minimis levels to illustrate that the
PM2.5 values selected via Option 3
represent values that are as stringent as
the previous levels that have been
established to define de minimis for
PM10 and TSP. See 45 FR 52706–708
(using modeling and representative
data).
Using the 24-hour and annual
NAAQS ratios of PM2.5 to PM10, and
multiplying them by the corresponding
existing PM10 SILs, we conclude that the
PM2.5 SILs define de minimis for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the same way as the
PM10 SILs do for PM10 NAAQS. Using
the increments as a basis for comparison
provides further support for our
conclusion. The annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 SILs represent about 7.5 and 13
percent of the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
increments, respectively. By
comparison, the annual and 24-hour
PM10 SILs represent about 5 and 17
percent of the annual and 24-hour PM10
increments, respectively. We believe the
PM2.5 SILs fall into a comparable
relative range with the PM10 SILs and
can be considered de minimis.
In EPA’s 1980 final rule for PSD, EPA
adopted SERs for the pollutants then
subject to regulation under the PSD
requirements. The SER adopted for PM
(then measured as TSP) was 25 tpy,
which represented an emissions rate for
which EPA modeled impacts that
represented about 4 percent of the TSP
24-hour NAAQS and about 28 percent
of the 24-hour TSP increment. Thus,
EPA considered it acceptable under the
de minimis assessment for PM that a
source of particulate matter capable of
consuming around 28 percent of the
applicable 24-hour TSP increment could
be exempted from the requirements to
complete a comprehensive source
impact analysis for the PM NAAQS and
increments. 45 FR 52708.
In looking at the amount of increment
that could be consumed by a source that
is ultimately exempted from having to
complete a comprehensive modeling
analysis, it should be pointed out that
the maximum modeled concentration
typically occurs in a relatively limited
area, as compared to the entire modeling
domain. In particular, for the short-term
averaging periods, such as the 24-hour
averaging period, modeled
concentrations across the modeled area
generally show that ground level
impacts are reduced significantly from
the peak value as the pollutant travels
a relatively short distance from the
source, so that the peak modeled
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64894
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
concentrations represent the source’s
impact at only a relatively few receptors
within the modeled area. In addition, it
is important to note that the temporal
and spatial conditions which lead to a
maximum impact by one source are
seldom the same for other sources, such
that maximum impacts of individual
sources do not typically occur at the
same location or at the same time.
Thus, in an area where several
sources can demonstrate that their
modeled impacts are de minimis, it
generally should not be assumed that
their individual maximum (albeit de
minimis) impacts on the increment are
additive. For example, four sources with
de minimis PM2.5 impacts, each
consuming 12 percent of the 24-hour
PM2.5 increment, would not necessarily
consume 48% of the 24-hour increment.
Increment consumption is determined
by the cumulative impact of source
emissions on each individual receptor
or modeling point in the area of impact
within the baseline area defined for the
affected PSD sources.
The preamble for the 1980 final rule
for PSD included a description of a
modeling analysis that EPA conducted
to illustrate that a number of major
sources each making a de minimis
emissions increase for SO2 could locate
in an area (in that case, the Dayton area)
and not cause a violation of either the
applicable SO2 increment or NAAQS. In
that particular case, the modeling
indicated that the maximum aggregate
increment consumption for 37 sources
emitting 40 tpy of SO2 (the de minimis
emissions rate for SO2) would have a
cumulative impact at any location of
less than 1.5 μg/m3 on a 24-hour basis—
well below the NAAQS and increments
for SO2. 45 FR 52708.
With regard to the commenter’s
recommendation that we place
limitations on the use of SILs, we earlier
provided an example of when it might
be appropriate to require a modified
source to mitigate its contribution to a
violation of a NAAQS or increment even
when the predicted ambient impact of
the proposed emissions increase would
result in what is normally considered to
be de minimis. In addition, we have
historically cautioned states that the use
of a SIL may not be appropriate when
a substantial portion of any NAAQS or
increment is known to be consumed.
We have indicated elsewhere in this
preamble that states are not required to
adopt the SILs for PM2.5 in this final
rule. At their discretion they may
choose not to rely on SILs to screen
applicants or they may establish more
stringent values.
Finally, it should be noted that while
a source having only de minimis
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
impacts may not be required to
complete a comprehensive source
impact analysis, the emissions from
such sources are still considered to
consume increment and would be
counted as part of the next increment
analysis required to be completed by a
PSD applicant in that same area, or by
the State under a periodic increment
review.
3. Relationship Between SILs and
AQRVs
While commenters generally
supported EPA’s position that the SILs
should not be used in any way to
determine effects of emissions increases
on the AQRVs in a Class I area, two
commenters urged that the de minimis
concentration be used for analyzing
Class I area impacts under certain
circumstances. That is, they believed
that the SILs should be used to
determine the need for a Class I area air
quality analysis when an FLM has not
identified a specific AQRV related to the
pollutant under evaluation or obtained
ambient monitoring data to confirm that
predicted concentrations from air
dispersion models are representative of
actual AQRV impacts in the Class I area.
The commenters claimed that without
this flexibility, applicants would be
required to conduct complex and
extensive Class I air dispersion
modeling without any clear objective,
and regulatory agencies would have to
review the modeling with limited
information to determine if the
emissions could cause an ‘‘adverse’’
impact or if potentially costly controls
should be required.
These commenters appear to be
suggesting that an FLM may needlessly
call for an analysis of a particular Class
I area, involving ‘‘complex and extensive
Class I area dispersion modeling’’
despite the fact that no AQRV has been
identified for that Class I area. We agree
that a Class I analysis in the absence of
any known AQRVs would be
unnecessary because any demonstration
of an adverse impact must be made with
respect to a pollutant adversely affecting
an AQRV. We believe, however, that
such analyses would be avoided under
the procedures set forth in section
165(d)(2)(C) of the Act which require
that a notice be filed alleging that a
proposed source may cause or
contribute to adverse effects, and
identifying the adverse impact. Insofar
as the FLM must also demonstrate ‘‘to
the satisfaction of the State that
emissions from such facility will have
an adverse impact on the air quality
related values,’’ it would be difficult to
require the source to undertake any kind
of detailed analysis in the absence of an
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AQRV on which such adverse impacts
must be demonstrated. Thus, we have
concluded that it is not necessary to use
the SILs as a safeguard against
unnecessary Class I area analyses.
Instead, we believe that the need for a
Class I analysis, other than the required
analysis of the NAAQS and Class I
increments (for both of which the SILs
are intended to be used), should be
based on the potential for adverse
effects on an AQRV that the FLM has
identified and believes could be affected
by a pollutant that would be emitted by
the proposed project.
4. Form of the SILs
One commenter stated that ‘‘the
Proposal does not indicate how the
proposed PM2.5 SILs are to be
interpreted.’’ This commenter believed
that ‘‘the form of the SILs should be
consistent with the form of the PM2.5
NAAQS’’ adding that ‘‘the current PM2.5
NAAQS requires that compliance with
the 24-hour and annual standards be
determined using 3-year averaging.’’
Specifically, ‘‘The annual standard is
calculated based upon the 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour
standard is based on the 3-year average
of the 98th percentile (or highest-8th
high value) of 24-hour concentrations.’’
In a March 23, 2010 EPA
memorandum titled ‘‘Modeling
Procedures for Demonstrating
Compliance with PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ we
provided guidance for using the SILs in
conjunction with the 24-hour and
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which takes into
account the statistical form of the
NAAQS. Following promulgation of the
PM2.5 increments in this final rule, we
intend to provide guidance for
interpreting the SILs for their use with
the 24-hour and annual PM2.5
increments as well.
5. SILs for Other Pollutants
In proposing Option 1, we noted that
many who commented on the 1996 NSR
Reform proposal supported this
approach and believed that the
proposed PM10 SIL values would serve
as appropriate de minimis values. In
fact, we are aware that many states have
been using these proposed SILs for PM10
as screening tools since 1996 or earlier.
Regarding the proposed Class I SILs
under Option 1, we expressed our belief
that where a proposed source consumes
less than 4 percent of the Class I
increment, the source’s impact is
sufficiently low so as not to warrant
requiring the source to carry out a
detailed analysis of the combined effects
of the proposed source and all other
increment-consuming emissions in the
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
area. 72 FR 54140. We previously used
a similar rationale to establish the SERs
for PSD applicability purposes,
concluding in part that emissions rates
that resulted in ambient impacts less
than 4 percent of the 24-hour standards
for PM and SO2 were sufficiently small
so as to be considered de minimis. 45
FR 52707–8.
The original SIL values of 1.0 and 5.0
μg/m3 for TSP and PM10 were
interpreted by EPA as representing the
minimum amount of ambient impact
that is significant. This formed the basis
for the proposed Option 1 PM2.5 SIL
values of 1.0 and 5.0 μg/m3 for the
annual and 24-hour averaging periods
for Class II and III areas.
The SILs currently appear in EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b). That
particular NSR regulation provides that
states must include a preconstruction
review permit program for any new
major stationary source or major
modification that proposes to locate in
an attainment or unclassifiable area and
would cause or contribute to a violation
of the NAAQS. These values, added to
40 CFR 51.165(b) on July 1, 1987, have
previously been referred to as
‘‘significant ambient impact
concentrations’’ and are used to enable
a source to determine whether its
emissions would cause or contribute to
a NAAQS violation at ‘‘any locality that
does not or would not meet the
applicable national standard.’’ 52 FR
24672, April 2, 1985, at 24688.
In 1985, when EPA proposed to add
‘‘significant ambient impact levels’’ for
PM10, we also indicated that for PSD
purposes the requirements under
section 51.165(b) 23 ‘‘would be applied
to all applicable PSD requirements.’’ The
EPA has since applied these values in
other analogous circumstances under
the PSD program. Based on EPA
interpretations and guidance, SILs have
also been widely used in the PSD
program as a screening tool for
determining when a new major source
or major modification that wishes to
locate in an attainment or unclassifiable
area must conduct a more extensive air
quality analysis to demonstrate that it
will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS or PSD
increment in the attainment or
unclassifiable area. The SILs are also
used to define the extent of the
Significant Impact Area where, using air
dispersion models and ambient
monitoring data, a cumulative source
impact analysis accounting for
23 In
1985, the requirements now contained in 40
CFR 51.165(b) were contained in 40 CFR 51.18(k),
which was later part of a major restructuring of the
part 51 SIP requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
emissions changes from affected sources
is performed.24 See the 2007 NPRM for
additional information on the history of
EPA’s guidance related to SILs (72 FR
54138–39).
In the 1996 NSR Reform proposal, we
proposed to add the SILs for PM10 and
other pollutants already contained in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2) directly into the PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.
Because the SILs in 40 CFR 51.165(b)
did not include thresholds for Class I
areas, we proposed to set Class I SILs at
the level of 4 percent of the respective
Class I increments. Thus, for PM10, the
proposed Class I SILs were 0.2 μg/m3
(annual) and 0.3 μg/m3 (24-hour), and
the proposed Class II and III SILs were
1.0 μg/m3 (annual) and 5.0 μg/m3 (24hour). The EPA has not yet taken final
action on the 1996 proposal on SILs for
pollutants other than PM2.5; therefore,
we rely upon our longstanding policy to
use those values, as codified in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2), for PSD permitting.
VII. Final Action on the PM2.5 SMC
A. EPA’s Determination on the PM2.5
SMC
As with the increments and SILs for
PM2.5, we proposed three different
options for establishing an SMC for
PM2.5. The first option, referred to as the
‘‘lowest detectable concentration’’
approach, relied on the method we used
in 1980 to develop the SMCs for the
pollutants then subject to PSD. This
particular method focused on
development of the SMC value based on
the current capability of providing a
meaningful measure of the pollutants.
See relevant discussion later in this
section and at 45 FR 52710. Options 2
and 3, called the ‘‘PM2.5 to PM10
emissions ratio’’ and the ‘‘PM2.5 to PM10
NAAQS ratio,’’ respectively, used the
SMC for PM10 as the base for
multiplying the emissions and NAAQS
ratios to derive an SMC for PM2.5. See
72 FR 54141. The three proposed
options yielded the following numerical
levels for the SMC:
• Option 1: 10 μg/m3, (24-hour
average);
• Option 2: 8.0 μg/m3 (24-hour
average); and
• Option 3: 2.3 μg/m3 (24-hour
average).
We are taking final action on the SMC
for PM2.5 using the ‘‘lowest detectable
concentration’’ approach (Option 1).
However, we have determined that the
24 In the case of a NAAQS compliance analysis,
all sources in the area are considered to contribute
to the air quality levels; for increments, however,
‘‘all’’ refers only to those sources whose emissions,
in whole or in part, consume PSD increment for a
particular pollutant.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64895
SMC value that is calculated under this
methodology is lower than the proposed
value of 10 μg/m3 to reflect ‘‘current
capability’’ with respect to the
measurement and collection of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations. The result of such
revised calculation is that the SMC
value in this final rule is different from
(more stringent than) the proposed
level. The revised value is 4 μg/m3 (24hour average). Our basis for the revised
calculation and the resulting lower
value is described in greater detail later
in this section.
The EPA and its delegated reviewing
authorities will use the PM2.5 SMC to
determine when it may be appropriate
to exempt a proposed new major
stationary source or major modification
from the ambient monitoring data
requirements under the PSD rules.
Similarly, states with EPA-approved
PSD programs that adopt the SMC for
PM2.5 may use the SMC, once it is part
of an approved SIP, to determine when
it may be appropriate to exempt a
particular major stationary source or
major modification from the monitoring
requirements under their State PSD
programs (see 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)).
B. Response to Comments Concerning
the SMC
1. Legal Issues
Under the Act and EPA regulations,
an applicant for a PSD permit is
required to gather preconstruction
monitoring data in certain
circumstances. Section 165(a)(7) of the
Act calls for ‘‘such monitoring as may be
necessary to determine the effect which
emissions from any such facility may
have, or is having, on air quality in any
areas which may be affected by
emissions from such source.’’ In
addition, section 165(e) of the Act
requires an analysis of the air quality in
areas affected by a proposed major
facility or major modification and calls
for gathering 1 year of monitoring data
unless the reviewing authority
determines that a complete and
adequate analysis may be accomplished
in a shorter period. These requirements
are codified in EPA’s PSD regulations at
40 CFR 51.166(m) and 52.21(m).
In 1980, EPA adopted regulations that
included pollutant-specific SMCs as a
screening tool for sources to determine
whether they should conduct sitespecific preconstruction ambient
monitoring.25 We explained our
25 The provision for the monitoring exemption
was originally promulgated at 40 CFR 51.24(i)(8)
and 52.21(i)(8); it should be noted, however, that
this provision is now found at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)
and 52.21(i)(5).
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64896
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
position that it was appropriate to
exempt sources from preconstruction
monitoring requirements for a pollutant
if the source could demonstrate that its
ambient air impact was less than a value
known as the Significant Monitoring
Concentration or SMC. At the time the
SMCs were adopted, EPA described
them as ‘‘air quality concentration de
minimis level[s] for each pollutant [that
were available] for the purpose of
providing a possible exemption from
monitoring requirements.’’ 45 FR 52676,
52707 (August 7, 1980). The EPA
explained that it believed there was
‘‘little to be gained from preconstruction
monitoring’’ where a source could show
that its projected impact of a pollutant
within the affected area was below the
de minimis concentration for that
pollutant. 45 FR at 52710.
One commenter opposed our
proposed establishment of any SMC for
PM2.5, claiming that SMCs in general are
contrary to the Act. The commenter
stated that ‘‘in Section 165(e) Congress
mandated a full year of continuous air
quality monitoring for each major
source subject to the PSD program.’’
With this in mind, the commenter
indicated that there are no exceptions,
other than the limited statutory
provisions, discussed above, which
allow for less than a year’s worth of
monitoring based on a determination
that a complete and adequate analysis of
such purposes may be accomplished in
a shorter period. The commenter then
argued that ‘‘the allowance for a ‘shorter
period’ hardly amounts to authority to
waive monitoring entirely, which is
what EPA’s SMC proposal would do.’’
As with the SMCs adopted by EPA in
1980, the SMCs that we proposed for
PM2.5 are supported by the de minimis
doctrine set forth in the Alabama Power
opinion. Like the other pollutants for
which EPA has promulgated SMCs, EPA
believes there is little to be gained from
preconstruction monitoring of PM2.5
concentrations that cannot be accurately
measured.
Therefore, in developing the three
proposed options for an SMC, EPA
sought to use methods that would
identify levels representing a de
minimis or insignificant impact on
PM2.5 ambient air quality that makes the
collection of additional monitoring data
extraneous.
2. Level of the SMC
As indicated earlier, the SMC for
PM2.5 in this final rule is 4 μg/m3, 24hour average. This value may be used by
permitting authorities to determine
when they may exempt a proposed
major stationary source or major
modification for PM2.5 from the air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
quality monitoring requirements for
PM2.5 under 40 CFR 51.166. The EPA
and its delegated State/local programs
will also use this new value under the
Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21.
We proposed three options for
developing the SMC for PM2.5; each
option yielded a different concentration
value. In choosing between the three
options, EPA proposed to select the
option that reflected the degree of
ambient impact on PM2.5 concentrations
that could be considered truly de
minimis and used to justify exempting
a source from the requirement to gather
1 year of ambient monitoring data for
PM2.5. Ultimately, we have selected the
‘‘lowest detectable concentration’’
approach (Option 1) that relies directly
upon ambient monitoring measurement
sensitivity and precision. That is, if
either the predicted source impact or
estimated existing air quality in an area
is below a concentration that can be
accurately measured, then it would not
be reasonable to require a source to
attempt to collect such ambient data.
In 1980, EPA determined the SMCs
based on the then current capability of
providing a meaningful measure of
ambient pollutant concentrations. The
EPA promulgated values that
represented five times the lowest
detectable concentration in ambient air
that could be measured by the
instruments available for monitoring the
pollutants. 45 FR 52710. The factor of
‘‘five’’ took into account the
measurement errors associated with the
monitoring of these low pollutant levels
or small incremental changes in
concentration. These measurement
errors were said to arise from various
sources, such as sample collection,
analytical measurement, calibration,
and interferences. See May 20, 1980
EPA memorandum from Rehme, K. A.,
to Warren Peters, contained in the
docket for this rulemaking. Accordingly,
in the 2007 NPRM for PM2.5, we voiced
our belief that this was a reasonable
approach, since it was also used for
PM10 and TSP. 72 FR 54141.
Eight commenters expressed support
for the SMC based on Option 1, albeit
at the higher level as originally
proposed. In some cases, it is not clear
whether these commenters supported
the particular approach (i.e., an SMC
linked to the lowest detectable level) or
the fact that the calculated value was
simply the highest value of the values
proposed under the three options.
Clearly, some of the commenters
indicated their support for the approach
because it is consistent with the
approach used for setting the original
SMCs in 1980. Two commenters
opposed Option 1 because it resulted in
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an SMC value that was too high. These
latter commenters noted that the SMC
derived via Option 1 (10 μg/m3, 24-hour
average) was greater than the proposed
24-hour PM2.5 increment for Class II
areas and argued that such an outcome
is inappropriate. We believe that this
important concern is adequately
addressed by the level of the SMC for
PM2.5 that is established in this
rulemaking.
Several commenters supported the
levels derived from either Option 2 or
Option 3, but were concerned that the
justification for choosing either of these
values would need to be further
explained. Some of these commenters
were specifically concerned about the
use of a 0.8 PM2.5-to-PM10 emissions
ratio which, they argued, relied on
inventory data that did not adequately
address all sources that would likely
affect ambient concentrations of PM2.5
in an area.
We conclude that Option 1 is the
appropriate option for defining the SMC
for PM2.5. The ability to accurately
measure ambient PM2.5 concentrations
is not related to a ratio of PM2.5 to PM10
either directly in terms of emissions or
as expressed by the respective NAAQS,
which were used to define the SMC for
PM2.5 under Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Our original concern was
that, while Option 1 linked the SMC
directly to the concept of a minimum
detectable concentration (in order to
identify de minimis monitoring
circumstances), the value originally
derived from that approach in the 2007
NPRM was high in relationship to the
concentrations of PM2.5 defined by the
existing NAAQS and increments for
PM2.5.
In considering the use of Option 1 for
developing the SMC in the final rules,
however, we recognized after
publication of the proposed rule that it
was necessary to re-examine the
assumptions that we relied upon in
1980 to develop the numerical values
for the original SMCs so that we could
most accurately reflect current
monitoring techniques for PM2.5. Our reexamination for this final rule utilized
the most current information concerning
the physical capabilities of the PM2.5
Federal Reference Method Samplers,
and addresses uncertainties introduced
to the measurement of PM2.5 due to
variability in the mechanical
performance of the PM2.5 samplers and
the micro-gravimetric analytical
balances that weigh filter samples.
The minimum detection limit (MDL)
of 2 μg/m3, originally used in 1980 for
the SMC for PM and promulgated for
PM2.5 in 1997 (see 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix L, section 3.1), has been
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reaffirmed by 9 years of field blank data
collected by EPA through the PM2.5
Performance Evaluation Program.
However, we found that new data exist
to ‘‘indicate a conservative estimate of
the aggregate uncertainty factor is no
greater that ‘2’ at the concentration
equal to the MDL of 2 μg/m3.’’ 26
Accordingly, the lowering of the
uncertainty factor from ‘‘five’’ to ‘‘two’’
under Option 1 yields an SMC of 4 μg/
m3 PM2.5, 24-hour average, rather than
the proposed concentration of 10 μg/m3.
We conclude that the modified level
of 4 μg/m3 PM2.5, 24-hour average, for
the SMC under Option 1, based upon a
more current understanding of
monitoring precision for PM, especially
fine PM, addresses commenter support
for the use of a method that is consistent
with the way other SMCs were
developed and most directly reflects
monitoring capability for the pollutant
of concern, while at the same time
responding to the concern of other
commenters that a value in the lower
range of proposed SMC values is most
reasonable considering the levels of the
NAAQS and increments for PM2.5.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
C. Correction of Cross Reference in PSD
Ambient Monitoring Requirements
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed to
take final action to correct a cross
reference contained in paragraph (i) of
the part 51 and 52 PSD regulations.
Specifically, at the time of the proposal,
paragraphs (ii) and (iii) in 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5), and paragraph (ii) in 40
CFR 52.21(i)(5), each referred to
concentrations listed in paragraph
(i)(8)(i) of both regulations. However,
there is no paragraph (i)(8)(i) in existing
40 CFR 51.166, and no concentration
values are contained in existing section
(i)(8)(i) of 40 CFR 52.21. The cross
reference in these provisions was
intended to reference the SMCs in
paragraph (i)(5)(i) of the two PSD
regulations, but EPA failed to make this
change when the paragraphs were
renumbered in an earlier rulemaking.
We did not receive any comments
concerning this proposed corrective
action. We made the necessary
correction as part of the May 16, 2008
final PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
(see 73 FR 28348 and 28349); therefore
it is not necessary to take any further
action in this final rule with regard to
the proposed correction.
26 This information is contained in a March 12,
2009 internal EPA memorandum from Dennis
Crumpler to Raj Rao, titled ‘‘PSD Monitoring De
Minimis Concentration for PM2.5,’’ which has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
VIII. Dates Associated With
Implementation of the Final Rule
This section describes the key dates
that we have established for
implementing the final rule. In the 2007
NPRM, we indicated that different dates
appeared to be appropriate for
implementing the PM2.5 increments,
each date depending on the legal
authority that we relied upon to
promulgate it. We described and took
comment on some alternative effective
dates for increments, as well. In
addition, we discussed and took
comment on potential implementation
dates for the SILs and SMC components
of the proposed rule, which we
indicated were not subject to the same
statutory considerations as the
increments.
We received a number of comments
on the different proposed dates. We
carefully considered these comments in
selecting the dates described below for
the final rule. Some of the significant
comments and our responses to those
comments are provided below. The
remaining comments and our responses
are contained in the Response to
Comments document included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
A. Effective Date of the Final Rule
In the 2007 NPRM, we took comment
on the effective date of the final rule by
presenting the different options
available for implementing the PM2.5
increments. Under Option 1 for
developing the increments, we stated
that section 166(b) of the Act specifies
that increments promulgated pursuant
to section 166(a) are to become effective
1 year following their promulgation. In
contrast, there is no such 1-year delay
or any other date prescribed for
increments promulgated in accordance
with section 166(f) of the Act, upon
which we based Options 2 and 3 for the
annual PM2.5 increments. Thus,
increments promulgated under Option
1, which relies on the procedural
provisions of section 166(b) of the Act,
would normally be subject to a 1-year
delay in implementation, while
increments promulgated under either
Option 2 or 3, relying on section 166(f)
of the Act, could follow a 30- or 60-day
effective date, typical of the effective
date for most new rules in general. In
either case, our consideration of the
effective date for the PM2.5 increments
assumed that the selected date would
also be the effective date of the final
rule.
In the 2007 NPRM, we took comment
on some alternative approaches to
establishing the effective date for PM2.5
increments. Specifically, while
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64897
proposing a 1-year effective date under
Option 1, we requested comment on
whether we could promulgate these
increments under section 166(a) of the
Act with an effective date of only 60
days. See 72 FR 54142.
Nine commenters supported our
proposal to establish the effective date
of the part 51 and 52 PSD regulations for
PM2.5 as 1 year from the date of
publication. Alternatively, two
commenters encouraged us to apply the
60-day effective date, while three other
commenters supported other effective
dates, as described in this section.
Seven industry and industry
association commenters supported our
proposal to make the final rule for PM2.5
increments effective 1 year after
promulgation. Most of these
commenters cited the additional time
necessary to develop the needed PM2.5
inventories needed for implementation
of the PM2.5 PSD program. Two of the
commenters urged EPA to allow State
programs sufficient time to adopt
increments, particularly if condensable
particulate matter is included in the
increment and its analysis. These
commenters stated that the Federal rule
should not be effective for 1 year. (They
also stated that states should have 3
years for the associated SIP revisions.)
These same commenters added that this
delay would provide time for sources
that have permits in the pipeline or are
just about to submit an application to be
able to complete the permitting process
without undue delay. One of the
commenters specifically voiced support
for Option 1 for the effective date of the
final rule (1 year) and Option 2B for the
period granted for SIP revisions (3
years). This commenter also explained
that this additional time may give the
Agency time to promulgate better
measurement methods for sources of
condensable particulate matter.
Another of these commenters noted
that, at the time of the proposal, the
NSR portion of the CAFPIR had not yet
been promulgated, and that states would
need time to incorporate that rule as
well as the requirements of the proposal
into their SIPs. This commenter added
that making the PM2.5 increments
effective before states and sources have
had a reasonable opportunity to begin,
let alone complete, the SIP process for
the two related rulemakings would
unnecessarily complicate an alreadycomplex regulatory process.
In contrast, the two commenters
supporting the shorter effective date
encouraged us to apply the 60-day
period for the effective date under
whatever option is finalized. One of
these commenters urged us to take
measures to expedite the
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64898
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
implementation of the PM2.5 final rule
and suggested that we choose the
shortest of the proposed effective dates
which are allowed under any of the
applicable regulations. This commenter
indicated that in light of the excessive
delay in the implementation of the
PM2.5 PSD program since the NAAQS
were promulgated, the 60-day effective
date should be applied under EPA’s
preferred option.
In light of our decision to promulgate
PM2.5 increments under the authority of
section 166(a) of the Act (proposed
Option 1), we are faced with the
decision as to how to most effectively
implement the long-awaited PM2.5
increments, recognizing that the Act
provides for a 1-year implementation
delay. We have concluded that it is most
appropriate to follow the plain language
of the Act which calls for a 1-year
effective date for implementing
increments developed under section
166(a) of the Act. We agree with the
commenters who suggested that a
shortened implementation delay was
desirable because of the substantial
delay in the promulgation of measures
to prevent significant air quality
deterioration with respect to PM2.5.
Nevertheless, we believe it would be
inappropriate in this action to disregard
the statutory language which plainly
calls for a 1-year delay. Accordingly, we
are setting the effective date of the PM2.5
increments at 1 year from the date of
promulgation of this final rule,
consistent with the 1-year delay
required under section 166(b) of the Act.
We are doing this by setting the ‘‘trigger
date’’ for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. See
new 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(ii)(c), and new 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)
and (ii)(c). At the same time, we are
establishing an effective date for the
other provisions, i.e., the SILs and SMC
for PM2.5, in this final rule as December
20, 2010. This will enable the
implementation of these key elements of
this rule under the Federal PSD program
as soon as possible.
1. State PSD Programs
In this final rule, we are establishing
the final PM2.5 increments as minimum
program elements for all State PSD
programs. Accordingly, states must
submit for EPA’s approval revised SIPs
that incorporate the final PM2.5
increments or alternative measures that
can be demonstrated to EPA’s
satisfaction to provide an equivalent
level of protection as the PM2.5
increments. In accordance with section
166(b) of the Act, we are requiring states
to submit revised implementation plans
to EPA for approval within 21 months
of promulgation, that is, by July 20,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
2012. Section 166(b) also specifies that
we must approve or disapprove these
revisions within 25 months of
promulgation (4 months from the
statutory deadline for SIP submittal).
We regard these statutory deadlines as
maximum allowed timeframes for
action. Moreover, we do not believe that
the Act restricts our ability to approve
SIP revisions requested by a State at any
time before these deadlines. In this final
rule, we are amending the regulatory
provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i) to
articulate the deadline set forth by the
statute for the SIP submittals involving
the PM2.5 increments pursuant to
section 166(a) of the Act.
It is very unlikely that states will be
able to revise their SIPs and submit
them to EPA for approval prior to the
applicability date of the PM2.5
increments in this final rule, which is
October 20, 2011. Therefore, there is
likely to be a period of time after
October 20, 2010 when State laws will
not require PSD applicants otherwise
subject to PSD for PM2.5 to complete an
increment analysis for the PM2.5
increments, even though the PM2.5
increments, major source baseline date,
and trigger date have been established
as a result of this final rule. Similarly,
it is not clear whether states will have
the authority to consider such
applicants as having triggered the minor
source baseline date during this interim
period before their revised PSD rules
containing the PM2.5 increments and
relevant baseline dates become effective.
The EPA does not intend to prescribe
the implementation timeline for State
programs; rather, each State will need to
determine how increment consumption
and the setting of the minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 will occur under
its own PSD program. Nevertheless,
regardless of when a State begins to
require PM2.5 increment analyses and
how it chooses to set the PM2.5 minor
source baseline date, the emissions from
sources subject to PSD for PM2.5 on
which construction commenced after
October 20, 2010 (the major source
baseline date) will consume PM2.5
increment and must be included in
increment analyses occurring after the
minor source baseline date is
established for an area under the State’s
revised PSD program.
2. Federal PSD Program
The Federal PSD regulations under 40
CFR 52.21 apply where states do not
have approved PSD programs and in
Indian lands. In such cases, either EPA
implements the PSD program or the
State will implement it under authority
granted by EPA through a delegation
agreement.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We proposed to begin implementing
the Federal PSD program for PM2.5 on
the effective date of the final rule, i.e.,
either 1 year from the date of
publication in the Federal Register or
60 days from date of publication, if we
developed the PM2.5 increments
pursuant to proposed Option 1.
Alternatively, we requested comment on
whether we should delay
implementation of the Federal PSD
program until 25 months after
promulgation, which is the latest date
by which EPA is required to approve
State SIP revisions. This is the same
approach we took in 1988 to implement
the then new NO2 increments. See 53
FR 40658. We did not propose the 24month delay for the PM2.5 increments
because of the significant delay that has
already occurred between the time we
promulgated the PM2.5 NAAQS and the
time the PM2.5 increment rulemaking
would be finalized. However, we sought
comment on this alternative approach
because we recognized that it might not
be equitable to begin implementation of
the new program requirements in those
few areas where the Federal program
applies before the majority of states are
required to implement the program.
Two commenters urged EPA to hold
off implementation of State programs
administered under the Federal PSD
program in order to provide a uniform
and consistent national approach. One
State agency supported implementing
the Federal PSD program with a delayed
effective date of 1 year after the effective
date of the final rule instead of 60 days.
We have decided to begin
implementing the revised Federal PSD
program as set out previously in our
introductory discussion of this issue in
section VIII.A. That is, the revised
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 will become
effective in 60 days, on December 20,
2010. This will allow EPA or the
delegated State agency to begin using
the SILs and SMC for PM2.5 on that date,
as described in section VIII.C of this
preamble. However, the date established
in the regulations for the trigger date
will ensure that the PM2.5 increments do
not become effective for 1 year,
consistent with section 166(b) of the
Act, and that the minor source baseline
date cannot be established until the
PM2.5 increments become effective.
However, PSD sources subject to PM2.5
that receive their PSD permit after the
date of publication of this final rule will
be considered to consume PM2.5
increments by virtue of the fact that they
will commence construction after the
major source baseline date for PM2.5,
which is the date of publication of this
final rule.
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Thus, sources in an area subject to the
Federal PSD program for PM2.5 will be
able to use the SILs and SMC as
screening tools for the required PM2.5
NAAQS compliance demonstration, but
in most cases will not be required to
submit a PM2.5 increment analysis as
part of a complete PSD permit
application for a Federal PSD permit
unless the application is submitted on
or after October 20, 2011. On or after
that date, when an applicant submits a
complete PSD permit application that is
required to address PM2.5 under the
Federal PSD program, that first
application will establish the minor
source baseline date for PM2.5 in the
applicable attainment or unclassifiable
area.
As with the State PSD program
requirements, prior to the establishment
of the minor source baseline date in an
area, emissions increases from minor
sources in the area will be counted
toward the baseline concentration,
rather than to the PM2.5 increment. As
described earlier, the emissions from
major stationary sources that commence
construction after the major source
baseline date, regardless of the date on
which their PSD application is
submitted, must be counted toward
consumption of the PM2.5 increments.
While these sources will not be required
to submit an increment analysis for
PM2.5 as part of their complete
application as long as they receive their
PSD permit before the trigger date for
PM2.5 (see discussion that follows in
section VIII.B), the emissions increases
resulting from the permitting of these
sources ultimately must be counted
toward the PM2.5 increments when the
first PSD permit application submitted
after the trigger date establishes the
minor source baseline date for the area
of concern, and in all subsequent PM2.5
increment analyses for that area.
B. Transition Period
In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed a
transition period to clarify when PSD
permit applications must contain an
increment analysis demonstrating
compliance with the PM2.5 increments
following the date the PM2.5 increments
become effective in any State or Federal
PSD program. Specifically, we proposed
to establish a grandfathering provision
to allow complete applications
submitted before the increment effective
date, but for which the permit had not
yet been issued by the effective date, to
continue being processed using the
PM10 Surrogate Policy to satisfy the
requirement to demonstrate compliance
with the new PM2.5 requirements. The
grandfathering provision for PM2.5 was
originally proposed in the 2007 NPRM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(10) and 40 CFR
52.21(i)(11) for State and Federal PSD
programs, respectively. See 72 FR 54149
and 54154.
Three commenters supported the
proposed grandfathering provision for
sources that submitted a complete
application before the effective date of
the applicable PSD rules. Another
commenter felt that it was reasonable to
allow states a choice between using
PM10 or PM2.5 increments during a
transition period including SIP
approval, where applicable.
During the time since the proposal of
this rule in 2007, we have reconsidered
the need for the proposed transition
period in the Federal PSD program to
effectively implement the PM2.5
increments. In light of the importance of
preventing significant deterioration of
PM2.5 air quality and the amount of time
that has passed since the initial
promulgation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, we
do not believe that further delay is
warranted. We expect that most permits
issued after October 20, 2011 will be
from sources that submitted their PSD
applications after the major source
baseline date for PM2.5, which is defined
as the date of publication of this final
rule, so that they will be incrementconsuming sources. Therefore, when
these sources apply for their PSD
permits, they will have had significant
advance notice of when the PM2.5
increments will become effective, i.e., 1
year from the date of publication of this
final rule. The review and permitting of
permit applications submitted prior to
the publication date of this final rule
should generally be completed prior to
the effective date of PM2.5 increments
and thus effectively have a transition
period of 1 year to complete processing.
Thus, we are requiring each source
that receives its PSD permit after the
effective date of the PM2.5 increments,
regardless of when the application was
submitted, to provide a demonstration
that the source’s proposed emissions
increase, along with other incrementconsuming emissions, will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the PM2.5
increments.
Under this final rule, sources
applying for a PSD permit under the
Federal PSD program after the major
source baseline date for PM2.5 (i.e., after
the date of publication of this final rule),
but before the PM2.5 increments become
effective (i.e., the date 1 year after
publication of this final rule), will be
considered to consume PM2.5 increment.
While EPA will not require any such
source to include a PM2.5 increment
analysis as part of its initial PSD
application, an increment analysis
ultimately will be required before the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64899
permit may be issued if the date of
issuance will occur after the trigger date,
when the PM2.5 increments become
effective under the Federal PSD
program.
Finally, for the same reasons that we
are not adopting the proposed transition
period that would have exempted PSD
applicants with pending permit
applications from demonstrating
compliance with the PM2.5 increment
requirements under the Federal PSD
program, we have decided not to
provide an option for states to apply a
transition period under 40 CFR 51.166.
We believe it is appropriate for all
increment-consuming sources subject to
PM2.5 to demonstrate compliance with
the PM2.5 increments when the required
permit is issued after the PM2.5
increments become effective in the
State’s PSD regulations.
C. SILs and SMC for PM2.5
In the 2007 NPRM, we explained our
position that SILs and SMCs are not
minimum required elements of an
approvable SIP. While these de minimis
values are widely considered to be
useful components for implementing
the PSD program, they are not
absolutely necessary for the states to
implement their PSD programs. That is,
states can satisfy the statutory
requirements for a PSD program by
requiring each PSD applicant to submit
air quality monitoring data and to
conduct a comprehensive air quality
impacts analysis for PM2.5 without using
de minimis thresholds to exempt certain
sources from such requirements.
Because the de minimis values for PM2.5
(and other pollutants) are not mandatory
elements, we proposed not to establish
specific deadlines for submitting
revisions to incorporate the specific
values for PM2.5 into SIPs.
One State/local commenter agreed
that the SILs and SMCs should not be
a required element of the PSD SIP.
Another State/local commenter agreed
with our proposal, but stated that EPA
has the authority to include SILs and
SMCs as minimum program
requirements per the opinion set forth
in Alabama Power. This commenter
added that the EPA Environmental
Appeals Board has affirmed EPA’s
interpretation of the Act to allow EPA
to evaluate the significance of a source’s
impact when determining whether the
source’s emissions would ‘‘cause or
contribute’’ to a NAAQS or increments
violation under section 165(a)(3) of the
Act.
Two commenters disagreed with our
proposed position and argued that SILs
and SMCs should be mandatory
elements of a State PSD program. One
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
64900
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of these commenters argued that the
requirement to model without the use of
screening models with SILs and SMCs
is so unreasonable that EPA must
require that states adopt the SILs and
SMCs to meet the Purpose clause of the
Act, which requires a balancing of
environmental and economic
considerations. The other opposing
commenter stated that the increments,
SILs, and SMCs need to be adopted as
a single regulatory approach because the
SILs and SMCs define when additional
work is needed to ensure that PSD
requirements, such as maintaining
adequate increment, are met. This
commenter added that there is no
reason for sources to be placed in the
position of conducting expensive
modeling that can delay a project when
it is unnecessary from an air quality
perspective.
We agree that the SILs and SMCs used
as de minimis thresholds for the various
pollutants are useful tools that enable
permitting authorities and PSD
applicants to screen out ‘‘insignificant’’
activities; however, the fact remains that
these values are not required by the Act
as part of an approvable SIP program.
We believe that most states are likely to
adopt the SILs and SMCs because of the
useful purpose they serve regardless of
our position that the values are not
mandatory. Alternatively, states may
develop more stringent values if they
desire to do so. In any case, states are
not under any SIP-related deadline for
revising their PSD programs to add
these screening tools.
Using the SILs for PM2.5, when a
proposed major new source or major
modification of PM2.5 predicts (via air
quality modeling) an impact less than
the PM2.5 de minimis value, the
proposed source or modification is not
considered to have a significant air
quality impact and would not need to
complete a cumulative impact analysis
involving an analysis of other sources in
the area. Also, a source with a de
minimis ambient impact would not be
considered to cause or contribute to a
violation of either the PM2.5 NAAQS or
increments.
The PM2.5 SILs will become effective
under the Federal PSD program on the
effective date of this final rule, that is,
on December 20, 2010, when either
EPA, or a State acting under a
delegation of EPA’s authority,
implements the revised PSD permitting
requirements for PM2.5 pursuant to 40
CFR 52.21. The SILs will be for use
initially with the compliance
demonstration for the PM2.5 NAAQS,
and later for the PM2.5 increment
analysis, under the Federal PSD
program. We emphasize, however, that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
the PM2.5 SILs are not intended to be
used as part of the determination of
adverse impacts on AQRVs for PM2.5 in
Class I areas.
Similarly, we intend to use the PM2.5
SMC (4 μg/m3, 24-hour average) as a
screening tool in the Federal PSD permit
program beginning on December 20,
2010. Accordingly, when either the
modeled PM2.5 impact of, or the existing
ambient air quality within the area of,
the proposed new major source or major
modification is less than the PM2.5 SMC,
the reviewing authority may exempt the
source or modification from the
monitoring data requirements for PM2.5
under 40 CFR 52.21(m).
IX. Other Regulatory Changes
The Act provides that the PSD
regulations apply to areas designated as
‘‘attainment’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ as
defined by the Act. When the original
regulations were written, the Act
provisions for designating areas as
either ‘‘attainment’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’
were contained in sections 107(d)(1)(D)
and (E), respectively. In 1990, Congress
revised section 107 and changed the
relevant paragraphs defining
‘‘attainment’’ and ‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas
to sections 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii),
respectively. In accordance with these
statutory changes, we are correcting the
references to the statutory classifications
contained in the existing PSD rules to
match the revised paragraphs in the Act.
See revised 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(iii)(a)
and (15)(i) and (ii), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(iii)(a) and (15)(i) and (ii).
In adding the SILs for PM2.5 in this
final rule, we restructured paragraph (k)
(‘‘Source impact analysis’’) in the
existing PSD regulations at 40 CFR
51.166 and 52.21. Under the
restructuring of paragraph (k), old
paragraph (k)(2) is now paragraph
(k)(1)(ii). To accommodate this
restructuring change, we are also
revising grandfathering provisions that
are contained in existing paragraphs
(i)(8) and (i)(9) at 40 CFR 51.166, and
paragraphs (i)(9) and (i)(10) at 40 CFR
52.21, which contained references to
requirements contained in paragraph
(k)(2). As revised, the grandfathering
provisions now reference new
paragraph (k)(1)(ii).
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it
raises novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
President’s priorities, or the principle
set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to OMB for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
Pursuant to title I, part C, of the Act,
the PSD program requires the owner or
operator to obtain a permit prior to
either constructing a new major
stationary source of air pollutants or
making a major modification to an
existing major stationary source. The
information collection for sources under
PSD results from the requirement for
owners or operators to submit
applications for NSR permits. In some
cases, sources must conduct
preconstruction monitoring to
determine the existing ambient air
quality. For reviewing authorities, the
information collection results from the
requirement to process permit
applications and issue permits, and to
transmit associated information to EPA.
The EPA oversees the PSD program, and
the information collected by sources
and reviewing authorities is used to
ensure that the program is properly
implemented.
The final rule will increase the PSD
permitting burden for owners and
operators of major stationary sources of
PM2.5 emissions by adding PM2.5
increments to the list of existing
increments for which air quality impact
analyses must be carried out to track the
amount of increment consumed by the
proposed source and other sources in
the area. Over the 3-year period covered
by the ICR, we estimate an average
annual burden totaling about 29,000
hours and $2.8 million for all industry
entities that will be affected by the final
rule. For the same reasons, we also
expect the final rule (when fully
implemented) to increase burden for the
State and local authorities reviewing
PSD permit applications. In addition,
there will be additional burden for State
and local agencies to revise their SIPs to
incorporate the proposed changes. Over
the 3-year period covered by the ICR, we
estimate that the average annual burden
for all State and local reviewing
authorities will total about 7,500 hours
and $581,000. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
final rule applies only to new major
stationary sources and to major
modifications at existing major
stationary sources.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, ‘‘small
entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities because
small entities are not subject to the
requirements of this rule.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The final rule
makes relatively minor changes to the
established PSD program, simply
making it possible for states to
implement PSD for PM2.5 instead of
relying on PM10 as a surrogate. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited
comment on the proposed rule from
State and local officials.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. The final rules adds
only a relatively small number of new
requirements to the existing permit
requirements already in place under the
PSD program, since states are currently
implementing a PM10 surrogate program
pursuant to EPA guidance. Thus, this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). The final rule provides the
elements to implement a PM2.5 PSD
program in attainment areas. The Act
provides for states to develop plans to
regulate emissions of air pollutants
within their jurisdictions. The Tribal
Air Rule (TAR) under the Act gives
tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement Act programs to attain and
maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but leaves
to the discretion of the tribes the
decision of whether to develop these
programs and which programs, or
appropriate elements of a program, they
will adopt. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
The EPA did reach out to national
tribal organizations in 2006 to provide
a forum for tribal professionals to
provide input to the rulemaking.
However, not much participation or
input was received.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
64901
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. One of the basic requirements
of the PSD program is that new and
modified major sources must
demonstrate that any new emissions do
not cause or contribute to air quality in
violation of the NAAQS.
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
64902
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this
final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This final rule will
provide regulatory certainty for
implementing the preconstruction NSR
permitting program for PM2.5. However,
the requirements are similar to the
existing requirements of the PM10
program and hence do not impact the
human health or environmental effects.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
163, 165, 166, 301, and 307(d) of the Act
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7470, 7473,
7475, 7476, 7601, and 7607(d)).
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). Nevertheless, this rule needs to
be reviewed for the PM2.5 increments
being promulgated herein so that they
can be scrutinized by Congress as
intended under section 166(b) of the
Act. Even though the PM2.5 increments
will not become applicable for 1 year,
the final rule will become effective 60
days from the date of publication, that
is, on December 20, 2010, for the
screening tools (SILs and SMC) being
established in this rule.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Administrative practices and
procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations.
40 CFR Part 52
Administrative practices and
procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations.
XI. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by December 20, 2010.
Any such judicial review is limited to
only those objections that are raised
with reasonable specificity in timely
comments. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements of this final action
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by us to
enforce these requirements.
Dated: September 30, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 51—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671q.
Subpart I—[Amended]
2. Section 51.165 is amended by
revising the table in paragraph (b)(2) to
read as follows:
■
§ 51.165
XII. Statutory Authority
*
The statutory authority for this final
action is provided by sections 101, 160,
Permit requirements.
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
*
*
Averaging time (hours)
Pollutant
Annual
24
SO2 ...............................................................................................................
PM10 ..............................................................................................................
PM2.5 .............................................................................................................
NO2 ...............................................................................................................
CO ................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 51.166 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(6)(i);
■ b. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(i)(a);
■ c. By removing the period at the end
of paragraph (b)(14)(i)(b) and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place;
■ d. By adding paragraph (b)(14)(i)(c);
■ e. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(a);
■ f. By removing the period at the end
of paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(b) and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place;
■ g. By adding paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(c);
■ h. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(a);
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
μg/m3
μg/m3
μg/m3
μg/m3
5 μg/m3
5 μg/m3
1.2 μg/m3
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3
1
25 μg/m3
0.5 mg/m3
i. By revising paragraph (b)(15)(i) and
paragraph (b)(15)(ii) introductory text;
■ j. By revising the table in paragraph
(c)(1);
■ k. By revising paragraph (c)(2);
■ l. By revising paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c);
■ m. By redesignating existing
paragraphs (i)(5)(i)(d) through (j) as
paragraphs (i)(5)(i)(e) through (k);
■ n. By adding new paragraph
(i)(5)(i)(d);
■ o. By removing ‘‘(k)(2)’’ from
paragraph (i)(8) and adding ‘‘(k)(1)(ii)’’ in
its place;
■
8
2 mg/m3
p. By removing in two places ‘‘(k)(2)’’
from paragraph (i)(9) and adding
‘‘(k)(1)(ii)’’ in those places;
■ q. By revising paragraph (k);
■ r. By removing the words ‘‘particulate
matter’’ in the last sentence of paragraph
(p)(4) introductory text and adding in
their place ‘‘PM2.5, PM10’’; and
■ s. By revising the table in paragraph
(p)(4).
■
§ 51.166 Prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality.
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Any State required to revise its
implementation plan by reason of an
amendment to this section, with the
exception of amendments to add new
maximum allowable increases or other
measures pursuant to section 166(a) of
the Act, shall adopt and submit such
plan revision to the Administrator for
approval no later than 3 years after such
amendment is published in the Federal
Register. With regard to a revision to an
implementation plan by reason of an
amendment to paragraph (c) of this
section to add maximum allowable
increases or other measures, the State
shall submit such plan revision to the
Administrator for approval within 21
months after such amendment is
published in the Federal Register.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(14)(i) * * *
(a) In the case of PM10 and sulfur
dioxide, January 6, 1975;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In the case of PM2.5, October 20,
2010.
(ii) * * *
(a) In the case of PM10 and sulfur
dioxide, August 7, 1977;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In the case of PM2.5, October 20,
2011.
(iii) * * *
(a) The area in which the proposed
source or modification would construct
is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the
pollutant on the date of its complete
application under 40 CFR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to
40 CFR 51.166; and
*
*
*
*
*
64903
(15)(i) Baseline area means any
intrastate area (and every part thereof)
designated as attainment or
unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in
which the major source or major
modification establishing the minor
source baseline date would construct or
would have an air quality impact for the
pollutant for which the baseline date is
established, as follows: Equal to or
greater than 1 μg/m3 (annual average)
for SO2, NO2, or PM10; or equal or
greater than 0.3 μg/m3 (annual average)
for PM2.5.
(ii) Area redesignations under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act cannot
intersect or be smaller than the area of
impact of any major stationary source or
major modification which:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
Class I Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
1
2
4
8
2
5
25
2.5
Class II Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
4
9
17
30
20
91
512
25
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Class III Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
8
18
34
60
40
182
700
64904
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Where the State can demonstrate
that it has alternative measures in its
plan other than maximum allowable
increases as defined under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, that satisfy the
requirements in sections 166(c) and
166(d) of the Clean Air Act for a
regulated NSR pollutant for which the
Administrator has established
maximum allowable increases pursuant
to section 166(a) of the Act, the
requirements for maximum allowable
increases for that pollutant under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall not
apply upon approval of the plan by the
Administrator. The following regulated
NSR pollutants are eligible for such
treatment:
(i) Nitrogen dioxide.
(ii) PM2.5.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(c) PM2.5–4 μg/m3, 24-hour average;
(d) PM10–10 μg/m3, 24-hour average;
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Source impact analysis—(1)
Required demonstration. The plan shall
provide that the owner or operator of
the proposed source or modification
shall demonstrate that allowable
emission increases from the proposed
source or modification, in conjunction
with all other applicable emissions
increases or reduction (including
secondary emissions), would not cause
or contribute to air pollution in
violation of:
(i) Any national ambient air quality
standard in any air quality control
region; or
(ii) Any applicable maximum
allowable increase over the baseline
concentration in any area.
(2) Significant impact levels. The plan
may provide that, for purposes of PM2.5,
the demonstration required in paragraph
(k)(1) of this section is deemed to have
been made if the emissions increase
from the new stationary source alone or
from the modification alone would
cause, in all areas, air quality impacts
less than the following amounts:
Class I
area
Pollutant
*
Class III
area
0.06 μg/m3
0.07 μg/m3
Annual ..................................................................
24-hour .................................................................
Class II
area
0.3 μg/m3
1.2 μg/m3
0.3 μg/m3
1.2 μg/m3
Averaging time
PM2.5 ....................................................................
(4) * * *
*
*
(p) * * *
*
*
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
4. Appendix S to part 51 is amended
by revising the table in section III.A to
read as follows:
■
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50
Appendix S to Part 51—Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling
*
*
*
*
III. * * *
A. * * *
*
Averaging time (hours)
Pollutant
Annual
24
SO2 ........................................................................
PM10 ......................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
1.0 μg/m3
1.0 μg/m3
Frm 00042
5 μg/m3
5 μg/m3
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8
3
1
25 μg/m3
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
4
9
17
30
20
91
325
25
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
64905
Averaging time (hours)
Pollutant
Annual
24
PM2.5 ......................................................................
NO2 ........................................................................
CO .........................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
0.3 μg/m3
1.0 μg/m3
8
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 52.21 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(i)(a);
■ b. By removing the period at the end
of paragraph (b)(14)(i)(b) and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place;
■ c. By adding paragraph (b)(14)(i)(c);
■ d. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(a);
■ e. By removing the period at the end
of paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(b) and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place;
■ f. By adding paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(c);
■ g. By revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(a);
■ h. By revising paragraph (b)(15)(i) and
paragraph (b)(15)(ii) introductory text;
■ i. By revising the table in paragraph
(c);
■ j. By revising paragraph (i)(5)(i);
■ k. By removing ‘‘(k)(2)’’ from
paragraph (i)(9) and adding ‘‘(k)(1)(ii)’’ in
its place;
■
1
1.2 μg/m3
0.5 mg/m3
l. By removing in two places ‘‘(k)(2)’’
from paragraph (i)(10) and adding
‘‘(k)(1)(ii)’’ in those places;
■ m. By revising paragraph (k);
■ n. By removing the words ‘‘particulate
matter’’ in the last sentence of paragraph
(p)(5) introductory text and adding in
their place ‘‘PM2.5, PM10’’; and
■ o. By revising the table in paragraph
(p)(5).
■
PART 52—[AMENDED]
3
§ 52.21 Prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(14)(i) * * *
(a) In the case of PM10 and sulfur
dioxide, January 6, 1975;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In the case of PM2.5, October 20,
2010.
(ii) * * *
(a) In the case of PM10 and sulfur
dioxide, August 7, 1977;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In the case of PM2.5, October 20,
2011.
(iii) * * *
(a) The area in which the proposed
source or modification would construct
is designated as attainment or
2 mg/m3
unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the
pollutant on the date of its complete
application under 40 CFR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to
40 CFR 51.166; and
*
*
*
*
*
(15)(i) Baseline area means any
intrastate area (and every part thereof)
designated as attainment or
unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in
which the major source or major
modification establishing the minor
source baseline date would construct or
would have an air quality impact for the
pollutant for which the baseline date is
established, as follows: equal to or
greater than 1 μg/m3 (annual average)
for SO2, NO2, or PM10; or equal or
greater than 0.3 μg/m3 (annual average)
for PM2.5.
(ii) Area redesignations under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act cannot
intersect or be smaller than the area of
impact of any major stationary source or
major modification which:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
Class I Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
1
2
4
8
2
5
25
2.5
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Class II Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
4
9
17
30
20
64906
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
91
512
25
Class III Area
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) The emissions increase of the
pollutant from the new source or the net
emissions increase of the pollutant from
the modification would cause, in any
area, air quality impacts less than the
following amounts:
(a) Carbon monoxide—575 μg/m3,
8-hour average;
(b) Nitrogen dioxide—14 μg/m3,
annual average;
(c) PM2.5—4 μg/m3, 24-hour average;
(d) PM10—10 μg/m3, 24-hour average;
(e) Sulfur dioxide—13 μg/m3, 24-hour
average;
(f) Ozone;
(g) Lead—0.1 μg/m3, 3-month average;
(h) Fluorides—0.25 μg/m3, 24-hour
average;
(i) Total reduced sulfur—10 μg/m3,
1-hour average;
(j) Hydrogen sulfide—0.2 μg/m3,
1-hour average;
(k) Reduced sulfur compounds—
10 μg/m3, 1-hour average; or
Note to paragraph (c)(50)(i)(f): No de
minimis air quality level is provided for
ozone. However, any net emissions increase
of 100 tons per year or more of volatile
organic compounds or nitrogen oxides
subject to PSD would be required to perform
an ambient impact analysis, including the
gathering of ambient air quality data.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Source impact analysis—(1)
Required demonstration. The owner or
operator of the proposed source or
modification shall demonstrate that
allowable emission increases from the
proposed source or modification, in
Class I
area
PM2.5 ...................................................................
.............................................................................
Annual .................................................................
24-hour ................................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Class II
area
0.06 μg/m3
0.07 μg/m3
0.3 μg/m3
1.2 μg/m3
Averaging time
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
(p) * * *
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
34
60
40
182
700
50
conjunction with all other applicable
emissions increases or reductions
(including secondary emissions), would
not cause or contribute to air pollution
in violation of:
(i) Any national ambient air quality
standard in any air quality control
region; or
(ii) Any applicable maximum
allowable increase over the baseline
concentration in any area.
(2) Significant impact levels. For
purposes of PM2.5, the demonstration
required in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section is deemed to have been made if
the emissions increase from the new
stationary source alone or from the
modification alone would cause, in all
areas, air quality impacts less than the
following amounts:
Pollutant
*
8
18
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
Class III
area
0.3 μg/m3
1.2 μg/m3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
64907
(5) * * *
Maximum
allowable
increase
(micrograms
per cubic
meter)
Pollutant
PM2.5:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
24-hr maximum .............................................................................................................................................................................
3-hr maximum ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean ................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–25132 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Oct 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\20OCR3.SGM
20OCR3
4
9
17
30
20
91
325
25
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64864-64907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25132]
[[Page 64863]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC);
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 64864]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605; FRL-9210-9]
RIN 2060-AO24
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is amending the requirements for particulate matter
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program by adding maximum allowable
increases in ambient pollutant concentrations (``increments'') and two
screening tools, known as the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and a
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5. The
SILs for PM2.5 are also being added to two other New Source
Review (NSR) rules that regulate the construction and modification of
any major stationary source locating in an attainment or unclassifiable
area, where the source's emissions may cause or contribute to a
violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 20, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web Site. Although listed in
the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dan deRoeck, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5593, facsimile number: (919) 541-
5509, e-mail address: deroeck.dan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this Supplementary
Information section of this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Purpose
III. Overview of Final PM2.5 PSD Regulations
A. Increments
B. Significant Impact Levels
C. Significant Monitoring Concentration
IV. Background
A. PSD Program
B. History of Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS
1. Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and PM10 NAAQS
2. PM2.5 NAAQS
3. Revised PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS
C. Implementation of NSR for PM2.5
D. Increments Under the PSD Program
E. Historical Approaches for Developing Increments
1. Congressional Enactment of Increments for PM and
SO2
2. EPA's Promulgation of Increments for NO2 and
PM10
a. Increments for NO2 Using the ``Contingent Safe
Harbor'' Approach Under Section 166(a) of the Act
b. Increments for PM10 Using ``Equivalent
Substitution'' Approach Under Section 166(f) of the Act
V. Final Action on PM2.5 Increments
A. Decision To Establish PM2.5 Increments Using
``Contingent Safe Harbor Approach'' Under Section 166(a)
B. Rationale for the Applicability of Section 166(a)
C. EPA's Interpretation of the Requirements Under Sections
166(a)-(d) of the Act
1. Regulations as a Whole Should Fulfill Statutory Requirements
2. Contingent Safe Harbor Approach
3. The Statutory Factors Applicable Under Section 166(c)
4. Balancing the Factors Applicable Under Section 166(c)
5. Authority for States To Adopt Alternatives to Increments
D. Framework for Pollutant-Specific PSD Regulations for
PM2.5
1. Increment System
2. Area Classifications
3. Permitting Procedures
4. AQRV Review by Federal Land Manager (FLM) and Reviewing
Authority
5. Additional Impacts Analysis
6. Installation of BACT
E. Final PM2.5 Increments
1. Identification of Safe Harbor Increments
2. Data Used by EPA for the Evaluation of the Safe Harbor
Increments for PM2.5
3. Scope of Effects Considered
4. Evaluation of the Health and Welfare Effects of
PM2.5
a. Health Effects
b. Welfare Effects
5. Fundamental Elements of Increments
6. Evaluation of the Safe Harbor Increments
7. Compliance Determinations for the PM2.5 Increments
a. Modeling Compliance With PM2.5 Increments
b. Condensable PM
c. PM2.5 Precursors
F. Final Action on Trigger and Baseline Dates for
PM2.5 Increments
G. Definition of ``Baseline Area'' for PM2.5
H. No Final Action With Respect to the Proposed Revocation of
PM10 Annual Increments
I. Other Comments on Increments
VI. Final Action on PM2.5 SILs
A. EPA's Determination on SILs for PM2.5
B. Response to Comments Concerning the SILs
1. Legal Basis for SILs
2. Levels of the SILs
a. Class I SILs
b. Class II and III SILs
3. Relationship Between SILs and AQRVs
4. Form of the SILs
5. SILs for Other Pollutants
VII. Final Action on the PM2.5 SMC
A. EPA's Determination on the PM2.5 SMC
B. Response to Comments Concerning the SMC
1. Legal Issues
2. Level of the SMC
C. Correction of Cross Reference in PSD Ambient Monitoring
Requirements
VIII. Dates Associated With Implementation of the Final Rule
A. Effective Date of the Final Rule
1. State PSD Programs
2. Federal PSD Program
B. Transition Period
C. SILs and SMC for PM2.5
IX. Other Regulatory Changes
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211--Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
XI. Judicial Review
XII. Statutory Authority
[[Page 64865]]
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities affected by this rule include sources in all industry
groups. The majority of sources potentially affected are expected to be
in the following groups:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry group NAICS \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric services................................. 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122
Petroleum refining................................ 32411
Industrial inorganic chemicals.................... 325181, 32512, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311,
325188
Industrial organic chemicals...................... 32511, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193, 32512, 325199
Miscellaneous chemical products................... 32552, 32592, 32591, 325182, 32551
Natural gas liquids............................... 211112
Natural gas transport............................. 48621, 22121
Pulp and paper mills.............................. 32211, 322121, 322122, 32213
Paper mills....................................... 322121, 322122
Automobile manufacturing.......................... 336111, 336112, 336712, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312,
33633, 33634, 33635, 336399, 336212, 336213
Pharmaceuticals................................... 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
Entities affected by this rule also include State and local
permitting authorities, and tribal authorities that implement these
regulations.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final rule will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final rule will be
posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home page
located at https://www.epa.gov/nsr.
II. Purpose
The purpose of this rulemaking is to finalize certain program
provisions under the regulations to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality due to emissions of PM2.5 (i.e., under the
PM2.5 PSD regulations). This final rule supplements the
final implementation rule for PM2.5, known as the Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule (CAFPIR) that we promulgated on April
25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), and the PM2.5 NSR Implementation
Rule that we promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321). Together, these
three rules encompass the elements necessary for implementation of a
PM2.5 program in any area. This final rule is important
because it establishes increments, SILs, and an SMC for
PM2.5 to facilitate ambient air quality monitoring and
modeling under the PSD regulations for areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable for PM2.5.
III. Overview of Final PM2.5 PSD Regulations
A. Increments
This rulemaking establishes increments for PM2.5
pursuant to the legal authority contained in section 166(a) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for pollutants for which NAAQS are
promulgated after 1977. The final PM2.5 increments were
identified as Option 1 in the 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
for this action, and are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAAQS Increments ([mu]g/m\3\)
Averaging period ([mu]g/ --------------------------------------
m\3\) Class I Class II Class III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual...................................................... 15 1 4 8
24-hour..................................................... 35 2 9 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in more detail in sections V.F and VIII, the
increments for PM2.5 will become applicable on October 20,
2011 in order to comply with section 166(b) of the Act (providing that
regulations under section 166(a) ``shall become effective one year
after the date of promulgation'').
This final rule does not revoke the annual increments for
particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10) as
proposed under Option 1 in the 2007 NPRM. Thus, we are retaining the
24-hour and annual PM10 increments in addition to adding
PM2.5 increments. This outcome is discussed in greater
detail in section V.H of this preamble.
B. Significant Impact Levels
This rule establishes SILs for PM2.5 for evaluating the
impact a proposed new source or modification may have on the NAAQS and
PSD increments for PM2.5. The SILs for PM2.5 were
developed by scaling the existing PM10 SILs using a
PM2.5-to-PM10 NAAQS ratio. The final SILs were
identified as Option 3 in the 2007 NPRM, and are as follows:
[[Page 64866]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SILs ([mu]g/m\3\)
Averaging period --------------------------------------
Class I Class II Class III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual........................... 0.06 0.3 0.3
24-hour.......................... 0.07 1.2 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These values will be added to the State implementation plan (SIP)
provisions for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166 (as an optional screening tool) and
the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, as well as under the
preconstruction review permit requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(b) and part
51, Appendix S. See a more detailed discussion of the SILs, as well as
the relevant comments and our responses to them, in section VI of this
preamble. The SILs for PM2.5 are incorporated into the
Federal PSD program as well as into the regulations for State-
implemented PSD programs, although they are regarded as optional for
State programs. The effective date for implementing the SILs under the
Federal PSD program is the effective date of this final rule. See
section VIII of this preamble for further discussion of the effective
date.
C. Significant Monitoring Concentration
This final rule establishes the SMC for PM2.5 as 4
[mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5 (24-hour average). This value has been
developed pursuant to proposed Option 1; however, it should be noted
that the value being established in this final rule is lower than the
proposed value of 10 [mu]g/m\3\ that was originally developed under
Option 1. A more detailed discussion of the proposed SMC is presented
in section VII of this preamble, describing the rationale for altering
the proposed SMC, and the relevant comments on the proposed SMC and our
responses to them. The SMC for PM2.5 is incorporated into
the Federal PSD program as well as into the regulations for State-
implemented PSD programs, although they are regarded as optional for
State programs. As with the SILs for PM2.5, the effective
date for implementing the SMC under the Federal PSD program is the
effective date of this final rule. See section VIII of this preamble
for further discussion of the effective date.
IV. Background
A. PSD Program
The NSR provisions of the Act are a combination of air quality
planning and air pollution control technology program requirements for
new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. In brief, section
109 of the Act requires us to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect
public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once we
have set these standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to us
for approval SIPs that contain emission limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to meet the other
requirements of section 110(a) of the Act. Part C of title I of the Act
contains the requirements for a component of the major NSR program
known as the PSD program. This program sets forth procedures for the
preconstruction review and permitting of new and modified major
stationary sources of air pollution locating in areas meeting the NAAQS
(``attainment'' areas) and areas for which there is insufficient
information to classify an area as either attainment or nonattainment
(``unclassifiable'' areas). Most states have SIP-approved
preconstruction permit (major NSR) programs. The Federal PSD program at
40 CFR 52.21 applies in some states that lack a SIP-approved permit
program, and in Indian country.\1\ The applicability of the PSD program
to a major stationary source must be determined in advance of
construction and is a pollutant-specific determination. Once a major
source is determined to be subject to the PSD program (PSD source),
among other requirements, it must undertake a series of analyses to
demonstrate that it will use the best available control technology
(BACT) and will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or
increment. For the latter demonstration, the PSD regulations generally
require sources to submit for review and approval a source impact
analysis and an air quality analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have delegated our authority to some states to implement
the Federal PSD program. The EPA remains the reviewing authority in
non-delegated states lacking SIP-approved programs and in Indian
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The source impact analysis is primarily a modeling analysis
designed to show that the allowable emissions increase from the
proposed project, in conjunction with other emissions increases from
existing sources, will not result in a violation of either the NAAQS or
increments. In cases where the source's emissions may adversely affect
an area classified as a Class I area, additional review is conducted to
protect the increments and special attributes of such an area defined
as ``air quality related values'' (AQRVs).
The air quality analysis must assess the ambient air quality in the
area that the proposed project would affect. For this analysis, the
owner or operator of the proposed project must submit as part of a
complete permit application air quality monitoring data that represent
the air quality in the area affected by the proposed source for the 1-
year period preceding receipt of the application. Where data may
already exist to represent existing air quality, it may be used by the
applicant; otherwise, the source owner or operator is responsible for
the installation and operation of monitors to collect the necessary
data.
Historically, EPA has allowed the use of several types of screening
tools to facilitate implementation of the preconstruction review
process to reduce the permit applicant's burden and streamline the
permitting process for de minimis circumstances. These tools include a
significant emissions rate (SER), SILs, and a SMC. The SER, defined in
tons per year (tpy) for each regulated pollutant, is used to determine
whether the emissions increase from any proposed source or modification
can be excluded from review on the grounds that the increase of any
particular pollutant is de minimis. An emission increase for a
particular pollutant that is greater than the SER defined in the NSR
regulations for that pollutant is considered to be a significant
increase.
The SIL, expressed as an ambient pollutant concentration
(micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m \3\)), is used to determine
whether the ambient impact of a particular pollutant (once it is
determined to be emitted in significant amounts) is significant enough
to warrant a complete source impact analysis involving modeling the
collective impacts of the proposed project and emissions from other
existing sources.
The PSD regulations generally require each PSD applicant to collect
1 year of continuous air quality monitoring data for any pollutant
determined to be subject to preconstruction review as part of complete
PSD permit application. Using the SMC as a screening tool, expressed as
an ambient pollutant concentration ([mu]g/m\3\), sources may be able to
demonstrate that the modeled air
[[Page 64867]]
quality impact of emissions from the new source or modification, or the
existing air quality level in the area where the source would
construct, is less than the SMC, i.e., de minimis, and may be allowed
to forego the preconstruction monitoring requirement for a particular
pollutant at the discretion of the reviewing authority.\2\ See 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5) and 52.21(i)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The basic monitoring exemption provision is part of the
original monitoring requirements adopted in the 1980 PSD rulemaking.
45 FR 52676, 52710, August 7, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the reviewing authority reaches a preliminary decision to
authorize construction of a proposed major new source or major
modification, it must provide notice of the preliminary decision and an
opportunity for comment by the general public, industry, and other
persons that may be affected by the emissions of the proposed major
source or major modification. After considering these comments, the
reviewing authority may issue a final determination on the construction
permit in accordance with the PSD regulations.
B. History of Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS
1. Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and PM10 NAAQS
The EPA initially established NAAQS for PM in 1971, measured by the
TSP indicator. Based on the size of the particles collected by the
``high-volume sampler,'' which at that time was the reference method
for determining ambient concentrations, TSP included all PM up to a
nominal size of 25 to 45 micrometers. We established both annual and
24-hour NAAQS for TSP.
On July 1, 1987, we revised the NAAQS for PM and changed the
indicator from TSP to PM10; the latter indicator includes
particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10
micrometers. The PM10 particles are the subset of inhalable
particles small enough to penetrate to the thoracic region (including
the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract
(referred to as thoracic particles). We established annual and 24-hour
NAAQS for PM10, and revoked the NAAQS for TSP. (52 FR
24634).
2. PM2.5 NAAQS
On July 18, 1997, we again revised the NAAQS for PM in several
respects. While we determined that the NAAQS should continue to focus
on particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, we also
determined that the fine and coarse fractions of PM10 should
be considered separately. We established new annual and 24-hour NAAQS
using PM2.5 (referring to particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers) as the
indicator for fine particles. The 1997 NAAQS rule also modified the
PM10 NAAQS for the purpose of regulating the coarse fraction
of PM10 (referred to as thoracic coarse particles or coarse-
fraction particles; generally including particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or
equal to 10 micrometers, or PM10-2.5); however, this part of
the rulemaking was vacated during subsequent litigation, leaving the
pre-existing 1987 PM10 NAAQS in place (62 FR 38652).
3. Revised PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS
On October 17, 2006, we promulgated revisions to the NAAQS for
PM2.5 and PM10 with an effective date of December
18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). We lowered the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, and
retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/
m\3\. In addition, we retained the existing PM10 24-hour
NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\, and revoked the annual PM10
NAAQS (set at 50 [micro]g/m\3\).
C. Implementation of NSR for PM2.5
After we established new annual and 24-hour NAAQS based on
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles in July 1997, we
issued a guidance document titled ``Interim Implementation for the New
Source Review Requirements for PM2.5,'' John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, October
23, 1997. As noted in that guidance, section 165 of the Act implies
that certain PSD requirements become effective for a new NAAQS upon the
effective date of the NAAQS. Section 165(a)(1) of the Act provides that
no new or modified major source may be constructed without a PSD permit
that meets all of the section 165(a) requirements with respect to the
regulated pollutant. Moreover, section 165(a)(3) provides that the
emissions from any such source may not cause or contribute to a
violation of any increment or NAAQS. Also, section 165(a)(4) requires
BACT for each pollutant subject to PSD regulation. The 1997 guidance
stated that sources would be allowed to use implementation of a
PM10 program as a surrogate for meeting PM2.5 NSR
requirements until certain difficulties were resolved. These
difficulties included the lack of necessary tools to calculate the
emissions of PM2.5 and related precursors, the lack of
adequate modeling techniques to project ambient impacts, and the lack
of PM2.5 monitoring sites.
On April 5, 2005, we issued a guidance document entitled
``Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5
Nonattainment Areas,'' Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, EPA. This memorandum provided guidance on the
implementation of the nonattainment major NSR provisions in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the interim period between the
effective date of the PM2.5 NAAQS designations (April 5,
2005) and when we promulgate regulations to implement nonattainment
major NSR for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition to affirming the
continued use of the John S. Seitz guidance memo in PM2.5
attainment areas, this memo recommended that, until we promulgated the
PM2.5 major NSR regulations, states should use a
PM10 nonattainment major NSR program as a surrogate to
address the requirements of nonattainment major NSR for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
On November 1, 2005, we proposed a rule to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including proposed revisions to the NSR
program. For those states with EPA-approved PSD programs, we proposed
to continue the 1997 NSR guidance to use PM10 as a surrogate
for PM2.5, but only during the SIP development period. We
also indicated in that proposal that we would be developing increments,
SILs, and an SMC in a separate rulemaking, i.e., this final rule. Since
there was an interim surrogate NSR program in place, i.e., the
PM10 Surrogate Policy, EPA decided to first promulgate the
non-NSR part of the implementation rule (including attainment
demonstrations, designations, control measures, etc.). This rule was
promulgated as the CAFPIR on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586).
The NSR part of the implementation rule was issued separately as a
final rule on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), and included sets of NSR
regulations for both attainment (PSD) and nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) for PM2.5. In the May 16, 2008 rule we
added one of the important screening tools--the SER--for
PM2.5. The SER for PM2.5 is defined as an
emissions rate of 10 tpy for direct PM2.5 emissions. We also
listed sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) as precursors of ambient PM2.5 and defined
``significant'' as 40 tpy or more of either precursor pollutant. States
were allowed up to 3 years from the date of publication in the Federal
Register to
[[Page 64868]]
revise their SIPs and submit their revised NSR programs to EPA for
approval.
D. Increments Under the PSD Program
Under section 165(a)(3) of the Act, a PSD permit applicant must
demonstrate that emissions from the proposed construction and operation
of a facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in
excess of any (A) maximum allowable increase or maximum allowable
concentration for any pollutant * * *.'' The ``maximum allowable
increase'' of an air pollutant that is allowed to occur above the
applicable baseline concentration for that pollutant is known as the
PSD increment. By establishing the maximum allowable level of ambient
pollutant concentration increase in a particular area, an increment
defines ``significant deterioration'' of air quality in that area.
For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular
pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the source is located, as well as any
other attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions
of that pollutant are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in
a significant ambient pollutant increase. See, e.g., 40 CFR
52.21(b)(15)(i). Once the baseline area is established, subsequent PSD
sources locating in that area need to consider that a portion of the
available increment may have already been consumed by previous
emissions increases.
In general, the submittal date of the first complete PSD permit
application in a particular area is the operative ``baseline date.''
\3\ On or before the date of the first complete PSD application,
emissions generally are considered to be part of the baseline
concentration, except for certain emissions from major stationary
sources, as explained in the following discussion of baseline dates.
Most emissions increases that occur after the baseline date will be
counted toward the amount of increment consumed. Similarly, emissions
decreases after the baseline date restore or expand the amount of
increment that is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a complete
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, three dates related to the PSD baseline concept are
important in understanding how to calculate the amount of increment
consumed-- (1) Trigger date; (2) major source baseline date; and (3)
minor source baseline date. The first relevant date is the trigger
date. The trigger date, as the name implies, triggers the overall
increment consumption process nationwide. Specifically, this is a fixed
date, which must occur before the minor source baseline date can be
established for the pollutant-specific increment in a particular
attainment area. See, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii) and 52.21(b)(14)(ii).
For PM (regulated as TSP) and SO2, Congress defined the
applicable trigger date as August 7, 1977--the date of the 1977
amendments to the Act when the original statutory increments were
established by Congress. For nitrogen dioxide (NO2), we
selected the trigger date as February 8, 1988--the date on which we
proposed increments for NO2. See 53 FR 40656, 40658; October
17, 1988. In this final rule, as described later, we are establishing a
separate trigger date for purposes of implementing the PM2.5
increments. See section V.F of this preamble for additional discussion
of the trigger date for PM2.5.
The two remaining dates--``minor source baseline date'' and ``major
source baseline date''--as described later, are necessary to properly
account for the emissions that are to be counted toward the amount of
increment consumed following the national trigger date, in accordance
with the statutory definition of ``baseline concentration'' in section
169(4) of the Act. The statutory definition provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is
generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a
PSD permit in the area. Consequently, any increases in actual emissions
occurring after that date (with some possible exceptions that we will
discuss later) would be considered to consume the applicable PSD
increment. However, the statutory definition in section 169(4) also
provides that ``[e]missions of sulfur oxides and particulate matter
from any major emitting facility on which construction commenced after
January 6, 1975, shall not be included in the baseline and shall be
counted in pollutant concentrations established under this part.''
To make this distinction between the date when emissions resulting
from the construction at a major stationary source consume the
increment and the date when emissions changes in general (i.e., from
both major and minor sources) begin to consume the increment, we
established the terms ``major source baseline date'' and ``minor source
baseline date,'' respectively. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14) and
52.21(b)(14). Accordingly, the ``major source baseline date,'' which
precedes the trigger date, is the date after which actual emissions
increases associated with construction at any major stationary source
consume the PSD increment. In accordance with the statutory definition
of ``baseline concentration,'' the PSD regulations define a fixed date
to represent the major source baseline date for each pollutant for
which an increment exists. Congress defined the major source baseline
date for the statutory increments for PM and SO2 as January
6, 1975. For the NO2 increments, which we promulgated in
1988 under our authority to establish an increment system under section
166(a) of the Act, the major source baseline date we selected was
February 8, 1988--the date on which we proposed increments for
NO2. 53 FR 40656. In both instances, the major source
baseline date for the individual increments was set as a date which
preceded the date on which the regulations pertaining to those
increments were issued. In this final rule, as described later, we are
establishing a separate major source baseline date for implementing the
PM2.5 increments. See section V.F of this preamble for
further discussion of the major source baseline date for
PM2.5.
The ``minor source baseline date'' is the earliest date after the
trigger date on which a source or modification submits the first
complete application for a PSD permit in a particular area. After the
minor source baseline date, any increase in actual emissions (from both
major and minor sources) consumes the PSD increment for that area.
Once the minor source baseline date is established, the new
emissions increase from that major source consumes a portion of the
increment in that area, as do any subsequent actual emissions increases
that occur from any new or existing source in the area. When the
maximum pollutant concentration increase defined by the increment has
been reached, additional PSD permits cannot be issued until sufficient
amounts of the increment are ``freed up'' via emissions reductions that
may occur voluntarily, (e.g., via source shutdowns) or by mandatory
control requirements imposed by the reviewing authority. Moreover, the
air quality in a region cannot deteriorate to a level in excess of the
applicable NAAQS, even if all the increment in the area has not been
consumed. Therefore, new or modified sources located in areas where the
air pollutant concentrations are near the level allowed by the NAAQS
may not have full use of the amount of
[[Page 64869]]
pollutant concentration increase allowed by the increment.
Under EPA guidance, the actual increment analysis that a proposed
new or modified source undergoing PSD review must complete depends on
the area impacted by the source's new emissions. We have provided
approved air quality models and guidelines for sources to use to
project the air quality impact of each pollutant (over each averaging
period) for which an increment analysis must be done.\4\ In addition,
we established SILs for each pollutant under the permit requirements
applicable to new and modified major stationary sources locating in
attainment areas that would cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.165(b) and part 51, Appendix S, section III.A.
These SILs have also been used for implementing the PSD program to
identify levels below which the source's modeled impact of a particular
pollutant is regarded as de minimis. In this final rule, we are
establishing SILs (24-hour and annual) for PM2.5 that are
being added to the aforementioned regulations containing SILs for other
pollutants, as well as to the PSD regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 and
52.21. See further discussion of the SILs for PM2.5 in
section VI of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' at 40 CFR part
51, Appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that a source's modeled impacts of a particular
pollutant are below the applicable SIL at all ambient air locations
modeled, i.e., de minimis everywhere, EPA's policy for PSD provides
that no further modeling analysis is required for that pollutant. Our
longstanding policy under the PSD program is that when a preliminary
screening analysis based on the SIL is sufficient to demonstrate that
the source's emissions throughout the area modeled will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the increment, there is no need for a
comprehensive source impact analysis involving a cumulative evaluation
of the emissions from the proposed source and other sources affecting
the area.
Within the impact area of a source subject to PSD, that is, the
area within which the proposed project's emissions increase does have a
significant impact, increment consumption is calculated using the
source's proposed emissions increase, along with other actual emissions
increases or decreases of the particular pollutant from any sources in
the area, which have occurred since the minor source baseline date
established for that area. In addition, the emissions increases or
decreases from any major source that has commenced construction since
the major source baseline date (which precedes the minor source
baseline date) will consume or expand increment. Thus, an emissions
inventory of sources whose emissions, in whole or in part, of a
particular pollutant consume or expand the available increment in the
area must be compiled. The inventory of increment-consuming emissions
includes not only sources located directly in the impact area, but
sources outside the impact area that affect the air quality for the
particular pollutant within the impact area.
The inventory of increment-consuming emissions includes emissions
from increment-affecting sources at two separate time periods--the
baseline date and the current period of time. For each source that was
in existence on the relevant baseline date (major source or minor
source), the inventory includes the source's actual emissions on the
baseline date and its current actual emissions. The change in emissions
over these time periods represents the emissions that consume increment
(or, if emissions have gone down, expand the available increment). For
sources constructed since the relevant baseline date, all their current
actual emissions consume increment and are included in the inventory.
When the inventory of increment-consuming emissions has been
compiled, computer modeling is used to determine the change in ambient
concentration that will result from these emissions when combined with
the proposed emissions increase from the new major source or major
modification that is undergoing PSD review. The modeling has generally
been guided by the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' (40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W), which includes provisions on air quality models and the
meteorological data input into these models. The model output
(expressed as a change in concentration) for each relevant averaging
period is then compared to the corresponding allowable PSD increment.
E. Historical Approaches for Developing Increments
1. Congressional Enactment of Increments for PM and SO2
Congress established the first increments defining significant
deterioration of air quality in the 1977 Amendments to the Act. These
amendments, among other things, added part C to title I, setting out
the requirements for PSD. In section 163, Congress included numerical
increments for PM and SO2 for Class I, II, and III areas.
The three area classes are part of the increment system originally
established by Congress. Congress designated Class I areas (including
certain national parks and wilderness areas) as areas of special
national concern, where the need to prevent deterioration of air
quality is the greatest. Consequently, the allowable level of
incremental change is the smallest relative to the other area classes,
i.e., most stringent, in Class I areas. The increments of Class II
areas are larger than those of Class I areas and allow for a moderate
degree of emissions growth. For future redesignation purposes, Congress
defined a ``Class III'' classification to allow the redesignation of
any existing Class II area for which a State may desire to promote a
higher level of industrial development (and emissions growth). Thus,
Class III areas are allowed to have the greatest amount of pollutant
increase of the three area classes while still achieving the NAAQS. To
date, there have been no redesignations made to establish a Class III
area.
In establishing these PSD increments, Congress used the then-
existing NAAQS for those pollutants as the benchmark for determining
what constitutes ``significant deterioration.'' Congress established
the increments for PM as a percentage of the then-existing PM NAAQS. At
the time the Act was amended in 1977, the NAAQS for PM were expressed
in terms of ambient concentrations of TSP. Thus, EPA interpreted the
statutory increments for PM using the same ambient TSP ``indicator.''
2. EPA's Promulgation of Increments for NO2 and
PM10
Congress also provided authority for EPA to promulgate additional
increments and to update the original PM increments created by statute.
The EPA has promulgated two regulations pursuant to this authority.
a. Increments for NO2 Using the ``Contingent Safe Harbor''
Approach Under Section 166(a) of the Act
Based on section 166(a) of the Act, on October 17, 1988, EPA
promulgated increments for NO2 to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality due to emissions of NOX (53 FR
40656). The EPA based these increments on percentages of the NAAQS in
the same way that Congress derived the statutory increments for PM and
SO2. Those NO2 increments were challenged in 1988
by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) when EDF filed suit in the U.S.
Court of
[[Page 64870]]
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the Administrator
(Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, No. 88-1882). The EDF
successfully argued that we failed to sufficiently consider certain
provisions in section 166 of the Act. The court remanded the case to
EPA ``to develop an interpretation of section 166 that considers both
subsections (c) and (d), and if necessary to take new evidence and
modify the regulations.'' See Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 898
F.2d 183, 190 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (EDF v. EPA). Section 166(c) of the Act
requires the PSD regulations to, among other things, meet the goals and
purposes set forth in sections 101 and 160 of the Act. Section 166(d)
requires these regulations be at least as effective as the increments
established for PM (in the form of TSP) and SO2 in section
163 of the Act. The court considered the NO2 increment
values determined using the percentage-of-NAAQS approach as ``safe
harbor'' increments which met the requirements of section 166(d) of the
Act. However, the court also determined that EPA's reliance on such
increment levels was contingent upon our completing the analyses
required under section 166(c), which provided that the final increment
values must address the goals of sections 101 and 160 of the Act to
protect public health and welfare, parks, and AQRVs \5\ and to insure
economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``air quality related values'' is not defined in
the Act, but the legislative history provides language saying that
``The term `air quality related values' of Federal lands designated
as Class I includes the fundamental purposes for which such lands
have been established and preserved by the Congress and the
responsible Federal agency. For example, under the 1916 Organic Act
to establish the National Park Service (16 U.S.C. 1), the purpose of
such national park lands `is to conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.' '' S. Rep.
No. 95-127 at 36 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the court's decision, we proposed rulemaking on
increments for NO2 on February 23, 2005 (70 FR 8880) and
finalized the rule on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59582). In the final
rule, we established our policy on how to interpret and apply the
requirements of sections 166(c) and (d) of the Act. In accordance with
the court ruling, we conducted further analyses (considering the health
and welfare effects of NOX) and concluded that the existing
NO2 increments were adequate to fulfill the requirements of
section 166(c). See 70 FR 59586 for our detailed analysis of how
pollutant regulations satisfy the requirements of section 166 of the
Act. Hence, we retained the existing NO2 increments along
with other parts of the existing framework of pollutant-specific
NO2 increment regulations. We also amended the PSD
regulations under 40 CFR 51.166 to make it clear that states may seek
EPA approval of SIPs that utilize a different approach than EPA used to
establish these NO2 increments. To receive our approval of
an alternative program, a State must demonstrate that its program
satisfies the requirements of sections 166(c) and 166(d) of the Act and
prevents significant deterioration of air quality from emissions of
NOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under the 2005 NOX regulation, states can adopt
measures other than increments as long as they can demonstrate that
the measures selected comply with the same criteria and goals of
sections 166(c) and (d) of the Act that must be met for increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Increments for PM10 Using ``Equivalent Substitution''
Approach Under Section 166(f) of the Act
On October 5, 1989, we proposed PM10 increments. See 54
FR 41218. Although section 163 did not expressly define the existing
statutory increments for PM in terms of a specific indicator, EPA
reasoned that Congress' knowledge that TSP was the indicator for the PM
NAAQS, and that the TSP standards were the starting point for the
increments levels when the increments were established in 1977, meant
that TSP was also the appropriate measure for the PM increments in
section 163. As a consequence, EPA believed that the statutory PM
increments could not simply be administratively redefined as
PM10 increments, retaining the same numerical values,
following the revision of the PM NAAQS. Rather, we stated our belief
that with the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS, EPA had both
the responsibility and the authority under sections 166 and 301 of the
Act to promulgate new increments for PM to be measured in terms of
PM10. We further concluded that promulgating PM10
increments to replace, rather than supplement, the statutory TSP
increments under section 163 represented the most sensible approach for
preventing significant deterioration with respect to PM. See 54 FR
41220-41221.
We promulgated PM10 increments to replace the then-
existing TSP increments on June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622). In the interim
between proposal and promulgation, Congress enacted the 1990 CAA
Amendments. As part of these amendments, Congress amended section 166
to add a new section 166(f). This section specifically authorized EPA
to substitute PM10 increments for the existing section 163
PM increments based on TSP, provided that the substituted increments
are ``of equal stringency in effect'' as the section 163 increments.
Thus, we were able to replace the TSP increments under section 163
of the Act using PM10 increments based directly on the newly
enacted authority under section 166(f) of the Act. In the
PM10 rule, we maintained the existing baseline dates and
baseline areas for PM that had been previously established using the
TSP indicator. Also, as proposed, we promulgated PM10
increments based on an approach we called the ``equivalent to statutory
increments'' approach. Under this approach, we used the original TSP
increments as a benchmark for calculating the PM10
increments, thereby retaining roughly the same limitations on future
deterioration of air quality as was allowed under the TSP increments.
In using this approach, we considered the historical consumption of
TSP increment by a sample population of permitted PSD sources, and then
determined the PM10 increments for each area classification
and averaging time that would provide approximately the same percentage
of PM10 increment consumption, on average, by the same
population of sources. Then, all future calculations of increment
consumption after the PM10 implementation date would be
based on PM10 emissions. See 58 FR 31622 and 31625.
V. Final Action on PM2.5 Increments
In this section of the preamble, we will summarize the
considerations that went into our proposed action and describe the
final action being taken regarding new regulations for preventing
significant deterioration of PM2.5 air quality--including
PM2.5 increments (sections V.A through V.E, baseline dates
and other permit requirements for PM2.5 (section V.F),
baseline areas for PM2.5 (section V.G), and PM10
increments (section V.H).
A. Decision To Establish PM2.5 Increments Using ``Contingent
Safe Harbor Approach'' Under Section 166(a)
The EPA's 2007 NPRM contained three options for developing
numerical PM2.5 increments. Option 1 used the authority of
section 166(a) of the Act to establish increments for PM2.5
as a new pollutant for which NAAQS were established after August 7,
1977, and established 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments
(Class I, II, and III) based on the ``contingent safe harbor''
approach. Options 2 and 3 used the contingent safe harbor approach
under section 166(a) to only develop 24-hour PM2.5
increments (Class I, II, and III), while using the ``equivalent
substitution''
[[Page 64871]]
approach under section 166(f) of the Act to develop annual
PM2.5 increments. Each of these options is discussed in
detail in the 2007 NPRM. 72 FR 54123-54138. In addition, significant
comments on each of the three options, and our responses to them, are
provided in this section V of this preamble.
In this final rule, after considering the available information and
comments from interested parties, EPA has decided to select Option 1
and establish increments for PM2.5 using the ``contingent
safe harbor'' approach in accordance with the authority provided in
section 166(a) of the Act.
This final rule establishes increments for PM2.5 at the
following levels:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAAQS Increments ([micro]g/m\3\)
Averaging period ([micro]g/ --------------------------------------
m\3\) Class I Class II Class III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual...................................................... 15 1 4 8
24-hour..................................................... 35 2 9 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rationale for the Applicability of Section 166(a)
In the 2007 NPRM, we expressed our belief that it is permissible to
interpret section 166(a) to apply to PM2.5. Section 166(a)
requires EPA to develop regulations to prevent the significant
deterioration of air quality due to emissions of certain named
pollutants, and to develop such regulations for any pollutants for
which NAAQS are subsequently promulgated. Although EPA has generally
characterized the NAAQS for PM2.5 as a NAAQS for a new
indicator of PM, EPA did not replace the PM10 NAAQS with the
NAAQS for PM2.5 when the latter NAAQS were promulgated in
1997. Rather, EPA retained the annual and 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
(retaining PM10 as an indicator of coarse particulate
matter), and established new annual and 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 as if PM2.5 was a new pollutant, even
though EPA had already developed air quality criteria for PM generally.
Thus, for purposes of section 166(a), the promulgation of a NAAQS for
PM2.5 established a NAAQS for an additional pollutant after
1977.
Nine commenters supported our proposed Option 1, although only
three of these explicitly expressed support for the use of section
166(a) authority to promulgate PM2.5 increments. Ten other
commenters specifically opposed the use of section 166(a) authority
and/or supported the use of section 166(f) authority (on which the
annual increments under Options 2A and 2B were based).
One of the commenters who explicitly agreed with our proposed use
of section 166(a) authority stated that it is the only option that is
legally available. This commenter asserted that section 166(a) plainly
applies to PM2.5 because PM2.5 is a pollutant for
which NAAQS were promulgated after August 7, 1977. This commenter held
that EPA's rulemaking duty under section 166(a) is not confined to
``new pollutants,'' but is triggered by post-1977 NAAQS promulgations,
regardless of whether for new or previously regulated pollutants. On
the other hand, this commenter noted that by its terms, section 166(f)
is limited to authorizing the adoption of PM10 increments as
a substitute for the statutory TSP increments and does not provide for
substitution of PM2.5 increments for TSP or PM10
increments.
The opposing commenters did not believe that section 166(a)
provides a legal basis for EPA to promulgate PM2.5
increments. One of these commenters stated that section 166(a) can only
be used for a new pollutant, and PM2.5 is not a new
pollutant.
Another commenter who opposed the use of section 166(a) authority
argued that nothing in section 166(a) of the Act can be interpreted to
allow it to be used as the basis of increments when EPA revises an
existing NAAQS. The commenter explained that, on its face, section
166(a) can only be interpreted to apply to pollutants other than PM and
SO2 since increments for these pollutants were enacted by
Congress in section 163 of the Act. The commenter added that it can be
argued that Congress intended to have section 166(a) apply to the four
other pollutants specifically listed there.
This commenter found unpersuasive our argument that we are not
``substituting'' increments (as section 166(f) requires for
PM10) but rather adding PM2.5 increments to the
existing PM10 increments, and that only section 166(a)
allows such an approach (72 FR 54121). The commenter asserted that if
EPA had defined a coarse fraction to the particulate matter standards,
then that fraction, together with the PM2.5 standards, would
form the set of ``substituted'' new standards for the existing
PM10 standards, and, thus, the increments.
The commenter also disagreed with EPA's argument that it can treat
PM2.5 as a new pollutant under section 166(a) of the Act
since it has been demonstrated that sub-PM2.5 particles have
distinctly different health and welfare effects than the other forms of
PM (i.e., coarse or PM10). The commenter indicated that just
as EPA replaced the TSP standards by PM10 as a better
indicator of health effects, ongoing research has led to establishment
of the PM2.5 standards as a better indicator of certain
health effects, and it is the natural outcome of such research that has
enabled EPA to separate the effect of total particulate matter into two
fractions with distinct effects. The commenter added that given that
the definition of particulate matter includes a vast conglomeration of
solids and liquids, the finding of differing effects should not come as
a surprise. The commenter explained that as is the case of different
pollutants having similar effects that are, nonetheless, treated as
separate pollutants, the same concept should apply to a range or
fraction of particulate matter found to have different effects in
establishing it as another indicator and not a different pollutant.
The commenter did not disagree with the specific numerical
increments proposed by EPA under Option 1, but did have concerns with
the potential consequences of the section 166(a) approach. The
commenter's primary concern was the proposal to allow states to
substitute other measures in the place of uniform national increments
for PM2.5. (This is discussed further in section V.C.5 of
this preamble.) Another commenter also expressed this concern.
Another commenter who opposed the section 166(a) approach believes
that the legal and congressional history regarding the establishment of
PM increments shows that Congress added section 166(f) to the Act based
on the conviction that without it, EPA had no authority to revise the
PM increments for PM10 (citing and quoting from S. Rep. No.
228, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 75 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3461). The commenter concluded that EPA did not have authority in
1987 under section 166(a) to adopt PM10 increments, and does
not have authority now under section 166(a) to adopt PM2.5
increments.
We read section 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate pollutant-
specific PSD regulations meeting the
[[Page 64872]]
requirements of sections 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which
EPA promulgates a NAAQS after 1977. Most of the pollutants identified
in section 166(a) (NOX, photochemical oxidants, carbon
monoxide) are pollutants for which EPA had established NAAQS in 1977
when Congress adopted section 166 of the Act. There was no need for
Congress to list other criteria pollutants, SO2 and PM, in
section 166(a) because Congress had already established increments for
these pollutants in section 163 of the Act. In addition to requiring
regulations for the enumerated pollutants, we conclude that under
section 166 of the Act Congress intended to authorize EPA to establish
additional pollutant-specific PSD regulations, potentially containing
increments, for any additional pollutants for which EPA promulgated a
NAAQS under section 109 of the Act. Furthermore, because the Act refers
to pollutants for which EPA promulgates NAAQS after 1977, and does not
use the phrase ``additional pollutants,'' section 166(a) provides
authority for EPA to promulgate new increments after revising an
existing NAAQS (including NAAQS first promulgated before 1977), when we
find that such action is appropriate.
Moreover, any new increments developed pursuant to section 166(a)
have no effect on existing increments, as there is no indication
therein that an existing increment should be revoked or replaced when
additional increments are promulgated. This was the situation following
the promulgation of new NAAQS for PM in 1987 when EPA replaced the old
NAAQS based on TSP with new ones based on PM10. Had Congress
not added new section 166(f) in 1990, increments for PM10
could have been developed pursuant to section 166(a) of the Act, but
such increments would have had no effect on the original statutory
increments for PM (based on TSP). Consequently, seeing no basis for
retaining the original increments, Congress added section 166(f) which
explicitly provides for the replacement of the existing increments with
PM10 increments.
One commenter asserted that if EPA establishes increments for
PM2.5 under the authority of section 166(a) on the basis
that PM2.5 is a new pollutant, then it must also establish
PM10 increments under section 166(a) because (according to
the commenter's analysis) PM10 is also a new pollutant. In
the same analysis, the commenter concluded that EPA must adopt new
measures to prevent significant deterioration from coarse PM based on
section 166(a).
In this final rule, EPA is not setting or amending any increments
for PM10 or otherwise taking action with respect to
PM10 increments. The preexisting annual and 24-hour
increments for PM10 are being retained. See section V.H.
Similarly, EPA is not taking any action with respect to coarse PM in
this rule. For these reasons, the commenter's arguments on what
authority must be used to set increments for PM10 and/or
coarse PM, and that EPA has some obligation to take action with respect
to coarse PM, are not on point for this rule. Thus, no substantive
response to this comment is needed. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier,
Congress provided explicit authority under section 166(f) of the Act to
address increments for PM10, because it intended