Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and Fine Particulate Matter Revision, 73017-73025 [2010-29951]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
All communications received before
the specified closing date for comments
will be considered before taking action
on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed
in light of the comments received. A
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be
filed in the docket.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at https://www.faa.gov/
airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see the
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRM’s should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking distribution
System, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish
Class E airspace at Kenbridge, VA to
provide controlled airspace required to
support the SIAPs developed for
Lunenburg County Airport. Class E
airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface would be
established for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
Class E airspace designations are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010,
and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in title
49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I,
section 106 describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency’s
authority. This proposed rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart
I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to assign the use of airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft
and the efficient use of airspace. This
proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish
Class E airspace at Lunenburg County
Airport, Kenbridge, VA.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE
AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE
ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, is
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73017
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward from 700 feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
AEA VA E5 Kenbridge, VA [NEW]
Lunenburg County Airport, VA
(Lat. 36°57′37″ N., long. 78°11′06″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile
radius of the Lunenburg County Airport.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on
November 16, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010–29897 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0816–201057; FRL–
9233–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and
Fine Particulate Matter Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a draft revision to the Georgia State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the State of Georgia, through the
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources’ Environmental Protection
Division (EPD), to EPA on September
30, 2010, for parallel processing. The
proposed revision makes two changes
for which EPA is proposing approval in
today’s rulemaking. First, the proposed
SIP revision modifies Georgia’s New
Source Review (NSR) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
Specifically, the proposed SIP revision
establishes appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new
stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to Georgia’s
PSD permitting requirements for their
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Second, the proposed SIP revision
incorporates provisions for
implementing the PSD program for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). The first
component of this proposed SIP
revision is necessary because without it,
on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements
would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per
year (tpy) levels provided under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which
would overwhelm Georgia’s permitting
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
73018
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
resources. The second component of
this proposed SIP revision (addressing
the PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS)) is necessary to
comply with Federal regulations related
to PSD permitting. EPA is proposing
approval of Georgia’s September 30,
2010, SIP revision because the Agency
has made the preliminary determination
that this SIP revision is in accordance
with the CAA and EPA regulations
regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2010–0816 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0816,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010–
0816.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail, information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding the Georgia SIP,
contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Bradley’s telephone number is (404)
562–9352; e-mail address:
bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For
information regarding the GHG
Tailoring Rule and the PM2.5 NAAQS
PSD requirements, contact Ms. Heather
Abrams, Air Permits Section, at the
same address above. Ms. Abrams’
telephone number is (404) 562–9185; email address: abrams.heather@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s
Notice?
II. What is the background for the action
proposed by EPA in today’s Notice
regarding PSD Permitting Requirements
for GHG-emitting sources?
III. What is the relationship between today’s
proposed action and EPA’s proposed
GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
IV. What is the background for the action
proposed by EPA in today’s Notice
regarding the PSD Permitting
Requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS?
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s
proposed SIP revision?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing in
today’s Notice?
On September 30, 2010,1 EPD
submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Georgia SIP to
establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new
or modified stationary sources become
subject to Georgia’s PSD permitting
requirements for GHG emissions. Final
approval of Georgia’s September 30,
2010, SIP revision will put in place the
GHG emission thresholds for PSD
applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring
Rule, ensuring that smaller GHG sources
emitting less than these thresholds will
not be subject to permitting
requirements when these requirements
begin applying to GHGs on January 2,
2011. Additionally, Georgia’s September
30, 2010, SIP revision incorporates
Federal requirements into Georgia’s SIP
for PSD permitting related to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these
changes into the Georgia SIP.
Because this draft SIP revision is not
yet State-effective, Georgia requested
that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ the SIP
revision. Under this procedure, the EPA
Regional Office works closely with the
State while developing new or revised
regulations. Generally, the State submits
a copy of the proposed regulation or
other revisions to EPA before
conducting its public hearing. EPA
reviews this proposed State action and
prepares a notice of proposed
rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice
1 With respect to PM
2.5, Georgia’s September 30,
2010, SIP revision only addresses PSD
requirements. The nonattainment NSR provisions
for Georgia for the PM2.5 NAAQS are still under
development at the State level and are not due to
EPA until May 16, 2011. Additionally, Georgia’s
submittal contains provisions at 391–3–1–
.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)(I) and (II) of Georgia’s PSD
regulations that would render Georgia’s regulation
or a portion thereof automatically invalid in the
wake of certain court decisions or other events. At
this time, EPA is not proposing to approve this
provision into the Georgia SIP.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and solicits public comment in
approximately the same time frame
during which the State is holding its
public hearing. The State and EPA thus
provide for public comment periods on
both the State and the Federal actions in
parallel.
After Georgia submits the formal
State-effective SIP revision request
(including a response to all public
comments raised during the State’s
public participation process), EPA will
prepare a final rulemaking notice for the
SIP revision. If changes are made to the
SIP revision after EPA’s notice of
proposed rulemaking, such changes
must be acknowledged in EPA’s final
rulemaking action. If the changes are
significant, then EPA may be obliged to
re-propose the action. In addition, if the
changes render the SIP revision not
approvable, EPA’s re-proposal of the
action would be a disapproval of the
revision.
In addition to changes to address PSD
permitting requirements for GHGs and
PM2.5, Georgia’s September 30, 2010,
SIP revision also includes: (1) A
provision that excludes facilities that
produce ethanol through a natural
fermentation process from the definition
of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ in the
major NSR source permitting program;
and (2) a provision that incorporates by
reference changes pursuant to EPA’s
Fugitive Emissions Rule, 73 FR 77882
(December 19, 2008).2 In today’s
proposed rulemaking, EPA is not
proposing to take action on Georgia’s
changes to its PSD regulations to
exclude facilities that produce ethanol
through a natural fermentation process
from the definition of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ in the major NSR permitting
program, nor is EPA proposing to take
action on Georgia’s changes to
incorporate the provisions of the
Fugitive Emission Rule.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What is the background for the
action proposed by EPA in today’s
Notice regarding PSD permitting
requirements for GHG-emitting
sources?
Today’s proposed action on the
Georgia SIP primarily relates to EPA’s
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule,’’ Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule).
2 On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive
Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) for 18 months to
October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency time to
propose, take comment and issue a final action
regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR
applicability determinations. Therefore, the 40 CFR
part 51 and part 52 administrative regulations that
were amended by the Fugitive Emissions Rule are
stayed through October 3, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
75 FR 31514. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA
established appropriate GHG emission
thresholds for determining the
applicability of PSD requirements to
GHG-emitting sources. These
applicability thresholds were designed
to ensure that smaller GHG sources will
not be subject to GHG permitting
requirements. While Georgia already has
authority to issue PSD permits
governing GHGs when PSD
requirements begin applying to GHGs
on January 2, 2011, Georgia needs to
amend its SIP to incorporate the
Tailoring Rule’s applicability
thresholds. Today’s notice announces
EPA’s proposed approval of a revision
to Georgia’s SIP that would put these
applicability thresholds in place.3
A. What are GHGs and their sources?
A detailed explanation of GHGs,
climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is
included in EPA’s technical support
document for EPA’s GHG endangerment
finding final rule (Document ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11292 at
https://www.regulations.gov). The
endangerment finding rulemaking is
discussed later in this rulemaking. A
summary of the nature and sources of
GHGs is provided below.
GHGs trap the Earth’s heat that would
otherwise escape from the atmosphere
into space and form the greenhouse
effect that helps keep the Earth warm
enough for life. GHGs are naturally
present in the atmosphere and are also
emitted by human activities. Human
activities are intensifying the naturally
occurring greenhouse effect by
increasing the amount of GHGs in the
atmosphere, which is changing the
climate in a way that endangers human
health, society, and the natural
environment.
Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide
(CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere
through natural processes as well as
human activities. Other gases, such as
fluorinated gases, are created and
emitted solely through human activities.
The well-mixed GHGs of concern
directly emitted by human activities
include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
3 On September 2, 2010, EPA proposed a ‘‘SIP
Call’’ that would require those States with SIPs that
do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to submit
a SIP revision providing such authority. 75 FR
53892. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that would
apply in any State that is unable to submit the
required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR 53883
(September 2, 2010). Because Georgia’s SIP already
authorizes Georgia to regulate GHGs once GHGs
become subject to PSD requirements on January 2,
2011, Georgia is not subject to the proposed SIP Call
or FIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73019
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter
referred to collectively as ‘‘the six wellmixed GHG,’’ or, simply, GHGs.
Together these six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the ‘‘air pollutant’’ upon
which the GHG thresholds in EPA’s
Tailoring Rule are based. These six
gases remain in the atmosphere for
decades to centuries where they become
well-mixed globally in the atmosphere.
When they are emitted more quickly
than natural processes can remove them
from the atmosphere, their
concentrations increase, thus increasing
the greenhouse effect.
In the U.S., the combustion of fossil
fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest
source of CO2 emissions and accounts
for 80 percent of the total GHG
emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2
emissions released from a variety of
sources, including through the use of
fossil fuel combustion and cement
production from geologically stored
carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas)
that is hundreds of millions of years old,
as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions
from land-use changes such as
deforestation, perturb the atmospheric
concentration of CO2, and the
distribution of carbon within different
reservoirs readjusts. More than half of
the energy-related emissions come from
large stationary sources such as power
plants, while about a third come from
transportation. Of the six well-mixed
GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs)
are emitted by motor vehicles. In the
U.S., industrial processes (such as the
production of cement, steel, and
aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other
land use, and waste management are
also important sources of GHGs.
Different GHGs have different heattrapping capacities. The concept of
Global Warming Potential (GWP) was
developed to compare the heat-trapping
capacity and atmospheric lifetime of
one GHG to another. The definition of
a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio
of heat trapped by one unit mass of the
GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2
over a specified time period. When
quantities of the different GHGs are
multiplied by their GWPs, the different
GHGs can be summed and compared on
a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of
21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions
would have 21 times as much impact on
global warming over a 100-year time
horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus,
on the basis of heat-trapping capability,
1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of
CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHG
range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for
SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e
basis at the source level allows a facility
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
73020
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to evaluate its total GHG emissions
contribution based on a single metric.
B. What are the general requirements of
the PSD program?
1. Overview of the PSD Program
The PSD program is a preconstruction
review and permitting program
applicable to new major stationary
sources and major modifications at
existing stationary sources. The PSD
program applies in areas that are
designated ‘‘attainment’’ or
‘‘unclassifiable’’ for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD
program is contained in part C of title
I of the CAA. The ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’
program applies in areas not in
attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone
Transport Region, and it is implemented
under the requirements of part D of title
I of the CAA. Collectively, EPA
commonly refers to these two programs
as the major NSR program. The
governing EPA rules are contained in 40
CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and
part 51, Appendices S and W. There is
no NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other
well-mixed GHGs, nor has EPA
proposed any such NAAQS; therefore,
unless and until EPA takes further such
action, the nonattainment NSR program
does not apply to GHGs.
The applicability of PSD to a
particular source must be determined in
advance of construction or modification
and is pollutant-specific. The primary
criterion in determining PSD
applicability is whether the proposed
project is sufficiently large (in terms of
its emissions) to be a major stationary
source or modification, both of which
are described below. EPA has
implemented these requirements in its
regulations, which use somewhat
different terminology than the CAA
does, for determining PSD applicability.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
a. Major Stationary Sources
Under PSD, a ‘‘major stationary
source’’ is any source belonging to a
specified list of 28 source categories that
emits or has the potential to emit 100
tpy or more of any air pollutant subject
to regulation under the CAA, or any
other source type that emits or has the
potential to emit such pollutants in
amounts equal to or greater than 250
tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We
refer to these levels as the 100/250-tpy
thresholds. A new source with a
potential to emit (PTE) at or above the
applicable ‘‘major stationary source
threshold’’ is subject to major NSR.
These limits originate from section 169
of the CAA, which applies PSD to any
‘‘major emitting facility’’ and defines the
term to include any source that emits or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
has a PTE of 100 or 250 tpy, depending
on the source category. Note that the
major source definition incorporates the
phrase ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ which, as
described later, will begin to include
GHGs on January 2, 2011, under our
interpretation of that phrase as
discussed in the recent memorandum
entitled, ‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit
Program.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
PSD also applies to existing sources
that undertake a ‘‘major modification,’’
which occurs when: (1) There is a
physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of, a ‘‘major
stationary source;’’ (2) the change results
in a ‘‘significant’’ emissions increase of
a pollutant subject to regulation (equal
to or above the significance level that
EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a
‘‘significant net emissions increase’’ of a
pollutant subject to regulation that is
equal to or above the significance level
(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)).
Significance levels, which EPA has
promulgated for criteria pollutants and
certain other pollutants, represent a de
minimis contribution to air quality
problems. When EPA has not set a
significance level for a regulated NSR
pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of
the pollutant in any amount (that is, in
effect, the significance level is treated as
zero).
2. General Requirements for PSD
This section provides a very brief
summary of the main requirements of
the PSD program. One principal
requirement is that a new major source
or major modification must apply best
available control technology (BACT),
which is determined on a case-by-case
basis taking into account, among other
factors, the cost effectiveness of the
control and energy and environmental
impacts. EPA has developed a ‘‘topdown’’ approach for BACT review,
which involves a decision process that
includes identification of all available
control technologies, elimination of
technically infeasible options, ranking
of remaining options by control and cost
effectiveness, and then selection of
BACT. Under PSD, once a source is
determined to be major for any
regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review
is performed for each attainment
pollutant that exceeds its PSD
significance level as part of new
construction or for modification projects
at the source, where there is a
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant increase and a significant net
emissions increase of such pollutant.4
In addition to performing BACT, the
source must analyze impacts on ambient
air quality to assure that its emissions
do not cause or contribute to violation
of any NAAQS or PSD increments and
must analyze impacts on soil,
vegetation, and visibility. In addition,
sources or modifications that would
impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks)
may be subject to additional
requirements to protect air quality
related values (AQRVs) that have been
identified for such areas. Under PSD, if
a source’s proposed project impacts a
Class I area, the Federal Land Manager
is notified and is responsible for
evaluating a source’s projected impact
on the AQRVs and recommending either
approval or disapproval of the source’s
permit application based on anticipated
impacts.
Because there are no NAAQS or PSD
increments established for GHGs, the
requirement to demonstrate that a
source does not cause or contribute to
a violation of the NAAQS is not
applicable to GHGs. Furthermore,
consistent with EPA’s statement in the
Tailoring Rule, EPA believes it is not
necessary for applicants or permitting
authorities to assess impacts from GHGs
in the context of the additional impacts
analysis or Class I area provisions of the
PSD regulations for the following policy
reasons. Although it is clear that GHG
emissions contribute to global warming
and other climate changes that result in
impacts on the environment, including
impacts on Class I areas and soils and
vegetation, due to the global scope of
the problem, climate change modeling
and evaluations of risks and impacts of
GHG emissions typically are conducted
for emission changes orders of
magnitude larger than the emissions
from individual projects that might be
analyzed in PSD permit reviews.
Quantifying the exact impacts
attributable to a specific GHG source
obtaining a permit in specific places and
points would not be possible with
current climate change modeling. Given
these considerations, GHG emissions
would serve as the more appropriate
and credible proxy for assessing the
impact of a given facility. Thus, EPA
believes that the most practical way to
address the considerations reflected in
the Class I area and additional impacts
4 EPA notes that the PSD program has historically
operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when
new sources or modifications are ‘‘major,’’ PSD
applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project.
This rule does not alter that for sources or
modifications that are major due to their GHG
emissions.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
analysis is to focus on reducing GHG
emissions to the maximum extent. In
light of these analytical challenges,
compliance with the BACT analysis is
the best technique that can be employed
at present to satisfy the additional
impacts analysis and Class I area
requirements of the rules related to
GHGs.
However, if PSD is triggered for a
GHG-emitting source, all regulated NSR
pollutants that the source emits in
significant amounts would be subject to
PSD requirements. Therefore, if a
facility triggers review for regulated
NSR pollutants that are non-GHG
pollutants for which there are
established NAAQS or increments, the
air quality, additional impacts, and
Class I requirements must be satisfied
for those pollutants and the applicant
and permitting authority are required to
conduct the necessary analysis.
Pursuant to existing PSD
requirements, the permitting authority
must provide notice of its preliminary
decision on a source’s application for a
PSD permit and must provide an
opportunity for comment by the public,
industry, and other interested persons.
After considering and responding to
comments, the permitting authority
must issue a final determination on the
construction permit. Usually NSR
permits are issued by a State or local air
pollution control agency that has its
own authority to issue PSD permits
under a permit program that has been
approved by EPA for inclusion in its
SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated
its authority to issue PSD permits under
Federal regulations to the State or local
agency. In other areas, EPA issues the
permits under its own authority.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What are the CAA requirements to
include the PSD program in the SIP?
The CAA contemplates that the PSD
program be implemented in the first
instance by the States and requires that
States include PSD requirements in
their SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
requires that—
Each implementation plan * * * shall
* * * include a program to provide for
* * * regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source within
the areas covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit
program as required in part [C] * * * of this
subchapter.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires
that—
Each implementation plan * * * shall
* * * meet the applicable requirements of
* * * part C of this subchapter (relating to
significant deterioration of air quality and
visibility protection).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
CAA section 161 provides that—
[E]ach applicable implementation plan
shall contain emission limitations and such
other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated
under this part [C], to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in each region
* * * designated * * * as attainment or
unclassifiable.
These provisions, read in conjunction
with the PSD applicability provisions as
well as other provisions such as the
BACT provision under CAA Section
165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include
PSD programs that are applicable to,
among other things, any air pollutant
that is subject to regulation. As
discussed below, this includes GHGs on
and after January 2, 2011.5
A number of States do not have PSD
programs approved into their SIPs. In
those States, EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 52.21 govern, and either EPA or the
State as EPA’s delegatee acts as the
permitting authority. However, most
States have PSD programs that have
been approved into their SIPs, and these
States implement their PSD programs
and act as the permitting authority.
Georgia has a SIP-approved PSD
program.
D. What actions has EPA taken
concerning PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources?
1. What are the Endangerment Finding,
the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the
Johnson Memo Reconsideration?
By notice dated December 15, 2009,
and pursuant to CAA section 202(a),
EPA issued two findings regarding
GHGs that are commonly referred to as
the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and the
‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding.’’
‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74
FR 66496. In the Endangerment Finding,
the Administrator found that six longlived and directly emitted GHGs—CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare. In the Cause
or Contribute Finding, the
Administrator ‘‘defin[ed] the air
pollutant as the aggregate group of the
same six * * * greenhouse gases,’’ 74
FR at 66536, and found that the
combined emissions of this air pollutant
5 In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that
commenters argued, with some variations, that the
PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants,
and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD
provisions apply to all pollutants subject to
regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR at 31560–62.
EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the
Agency incorporates by reference the discussion of
this issue in the Tailoring Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73021
from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the GHG
air pollution that endangers public
health and welfare.
By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA
published what is commonly referred to
as the ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule’’
(LDVR), which for the first time
established Federal controls on GHGs
emitted from light-duty vehicles. ‘‘LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR
25324. In its applicability provisions,
the LDVR specifies that it ‘‘contains
standards and other regulations
applicable to the emission * * * of six
greenhouse gases,’’ including CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at
25686 (40 CFR 86.1818–12(a)).
On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a
memorandum, ‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit
Program’’ (known as the ‘‘Johnson
Memo’’ or the ‘‘PSD Interpretive Memo,’’
and referred to in this preamble as the
‘‘Interpretive Memo’’), that set forth
EPA’s interpretation regarding which
EPA and State actions, with respect to
a previously unregulated pollutant,
cause that pollutant to become ‘‘subject
to regulation’’ under the Act. Whether a
pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ is
important for the purposes of
determining whether it is covered under
the Federal PSD permitting program.
The Interpretive Memo established that
a pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’
only if it is subject to either a provision
in the CAA or regulation adopted by
EPA under the CAA that requires actual
control of emissions of that pollutant
(referred to as the ‘‘actual control
interpretation’’). On February 17, 2009,
EPA granted a petition for
reconsideration on the Interpretive
Memo and announced its intent to
conduct a rulemaking to allow for
public comment on the issues raised in
the memorandum and on related issues.
EPA also clarified that the Interpretive
Memo would remain in effect pending
reconsideration.
On April 2, 2010, EPA published a
notice conveying its decision to
continue applying (with one limited
refinement) the Interpretive Memo’s
interpretation of ‘‘subject to regulation.’’
‘‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs,’’ 75 FR 17004. EPA concluded
that the ‘‘actual control interpretation’’ is
the most appropriate interpretation to
apply given the policy implications.
However, EPA refined the Agency’s
interpretation in one respect: EPA
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
73022
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
established that PSD permitting
requirements apply to a newly regulated
pollutant at the time a regulatory
requirement to control emissions of that
pollutant ‘‘takes effect’’ (rather than
upon promulgation or the legal effective
date of the regulation containing such a
requirement). In addition, based on the
anticipated promulgation of the LDVR,
EPA stated that the GHG requirements
of the vehicle rule would take effect on
January 2, 2011, because that is the
earliest date that a 2012 model year
vehicle may be introduced into
commerce. In other words, the
compliance obligation under the LDVR
does not occur until a manufacturer may
introduce into commerce vehicles that
are required to comply with GHG
standards, which will begin with model
year 2012 and will not occur before
January 2, 2011.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. What is EPA’s Tailoring Rule?
On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2,
2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the
purpose of relieving overwhelming
permitting burdens that would, in the
absence of the rule, fall on permitting
authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514.
EPA accomplished this by tailoring the
applicability criteria that determine
which GHG emission sources become
subject to the PSD program 6 of the
CAA. In particular, EPA established in
the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach
for PSD applicability and established
the first two steps of the phase-in for the
largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA
committed to certain follow-up actions
regarding future steps beyond the first
two, discussed in more detail later in
this notice.
For the first step of the Tailoring Rule,
which will begin on January 2, 2011,
PSD requirements will apply to major
stationary source GHG emissions only if
the sources are subject to PSD anyway
due to their emissions of non-GHG
pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA will not require sources or
modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely
on account of their GHG emissions.
Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires
that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable
requirements of PSD, most notably, the
BACT requirement, will apply to
projects that increase net GHG
emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e,
but only if the project also significantly
increases emissions of at least one nonGHG pollutant.
6 The
Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V
program, which requires operating permits for
existing sources. However, today’s action does not
affect Georgia’s title V program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
The second step of the Tailoring Rule,
beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in
additional large sources of GHG
emissions. New sources that emit, or
have the potential to emit, at least
100,000 tpy CO2e will become subject to
the PSD requirements. In addition,
sources that emit or have the potential
to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and
that undertake a modification that
increases net GHG emissions by at least
75,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to
PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA
notes that if sources or modifications
exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG
triggers, they are not covered by
permitting requirements unless their
GHG emissions also exceed the
corresponding mass-based triggers in
tpy.
EPA believes that the costs to the
sources and the administrative burdens
to the permitting authorities of PSD
permitting will be manageable at the
levels in these initial two steps and that
it would be administratively infeasible
to subject additional sources to PSD
requirements at those times. However,
EPA also intends to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking in 2011, in which the
Agency will propose or solicit comment
on a third step of the phase-in that
would include more sources, beginning
on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule,
EPA established an enforceable
commitment that the Agency will
complete this rulemaking by July 1,
2012, which will allow for one year’s
notice before Step 3 would take effect.
In addition, EPA committed to
explore streamlining techniques that
may well make the permitting programs
much more efficient to administer for
GHG, and that therefore may allow their
expansion to smaller sources. EPA
expects that the initial streamlining
techniques will take several years to
develop and implement.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also
included a provision that no source
with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e
and no modification resulting in net
GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy
CO2e will be subject to PSD permitting
before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30,
2016). This is because EPA has
concluded that at the present time, the
administrative burdens that would
accompany permitting sources below
this level would be so great that even
with the streamlining actions that EPA
may be able to develop and implement
in the next several years, and even with
the increases in permitting resources
that EPA can reasonably expect the
permitting authorities to acquire, it
would be impossible to administer the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
permit programs for these sources until
at least 2016.
As EPA explained in the Tailoring
Rule, the threshold limitations are
necessary because without them PSD
would apply to all stationary sources
that emit or have the potential to emit
more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per
year beginning on January 2, 2011. This
is the date when EPA’s recently
promulgated LDVR takes effect,
imposing control requirements for the
first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this
January 2, 2011, date were to pass
without the Tailoring Rule being in
effect, PSD requirements would apply to
GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy
applicability levels provided under a
literal reading of the CAA as of that
date. From that point forward, a source
owner proposing to construct any new
major source that emits at or higher than
the applicability levels (and which
therefore may be referred to as a ‘‘major’’
source) or modify any existing major
source in a way that would increase
GHG emissions would need to obtain a
permit under the PSD program that
addresses these emissions before
construction or modification could
begin.
Under these circumstances, many
small sources would be burdened by the
costs of the individualized PSD control
technology requirements and permit
applications that the PSD provisions,
absent streamlining, require.
Additionally, State and local permitting
authorities would be burdened by the
extraordinary number of these permit
applications, which are orders of
magnitude greater than the current
inventory of permits and would vastly
exceed the current administrative
resources of the permitting authorities.
Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be
able to issue only a tiny fraction of the
permits requested.
The Tailoring Rule’s thresholds are
based on CO2e for the aggregate sum of
six GHGs that constitute the pollutant
that will be subject to regulation, which
we refer to as GHG.7 These gases are
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.
Thus, in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, EPA
provided that PSD applicability is based
on the quantity that results when the
mass emissions of each of these gases is
multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and
then summed for all six gases. However,
EPA further provided that in order for
a source’s GHG emissions to trigger PSD
requirements, the quantity of the GHG
7 The term ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ is commonly used
to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping
properties. However, in this notice, unless noted
otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the
pollutant regulated in the LDVR.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emissions must equal or exceed both the
applicability thresholds established in
the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and
the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250
tpy on a mass basis.8 Similarly, in order
for a source to be subject to the PSD
modification requirements, the source’s
net GHG emissions increase must
exceed the applicable significance level
on a CO2e basis and must also result in
a net mass increase of the constituent
gases combined.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted
regulatory language codifying the phasein approach. As explained in that
rulemaking, many State, local and
Tribal area programs will likely be able
to immediately implement the approach
without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ‘‘subject
to regulation’’ that is part of the
applicability provisions for PSD
permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that
they will follow this implementation
approach for their programs, and if they
cannot, then EPA has requested that
they notify the Agency so that we can
take appropriate follow-up action to
narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject
to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.9
On August 2, 2010, Georgia provided a
letter to EPA confirming that the State
has the authority to issue PSD permits
governing GHG emissions as of January
2, 2011, but explaining that Georgia
needs to amend its SIP to enable it to
implement the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. See the docket for this
proposed rulemaking for a copy of
Georgia’s letter.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. What is the GHG SIP Call?
By Federal Register notice dated
September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with
the companion GHG FIP rulemaking
published at the same time, EPA took
steps to ensure that in the 13 States that
do not appear to have authority to issue
PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources at
8 The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V,
and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed
in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is
100 tpy.
9 Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure that for
Federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that
are less than the Tailoring Rule’s emission
thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law
to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when
GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2,
2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP
revision adopting EPA’s tailoring approach, or (2)
if a State opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting
sources, the State demonstrates to EPA that it has
adequate resources to handle permitting for such
sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with
respect to those States for which EPA will not have
approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs
by that time.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
present, either the State or EPA will
have the authority to issue such permits
by January 2, 2011. EPA explained that
although for most States either the State
or EPA is already authorized to issue
PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources
as of that date, our preliminary
information shows that these 13 States
have EPA-approved PSD programs that
do not appear to include GHG-emitting
sources and therefore do not appear to
authorize these States to issue PSD
permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA
proposed to find that these 13 States’
SIPs are substantially inadequate to
comply with CAA requirements and,
accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP
Call to require a SIP revision that
applies their SIP PSD programs to GHGemitting sources. In the companion
GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a
FIP that would give EPA authority to
apply EPA’s PSD program to GHGemitting sources in any State that is
unable to submit a corrective SIP
revision by its deadline. Georgia was not
one of the States for which EPA
proposed a SIP Call.
III. What is the relationship between
today’s proposed action and EPA’s
proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
As noted above, by notice dated
September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA
proposed a FIP to apply in any State
that is unable to submit, by its deadline,
a SIP revision to ensure that the State
has authority to issue PSD permits to
GHG-emitting sources.10 As discussed
in Section IV of this rulemaking,
Georgia interprets its current PSD
regulations as providing it with the
authority to regulate GHGs, and as such,
Georgia is not included on the list of
areas for the proposed SIP call.
Additionally, Georgia would not be
subject to the FIP to implement GHG for
PSD applicability. Georgia’s September
30, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the
subject of this rulemaking) merely
modifies Georgia’s SIP to establish
appropriate thresholds for determining
which stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to
permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under the PSD program of the
CAA.
10 As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75
FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its
finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call
for the 13 listed States by December 1, 2010. EPA
requested that the States for which EPA is
proposing a SIP call identify the deadline—between
3 weeks and 12 months from the date of signature
of the final SIP Call—that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73023
IV. What is the background for the
action proposed by EPA in today’s
Notice regarding the PSD Permitting
Requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS?
Today’s proposed action on the
Georgia SIP also relates to EPA’s
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ Final Rule (the NSR PM2.5
Rule). 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). In
the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized
regulations to implement the NSR
program for fine particulate matter. As
a result of EPA’s final NSR PM2.5 Rule,
States are required to provide SIP
submissions no later than May 16, 2011,
to address those requirements for both
the PSD and nonattainment NSR
programs. Georgia’s September 30, 2010,
SIP revision addresses the PSD
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Georgia will provide a subsequent SIP
revision to address the nonattainment
NSR requirements for the PM2.5
NAAQS. More detail on the NSR PM2.5
Rule can be found in EPA’s May 16,
2008, final rule and is summarized
below.
A. Fine Particulate Matter and the
NAAQS for PM2.5
Fine particles in the atmosphere are
made up of a complex mixture of
components. Common constituents
include sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3);
ammonium; elemental carbon; a great
variety of organic compounds; and
inorganic material (including metals,
dust, sea salt, and other trace elements)
generally referred to as ‘‘crustal’’
material, although it may contain
material from other sources. Airborne
particulate matter (PM) with a nominal
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5
micrometers or less (a micrometer is
one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5
micrometers is less than one-seventh the
average width of a human hair) are
considered to be ‘‘fine particles’’ and are
also known as PM2.5. ‘‘Primary’’ particles
are emitted directly into the air as a
solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental
carbon from diesel engines or fire
activities, or condensable organic
particles from gasoline engines).
‘‘Secondary’’ particles (e.g., sulfate and
nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a
result of various chemical reactions.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
NAAQS for PM to add new standards
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the
indicator. (Previously EPA used PM10
(inhalable particles smaller than, or
equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as
the indicator for the PM NAAQS.) EPA
established health-based (primary)
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5,
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
73024
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
setting an annual standard at a level of
15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)
and a 24-hour standard at a level of 65
μg/m3. 62 FR 38652. At the time the
1997 primary standards were
established, EPA also established
welfare-based (secondary) standards
identical to the primary standards. The
secondary standards are designed to
protect against major environmental
effects of PM2.5, such as visibility
impairment, soiling, and materials
damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA
revised the primary and secondary
NAAQS for PM2.5. In that rulemaking,
EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 to 35 μg/m3 and retained the
existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/
m3. 71 FR 61144.
B. Implementation of NSR for the PM2.5
NAAQS
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
After EPA promulgated the NAAQS
for PM2.5 in 1997, the Agency issued a
guidance document entitled ‘‘Interim
Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements for PM2.5.’’ John S. Seitz,
EPA, October 23, 1997 (the ‘‘Seitz
memo’’).11 The Seitz memo was
designed to help States implement PSD
requirements pertaining to the new
PM2.5 NAAQS in light of known
technical difficulties posed by PM2.5,
including 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. Specifically, the Seitz
memo authorized sources to use
implementation of a PM10 program as a
surrogate for meeting PM2.5 PSD
requirements until EPA resolved these
technical difficulties.
On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized a rule
to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including changes to the NSR program.
See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5
11 EPA also issued a guidance document entitled
‘‘Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements in PM–2.5 Nonattainment Areas’’ (the
‘‘2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Guidance’’), on
April 5, 2005, the date that EPA’s PM2.5
nonattainment area designations became effective.
This memorandum provides 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 nonattainment area designations (April 5,
2005) and EPA’s promulgation of final PM2.5
nonattainment NSR regulations. Besides reaffirming the continuation of the PM10 Surrogate
Policy for PM2.5 attainment areas set forth in the
Seitz memo, the 2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR
Guidance recommended that until EPA promulgates
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. As
mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, Georgia’s
September 30, 2010, SIP revision only relates to the
PSD provisions for the PM2.5 standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Rule revised the NSR program
requirements to establish the framework
for implementing preconstruction
permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in
both attainment and nonattainment
areas. In summary, the NSR PM2.5 Rule:
(1) Requires NSR permits to address
directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor
pollutants (2) establishes significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants; (3) allows
interpollutant trading under the PM2.5
nonattainment NSR program; and (4)
requires States to address condensable
PM in establishing enforceable emission
limits. With two exceptions, the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule requires that major
stationary sources seeking permits must
begin directly satisfying the PM2.5
requirements as of the effective date of
the rule, rather than relying on PM10 as
a surrogate. The first exception is a
‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in the
Federal PSD program at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering
provision applied to sources that had
applied for, but had not yet received, a
final and effective PSD permit before the
July 15, 2008 effective date of the May
2008 final rule. The second exception
was that States with SIP-approved PSD
programs could continue to implement
the Seitz Memo’s PM10 Surrogate Policy
for up to three years (until May 2011)
or until the individual revised State PSD
programs for PM2.5 are approved by
EPA, whichever comes first. For
additional information on the NSR
PM2.5 Rule, see 73 FR 28321.
On February 11, 2010, EPA proposed
to repeal the grandfathering provision
for PM2.5 contained in the Federal PSD
program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), and to
end early the PM10 Surrogate Policy
applicable in States that have a SIPapproved PSD program. 75 FR 6827. In
support of this proposal, EPA explained
that the PM2.5 implementation issues
that led to the adoption of the PM10
Surrogate Policy in 1997 have been
largely resolved to a degree sufficient for
sources and permitting authorities to
conduct meaningful permit-related
PM2.5 analyses. EPA has not yet taken
final action on this proposal.12
Georgia’s September 30, 2010,
submittal addresses the PSD
requirements related to EPA’s May 16,
2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule. Though EPA has
not finalized a repeal of the PM2.5
grandfathering provision at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(xi), Georgia elected not to
12 Additional information on this issue can also
be found in an August 12, 2009, final order on a
title V petition describing the use of PM10 as a
surrogate for PM2.5. In the Matter of Louisville Gas
& Electric Company, Petition No. IV–2008–3, Order
on Petition (August 12, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include this provision in its SIP
submittal.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s
SIP revision?
On September 30, 2010, EPD provided
a revision to Georgia’s SIP to EPA for
parallel processing and eventual
approval. The proposed change
pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs
is necessary because without it PSD
requirements would apply for GHGs, as
of January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250tpy levels provided under the CAA.
This would greatly increase the number
of required permits, imposing undue
costs on small sources; which would
overwhelm Georgia’s permitting
resources and severely impair the
function of the program. The proposed
change pertaining to PSD permitting for
PM2.5 is necessary to comply with
Federal requirements. More detail
regarding EPA’s analysis of the
proposed changes to Georgia’s SIP (as
provided in the September 30, 2010,
submittal) is provided below.
A. Analysis Regarding Georgia’s
Changes To Incorporate the Tailoring
Rule
The State of Georgia’s September 30,
2010, proposed SIP revision establishes
thresholds for determining which
stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to permitting
requirements for GHG emissions under
Georgia’s PSD program. Specifically,
Georgia’s September 30, 2010, proposed
SIP revision incorporates by reference
the Federal Tailoring Rule provisions at
40 CFR 52.21 (as amended June 3, 2010,
and effective August 2, 2010), into the
Georgia SIP (Georgia’s Regulation 391–
3–1–.02(7)—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality) 13 to
address the thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability.
Georgia is currently a SIP-approved
State for the PSD program, and has
incorporated by reference EPA’s 2002
NSR reform revisions for PSD at 40 CFR
52.21 into its SIP.14 The State has
informed EPA that it interprets SIP Rule
391–3–1-.02(7), which includes the
preconstruction review program
required by Part C of title I of the CAA,
as providing it with authority to issue
13 Georgia’s submittal also relates to title V
provisions which are not included in the SIP. As
such, EPA is not proposing to take action to
approve Georgia’s update to their title V regulations
in this rulemaking.
14 On September 4, 2008, EPA proposed to
approve Georgia’s submittal related to the 2002 NSR
reform rules. See 73 FR 51606. EPA considered the
comments received on the September 4, 2008,
proposal, and has addressed the comments in a
final rulemaking that was signed on November 12,
2010.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
PSD permits governing GHGs. Georgia’s
current PSD program incorporates by
reference the Federal requirements,
found at 40 CFR 52.21 (adopted prior to
the promulgation of EPA’s Tailoring
Rule), into the State’s major source PSD
program (which applies to major
stationary sources having the potential
to emit at least 100-tpy or 250-tpy or
more of a regulated NSR pollutant,
depending on the type of source or
modifications constructing in areas
designated attainment or unclassifiable
with respect to the NAAQS).
This current SIP revision to Georgia’s
Regulation 391–3–1-.02(7) (the subject
of this proposed rulemaking)
incorporates by reference the provisions
at 40 CFR 52.21 as amended by the
promulgation of the Tailoring Rule.
Specifically, Georgia’s September 30,
2010 revision updates its existing
incorporation by reference of the
Federal NSR program to include the
relevant Federal Tailoring Rule
provisions set forth at 40 CFR 52.21.
EPA has preliminarily determined that
Georgia’s proposed SIP revision is
consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
Furthermore, EPA has preliminarily
determined that this revision to
Georgia’s SIP is consistent with section
110 of the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring
Rule, 75 FR at 31561.
B. Analysis Regarding Georgia’s
Changes To Incorporate the NSR PM2.5
Requirements for PSD
Georgia’s Regulation 391–3–1-.02(7)
(the subject of this proposed
rulemaking) also incorporates by
reference the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21
as amended by the promulgation of the
NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD. Specifically,
Georgia’s September 30, 2010, revision
updates its existing incorporation by
reference of the Federal NSR program to
include the relevant Federal NSR PM2.5
Rule provisions for PSD set forth at 40
CFR 52.21. However, in light of EPA’s
proposed rulemaking to repeal the PM2.5
‘‘grandfathering’’ provision, as noted in
section IV.B. above, Georgia’s revision
excludes adoption of the relevant
Federal rule provision, 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(ix). EPA has preliminarily
determined that Georgia’s proposed SIP
revision is consistent with the NSR
PM2.5 Rule for PSD. Furthermore, EPA
has preliminarily determined that this
revision to Georgia’s SIP is consistent
with section 110 of the CAA.
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s
September 30, 2010, SIP revision,
relating to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources and for the PM2.5
NAAQS. Specifically, Georgia’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
September 30, 2010, proposed SIP
revision establishes appropriate
emissions thresholds for determining
PSD applicability with respect to new
and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule,
and incorporates Federal requirements
related to PSD for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is
approvable because it is in accordance
with the CAA and EPA regulations
regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and
for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves the State’s law
as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
the State’s law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73025
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 18, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010–29951 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0656; FRL–9232–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio;
Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area; 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the maintenance plan for
the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton, OH–KY–IN 8-hour ozone
area. The Cincinnati-Hamilton area
includes Butler, Clermont, Clinton,
Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio,
Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn
County, Indiana, and Boone, Campbell,
and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. The
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted a maintenance
plan revision on July 6, 2010. The
submittal contained revisions to 2015
and 2020 NOX point source emissions
projections for Butler County to reflect
modifications at a major source that will
occur during the maintenance period.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73017-73025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29951]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816-201057; FRL-9233-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
and Fine Particulate Matter Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the Georgia
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Georgia,
through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Environmental
Protection Division (EPD), to EPA on September 30, 2010, for parallel
processing. The proposed revision makes two changes for which EPA is
proposing approval in today's rulemaking. First, the proposed SIP
revision modifies Georgia's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Specifically, the proposed SIP
revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to Georgia's PSD permitting requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Second, the proposed SIP revision incorporates provisions
for implementing the PSD program for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). The first component of this proposed SIP revision
is necessary because without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements
would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels provided under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which would overwhelm Georgia's
permitting
[[Page 73018]]
resources. The second component of this proposed SIP revision
(addressing the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS)) is necessary to comply with Federal regulations related to PSD
permitting. EPA is proposing approval of Georgia's September 30, 2010,
SIP revision because the Agency has made the preliminary determination
that this SIP revision is in accordance with the CAA and EPA
regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and the PM2.5
NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0816 by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0816.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Georgia
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address: bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For information
regarding the GHG Tailoring Rule and the PM2.5 NAAQS PSD
requirements, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits Section, at the
same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is (404) 562-9185; e-
mail address: abrams.heather@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's Notice?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
Notice regarding PSD Permitting Requirements for GHG-emitting
sources?
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and
EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
IV. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
Notice regarding the PSD Permitting Requirements for the
PM2.5 NAAQS?
V. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's proposed SIP revision?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's Notice?
On September 30, 2010,\1\ EPD submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Georgia SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to Georgia's PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Final approval of Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP revision
will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set
forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule, ensuring that smaller GHG sources
emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting
requirements when these requirements begin applying to GHGs on January
2, 2011. Additionally, Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP revision
incorporates Federal requirements into Georgia's SIP for PSD permitting
related to the PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these changes into the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With respect to PM2.5, Georgia's September 30,
2010, SIP revision only addresses PSD requirements. The
nonattainment NSR provisions for Georgia for the PM2.5
NAAQS are still under development at the State level and are not due
to EPA until May 16, 2011. Additionally, Georgia's submittal
contains provisions at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(2)(iv)(I) and (II) of
Georgia's PSD regulations that would render Georgia's regulation or
a portion thereof automatically invalid in the wake of certain court
decisions or other events. At this time, EPA is not proposing to
approve this provision into the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this draft SIP revision is not yet State-effective, Georgia
requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision. Under this
procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the State while
developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the State submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before
conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed State action
and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice
[[Page 73019]]
of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public
comment in approximately the same time frame during which the State is
holding its public hearing. The State and EPA thus provide for public
comment periods on both the State and the Federal actions in parallel.
After Georgia submits the formal State-effective SIP revision
request (including a response to all public comments raised during the
State's public participation process), EPA will prepare a final
rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP
revision after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must
be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are
significant, then EPA may be obliged to re-propose the action. In
addition, if the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA's
re-proposal of the action would be a disapproval of the revision.
In addition to changes to address PSD permitting requirements for
GHGs and PM2.5, Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP revision
also includes: (1) A provision that excludes facilities that produce
ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR source permitting program;
and (2) a provision that incorporates by reference changes pursuant to
EPA's Fugitive Emissions Rule, 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008).\2\ In
today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to take action on
Georgia's changes to its PSD regulations to exclude facilities that
produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the
definition of ``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR permitting
program, nor is EPA proposing to take action on Georgia's changes to
incorporate the provisions of the Fugitive Emission Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule
(73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency
time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the
inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations.
Therefore, the 40 CFR part 51 and part 52 administrative regulations
that were amended by the Fugitive Emissions Rule are stayed through
October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
Notice regarding PSD permitting requirements for GHG-emitting sources?
Today's proposed action on the Georgia SIP primarily relates to
EPA's ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule,'' Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514. In
the Tailoring Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG emission thresholds
for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. These applicability thresholds were designed to ensure that
smaller GHG sources will not be subject to GHG permitting requirements.
While Georgia already has authority to issue PSD permits governing GHGs
when PSD requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011,
Georgia needs to amend its SIP to incorporate the Tailoring Rule's
applicability thresholds. Today's notice announces EPA's proposed
approval of a revision to Georgia's SIP that would put these
applicability thresholds in place.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On September 2, 2010, EPA proposed a ``SIP Call'' that would
require those States with SIPs that do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 75 FR
53892. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) that would apply in any State that is
unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). Because Georgia's SIP already authorizes
Georgia to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Georgia is not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What are GHGs and their sources?
A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical
support document for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule
(Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at https://www.regulations.gov). The endangerment finding rulemaking is discussed
later in this rulemaking. A summary of the nature and sources of GHGs
is provided below.
GHGs trap the Earth's heat that would otherwise escape from the
atmosphere into space and form the greenhouse effect that helps keep
the Earth warm enough for life. GHGs are naturally present in the
atmosphere and are also emitted by human activities. Human activities
are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect by
increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, which is changing the
climate in a way that endangers human health, society, and the natural
environment.
Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), are emitted to
the atmosphere through natural processes as well as human activities.
Other gases, such as fluorinated gases, are created and emitted solely
through human activities. The well-mixed GHGs of concern directly
emitted by human activities include CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hereafter referred to collectively as ``the six well-
mixed GHG,'' or, simply, GHGs. Together these six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the ``air pollutant'' upon which the GHG thresholds in EPA's
Tailoring Rule are based. These six gases remain in the atmosphere for
decades to centuries where they become well-mixed globally in the
atmosphere. When they are emitted more quickly than natural processes
can remove them from the atmosphere, their concentrations increase,
thus increasing the greenhouse effect.
In the U.S., the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas)
is the largest source of CO2 emissions and accounts for 80
percent of the total GHG emissions by mass. Anthropogenic
CO2 emissions released from a variety of sources, including
through the use of fossil fuel combustion and cement production from
geologically stored carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) that is
hundreds of millions of years old, as well as anthropogenic
CO2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation,
perturb the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and the
distribution of carbon within different reservoirs readjusts. More than
half of the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources
such as power plants, while about a third come from transportation. Of
the six well-mixed GHGs, four (CO2, CH4,
N2O, and HFCs) are emitted by motor vehicles. In the U.S.,
industrial processes (such as the production of cement, steel, and
aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste management
are also important sources of GHGs.
Different GHGs have different heat-trapping capacities. The concept
of Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to compare the heat-
trapping capacity and atmospheric lifetime of one GHG to another. The
definition of a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped
by one unit mass of the GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2
over a specified time period. When quantities of the different GHGs are
multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be summed and compared
on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. For example,
CH4 has a GWP of 21, meaning each ton of CH4
emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming over a
100-year time horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, on
the basis of heat-trapping capability, 1 ton of CH4 would
equal 21 tons of CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2
GHG range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for
SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e basis at the
source level allows a facility
[[Page 73020]]
to evaluate its total GHG emissions contribution based on a single
metric.
B. What are the general requirements of the PSD program?
1. Overview of the PSD Program
The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications at
existing stationary sources. The PSD program applies in areas that are
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD program is contained in part C of
title I of the CAA. The ``nonattainment NSR'' program applies in areas
not in attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region, and it
is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
Collectively, EPA commonly refers to these two programs as the major
NSR program. The governing EPA rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S and W. There is no
NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor has
EPA proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, unless and until EPA takes
further such action, the nonattainment NSR program does not apply to
GHGs.
The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined
in advance of construction or modification and is pollutant-specific.
The primary criterion in determining PSD applicability is whether the
proposed project is sufficiently large (in terms of its emissions) to
be a major stationary source or modification, both of which are
described below. EPA has implemented these requirements in its
regulations, which use somewhat different terminology than the CAA
does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Sources
Under PSD, a ``major stationary source'' is any source belonging to
a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the CAA, or any other source type that emits or has
the potential to emit such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater
than 250 tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We refer to these levels
as the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new source with a potential to emit
(PTE) at or above the applicable ``major stationary source threshold''
is subject to major NSR. These limits originate from section 169 of the
CAA, which applies PSD to any ``major emitting facility'' and defines
the term to include any source that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250
tpy, depending on the source category. Note that the major source
definition incorporates the phrase ``subject to regulation,'' which, as
described later, will begin to include GHGs on January 2, 2011, under
our interpretation of that phrase as discussed in the recent memorandum
entitled, ``EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Permit Program.'' 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
PSD also applies to existing sources that undertake a ``major
modification,'' which occurs when: (1) There is a physical change in,
or change in the method of operation of, a ``major stationary source;''
(2) the change results in a ``significant'' emissions increase of a
pollutant subject to regulation (equal to or above the significance
level that EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)); and
(3) there is a ``significant net emissions increase'' of a pollutant
subject to regulation that is equal to or above the significance level
(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). Significance levels, which EPA has
promulgated for criteria pollutants and certain other pollutants,
represent a de minimis contribution to air quality problems. When EPA
has not set a significance level for a regulated NSR pollutant, PSD
applies to an increase of the pollutant in any amount (that is, in
effect, the significance level is treated as zero).
2. General Requirements for PSD
This section provides a very brief summary of the main requirements
of the PSD program. One principal requirement is that a new major
source or major modification must apply best available control
technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking
into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the
control and energy and environmental impacts. EPA has developed a
``top-down'' approach for BACT review, which involves a decision
process that includes identification of all available control
technologies, elimination of technically infeasible options, ranking of
remaining options by control and cost effectiveness, and then selection
of BACT. Under PSD, once a source is determined to be major for any
regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review is performed for each attainment
pollutant that exceeds its PSD significance level as part of new
construction or for modification projects at the source, where there is
a significant increase and a significant net emissions increase of such
pollutant.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in
this fashion for all pollutants--when new sources or modifications
are ``major,'' PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does
not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to
their GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to performing BACT, the source must analyze impacts on
ambient air quality to assure that its emissions do not cause or
contribute to violation of any NAAQS or PSD increments and must analyze
impacts on soil, vegetation, and visibility. In addition, sources or
modifications that would impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks)
may be subject to additional requirements to protect air quality
related values (AQRVs) that have been identified for such areas. Under
PSD, if a source's proposed project impacts a Class I area, the Federal
Land Manager is notified and is responsible for evaluating a source's
projected impact on the AQRVs and recommending either approval or
disapproval of the source's permit application based on anticipated
impacts.
Because there are no NAAQS or PSD increments established for GHGs,
the requirement to demonstrate that a source does not cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS is not applicable to GHGs.
Furthermore, consistent with EPA's statement in the Tailoring Rule, EPA
believes it is not necessary for applicants or permitting authorities
to assess impacts from GHGs in the context of the additional impacts
analysis or Class I area provisions of the PSD regulations for the
following policy reasons. Although it is clear that GHG emissions
contribute to global warming and other climate changes that result in
impacts on the environment, including impacts on Class I areas and
soils and vegetation, due to the global scope of the problem, climate
change modeling and evaluations of risks and impacts of GHG emissions
typically are conducted for emission changes orders of magnitude larger
than the emissions from individual projects that might be analyzed in
PSD permit reviews. Quantifying the exact impacts attributable to a
specific GHG source obtaining a permit in specific places and points
would not be possible with current climate change modeling. Given these
considerations, GHG emissions would serve as the more appropriate and
credible proxy for assessing the impact of a given facility. Thus, EPA
believes that the most practical way to address the considerations
reflected in the Class I area and additional impacts
[[Page 73021]]
analysis is to focus on reducing GHG emissions to the maximum extent.
In light of these analytical challenges, compliance with the BACT
analysis is the best technique that can be employed at present to
satisfy the additional impacts analysis and Class I area requirements
of the rules related to GHGs.
However, if PSD is triggered for a GHG-emitting source, all
regulated NSR pollutants that the source emits in significant amounts
would be subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, if a facility triggers
review for regulated NSR pollutants that are non-GHG pollutants for
which there are established NAAQS or increments, the air quality,
additional impacts, and Class I requirements must be satisfied for
those pollutants and the applicant and permitting authority are
required to conduct the necessary analysis.
Pursuant to existing PSD requirements, the permitting authority
must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source's
application for a PSD permit and must provide an opportunity for
comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After
considering and responding to comments, the permitting authority must
issue a final determination on the construction permit. Usually NSR
permits are issued by a State or local air pollution control agency
that has its own authority to issue PSD permits under a permit program
that has been approved by EPA for inclusion in its SIP. In some areas,
EPA has delegated its authority to issue PSD permits under Federal
regulations to the State or local agency. In other areas, EPA issues
the permits under its own authority.
C. What are the CAA requirements to include the PSD program in the SIP?
The CAA contemplates that the PSD program be implemented in the
first instance by the States and requires that States include PSD
requirements in their SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that--
Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * include a program to
provide for * * * regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are
achieved, including a permit program as required in part [C] * * *
of this subchapter.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that--
Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * meet the applicable
requirements of * * * part C of this subchapter (relating to
significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).
CAA section 161 provides that--
[E]ach applicable implementation plan shall contain emission
limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated under this part [C], to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region * *
* designated * * * as attainment or unclassifiable.
These provisions, read in conjunction with the PSD applicability
provisions as well as other provisions such as the BACT provision under
CAA Section 165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are
applicable to, among other things, any air pollutant that is subject to
regulation. As discussed below, this includes GHGs on and after January
2, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued,
with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS
pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75
FR at 31560-62. EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the Agency
incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of States do not have PSD programs approved into their
SIPs. In those States, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 govern, and
either EPA or the State as EPA's delegatee acts as the permitting
authority. However, most States have PSD programs that have been
approved into their SIPs, and these States implement their PSD programs
and act as the permitting authority. Georgia has a SIP-approved PSD
program.
D. What actions has EPA taken concerning PSD requirements for GHG-
emitting sources?
1. What are the Endangerment Finding, the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and
the Johnson Memo Reconsideration?
By notice dated December 15, 2009, and pursuant to CAA section
202(a), EPA issued two findings regarding GHGs that are commonly
referred to as the ``Endangerment Finding'' and the ``Cause or
Contribute Finding.'' ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR
66496. In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that six
long-lived and directly emitted GHGs--CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6--may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In the Cause or
Contribute Finding, the Administrator ``defin[ed] the air pollutant as
the aggregate group of the same six * * * greenhouse gases,'' 74 FR at
66536, and found that the combined emissions of this air pollutant from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG
air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA published what is commonly
referred to as the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule'' (LDVR), which for the
first time established Federal controls on GHGs emitted from light-duty
vehicles. ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324. In
its applicability provisions, the LDVR specifies that it ``contains
standards and other regulations applicable to the emission * * * of six
greenhouse gases,'' including CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at 25686 (40 CFR
86.1818-12(a)).
On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, ``EPA's
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program''
(known as the ``Johnson Memo'' or the ``PSD Interpretive Memo,'' and
referred to in this preamble as the ``Interpretive Memo''), that set
forth EPA's interpretation regarding which EPA and State actions, with
respect to a previously unregulated pollutant, cause that pollutant to
become ``subject to regulation'' under the Act. Whether a pollutant is
``subject to regulation'' is important for the purposes of determining
whether it is covered under the Federal PSD permitting program. The
Interpretive Memo established that a pollutant is ``subject to
regulation'' only if it is subject to either a provision in the CAA or
regulation adopted by EPA under the CAA that requires actual control of
emissions of that pollutant (referred to as the ``actual control
interpretation''). On February 17, 2009, EPA granted a petition for
reconsideration on the Interpretive Memo and announced its intent to
conduct a rulemaking to allow for public comment on the issues raised
in the memorandum and on related issues. EPA also clarified that the
Interpretive Memo would remain in effect pending reconsideration.
On April 2, 2010, EPA published a notice conveying its decision to
continue applying (with one limited refinement) the Interpretive Memo's
interpretation of ``subject to regulation.'' ``Reconsideration of
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by
Clean Air Act Permitting Programs,'' 75 FR 17004. EPA concluded that
the ``actual control interpretation'' is the most appropriate
interpretation to apply given the policy implications. However, EPA
refined the Agency's interpretation in one respect: EPA
[[Page 73022]]
established that PSD permitting requirements apply to a newly regulated
pollutant at the time a regulatory requirement to control emissions of
that pollutant ``takes effect'' (rather than upon promulgation or the
legal effective date of the regulation containing such a requirement).
In addition, based on the anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, EPA
stated that the GHG requirements of the vehicle rule would take effect
on January 2, 2011, because that is the earliest date that a 2012 model
year vehicle may be introduced into commerce. In other words, the
compliance obligation under the LDVR does not occur until a
manufacturer may introduce into commerce vehicles that are required to
comply with GHG standards, which will begin with model year 2012 and
will not occur before January 2, 2011.
2. What is EPA's Tailoring Rule?
On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of the rule,
fall on permitting authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. EPA
accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that
determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program
\6\ of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the Tailoring Rule a
phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two
steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA
committed to certain follow-up actions regarding future steps beyond
the first two, discussed in more detail later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Georgia's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which will begin on
January 2, 2011, PSD requirements will apply to major stationary source
GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to
their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely on account of their GHG
emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2,
2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the BACT
requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by
at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, but only if the project also
significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011,
will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources
that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In
addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least
100,000 tpy CO2e and that undertake a modification that
increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e will
also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA notes that if
sources or modifications exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG
triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements unless their
GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
EPA believes that the costs to the sources and the administrative
burdens to the permitting authorities of PSD permitting will be
manageable at the levels in these initial two steps and that it would
be administratively infeasible to subject additional sources to PSD
requirements at those times. However, EPA also intends to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011, in which the Agency
will propose or solicit comment on a third step of the phase-in that
would include more sources, beginning on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring
Rule, EPA established an enforceable commitment that the Agency will
complete this rulemaking by July 1, 2012, which will allow for one
year's notice before Step 3 would take effect.
In addition, EPA committed to explore streamlining techniques that
may well make the permitting programs much more efficient to administer
for GHG, and that therefore may allow their expansion to smaller
sources. EPA expects that the initial streamlining techniques will take
several years to develop and implement.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also included a provision that no source
with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e and no modification
resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy CO2e
will be subject to PSD permitting before at least 6 years (i.e., April
30, 2016). This is because EPA has concluded that at the present time,
the administrative burdens that would accompany permitting sources
below this level would be so great that even with the streamlining
actions that EPA may be able to develop and implement in the next
several years, and even with the increases in permitting resources that
EPA can reasonably expect the permitting authorities to acquire, it
would be impossible to administer the permit programs for these sources
until at least 2016.
As EPA explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations
are necessary because without them PSD would apply to all stationary
sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date
when EPA's recently promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control
requirements for the first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If
this January 2, 2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule
being in effect, PSD requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the
100/250 tpy applicability levels provided under a literal reading of
the CAA as of that date. From that point forward, a source owner
proposing to construct any new major source that emits at or higher
than the applicability levels (and which therefore may be referred to
as a ``major'' source) or modify any existing major source in a way
that would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a permit under
the PSD program that addresses these emissions before construction or
modification could begin.
Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by
the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and
permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining,
require. Additionally, State and local permitting authorities would be
burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications,
which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of
permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of
the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny
fraction of the permits requested.
The Tailoring Rule's thresholds are based on CO2e for
the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant that will
be subject to regulation, which we refer to as GHG.\7\ These gases are
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6. Thus, in EPA's Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that PSD
applicability is based on the quantity that results when the mass
emissions of each of these gases is multiplied by the GWP of that gas,
and then summed for all six gases. However, EPA further provided that
in order for a source's GHG emissions to trigger PSD requirements, the
quantity of the GHG
[[Page 73023]]
emissions must equal or exceed both the applicability thresholds
established in the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and the
statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy on a mass basis.\8\ Similarly,
in order for a source to be subject to the PSD modification
requirements, the source's net GHG emissions increase must exceed the
applicable significance level on a CO2e basis and must also
result in a net mass increase of the constituent gases combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The term ``greenhouse gases'' is commonly used to refer
generally to gases that have heat-trapping properties. However, in
this notice, unless noted otherwise, we use it to refer specifically
to the pollutant regulated in the LDVR.
\8\ The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy
for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for
which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying
the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many State,
local and Tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately
implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011.\9\ On August 2, 2010, Georgia provided a letter to EPA confirming
that the State has the authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG
emissions as of January 2, 2011, but explaining that Georgia needs to
amend its SIP to enable it to implement the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Georgia's
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal
purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the
Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under
Federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG
PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either
(1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach,
or (2) if a State opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the
State demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle
permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those
States for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule
thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is the GHG SIP Call?
By Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed
the GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with the companion GHG FIP
rulemaking published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure that in
the 13 States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD permits
to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the State or EPA will have
the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA explained
that although for most States either the State or EPA is already
authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources as of that
date, our preliminary information shows that these 13 States have EPA-
approved PSD programs that do not appear to include GHG-emitting
sources and therefore do not appear to authorize these States to issue
PSD permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to find that these
13 States' SIPs are substantially inadequate to comply with CAA
requirements and, accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP Call to require
a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting
sources. In the companion GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a FIP that
would give EPA authority to apply EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting
sources in any State that is unable to submit a corrective SIP revision
by its deadline. Georgia was not one of the States for which EPA
proposed a SIP Call.
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and EPA's
proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
As noted above, by notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any
State that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to
ensure that the State has authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-
emitting sources.\10\ As discussed in Section IV of this rulemaking,
Georgia interprets its current PSD regulations as providing it with the
authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, Georgia is not included on the
list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Additionally, Georgia would
not be subject to the FIP to implement GHG for PSD applicability.
Georgia's September 30, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject of
this rulemaking) merely modifies Georgia's SIP to establish appropriate
thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions
under the PSD program of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892,
53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial
inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed States by December 1,
2010. EPA requested that the States for which EPA is proposing a SIP
call identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from the
date of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
Notice regarding the PSD Permitting Requirements for the
PM2.5 NAAQS?
Today's proposed action on the Georgia SIP also relates to EPA's
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' Final Rule (the
NSR PM2.5 Rule). 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). In the NSR
PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized regulations to implement the NSR
program for fine particulate matter. As a result of EPA's final NSR
PM2.5 Rule, States are required to provide SIP submissions
no later than May 16, 2011, to address those requirements for both the
PSD and nonattainment NSR programs. Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP
revision addresses the PSD requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Georgia will provide a subsequent SIP revision to address the
nonattainment NSR requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS. More
detail on the NSR PM2.5 Rule can be found in EPA's May 16,
2008, final rule and is summarized below.
A. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS for PM2.5
Fine particles in the atmosphere are made up of a complex mixture
of components. Common constituents include sulfate (SO4);
nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety
of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust,
sea salt, and other trace elements) generally referred to as
``crustal'' material, although it may contain material from other
sources. Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a micrometer is one-millionth of a
meter, and 2.5 micrometers is less than one-seventh the average width
of a human hair) are considered to be ``fine particles'' and are also
known as PM2.5. ``Primary'' particles are emitted directly
into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental carbon from
diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles
from gasoline engines). ``Secondary'' particles (e.g., sulfate and
nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical
reactions.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator.
(Previously EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles smaller than,
or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the PM
NAAQS.) EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour
standards for PM2.5,
[[Page 73024]]
setting an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\.
62 FR 38652. At the time the 1997 primary standards were established,
EPA also established welfare-based (secondary) standards identical to
the primary standards. The secondary standards are designed to protect
against major environmental effects of PM2.5, such as
visibility impairment, soiling, and materials damage. On October 17,
2006, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5.
In that rulemaking, EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5
to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the existing annual PM2.5
NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144.
B. Implementation of NSR for the PM2.5 NAAQS
After EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 1997, the
Agency issued a guidance document entitled ``Interim Implementation of
New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5.'' John S. Seitz,
EPA, October 23, 1997 (the ``Seitz memo'').\11\ The Seitz memo was
designed to help States implement PSD requirements pertaining to the
new PM2.5 NAAQS in light of known technical difficulties
posed by PM2.5, including 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. Specifically, the Seitz
memo authorized sources to use implementation of a PM10
program as a surrogate for meeting PM2.5 PSD requirements
until EPA resolved these technical difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA also issued a guidance document entitled
``Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5
Nonattainment Areas'' (the ``2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR
Guidance''), on April 5, 2005, the date that EPA's PM2.5
nonattainment area designations became effective. This memorandum
provides 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
nonattainment area designations (April 5, 2005) and EPA's
promulgation of final PM2.5 nonattainment NSR
regulations. Besides re-affirming the continuation of the
PM10 Surrogate Policy for PM2.5 attainment
areas set forth in the Seitz memo, the 2005 PM2.5
Nonattainment NSR Guidance recommended that until EPA promulgates
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. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking,
Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP revision only relates to the PSD
provisions for the PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized a rule to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, including changes to the NSR program. See 73 FR
28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program
requirements to establish the framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both
attainment and nonattainment areas. In summary, the NSR
PM2.5 Rule: (1) Requires NSR permits to address directly
emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (2) establishes
significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor
pollutants; (3) allows interpollutant trading under the
PM2.5 nonattainment NSR program; and (4) requires States to
address condensable PM in establishing enforceable emission limits.
With two exceptions, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule requires that
major stationary sources seeking permits must begin directly satisfying
the PM2.5 requirements as of the effective date of the rule,
rather than relying on PM10 as a surrogate. The first
exception is a ``grandfathering'' provision in the Federal PSD program
at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering provision applied to
sources that had applied for, but had not yet received, a final and
effective PSD permit before the July 15, 2008 effective date of the May
2008 final rule. The second exception was that States with SIP-approved
PSD programs could continue to implement the Seitz Memo's
PM10 Surrogate Policy for up to three years (until May 2011)
or until the individual revised State PSD programs for PM2.5
are approved by EPA, whichever comes first. For additional information
on the NSR PM2.5 Rule, see 73 FR 28321.
On February 11, 2010, EPA proposed to repeal the grandfathering
provision for PM2.5 contained in the Federal PSD program at
40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), and to end early the PM10 Surrogate
Policy applicable in States that have a SIP-approved PSD program. 75 FR
6827. In support of this proposal, EPA explained that the
PM2.5 implementation issues that led to the adoption of the
PM10 Surrogate Policy in 1997 have been largely resolved to
a degree sufficient for sources and permitting authorities to conduct
meaningful permit-related PM2.5 analyses. EPA has not yet
taken final action on this proposal.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Additional information on this issue can also be found in
an August 12, 2009, final order on a title V petition describing the
use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. In the
Matter of Louisville Gas & Electric Company, Petition No. IV-2008-3,
Order on Petition (August 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia's September 30, 2010, submittal addresses the PSD
requirements related to EPA's May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule.
Though EPA has not finalized a repeal of the PM2.5
grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), Georgia elected not
to include this provision in its SIP submittal.
V. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's SIP revision?
On September 30, 2010, EPD provided a revision to Georgia's SIP to
EPA for parallel processing and eventual approval. The proposed change
pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs is necessary because without it
PSD requirements would apply for GHGs, as of January 2, 2011, at the
100- or 250-tpy levels provided under the CAA. This would greatly
increase the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small
sources; which would overwhelm Georgia's permitting resources and
severely impair the function of the program. The proposed change
pertaining to PSD permitting for PM2.5 is necessary to
comply with Federal requirements. More detail regarding EPA's analysis
of the proposed changes to Georgia's SIP (as provided in the September
30, 2010, submittal) is provided below.
A. Analysis Regarding Georgia's Changes To Incorporate the Tailoring
Rule
The State of Georgia's September 30, 2010, proposed SIP revision
establishes thresholds for determining which stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under Georgia's PSD program. Specifically, Georgia's
September 30, 2010, proposed SIP revision incorporates by reference the
Federal Tailoring Rule provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 (as amended June 3,
2010, and effective August 2, 2010), into the Georgia SIP (Georgia's
Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality) \13\ to address the thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Georgia's submittal also relates to title V provisions
which are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA is not proposing to
take action to approve Georgia's update to their title V regulations
in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia is currently a SIP-approved State for the PSD program, and
has incorporated by reference EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD
at 40 CFR 52.21 into its SIP.\14\ The State has informed EPA that it
interprets SIP Rule 391-3-1-.02(7), which includes the preconstruction
review program required by Part C of title I of the CAA, as providing
it with authority to issue
[[Page 73025]]
PSD permits governing GHGs. Georgia's current PSD program incorporates
by reference the Federal requirements, found at 40 CFR 52.21 (adopted
prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule), into the State's
major source PSD program (which applies to major stationary sources
having the potential to emit at least 100-tpy or 250-tpy or more of a
regulated NSR pollutant, depending on the type of source or
modifications constructing in areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ On September 4, 2008, EPA proposed to approve Georgia's
submittal related to the 2002 NSR reform rules. See 73 FR 51606. EPA
considered the comments received on the September 4, 2008, proposal,
and has addressed the comments in a final rulemaking that was signed
on November 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This current SIP revision to Georgia's Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7)
(the subject of this proposed rulemaking) incorporates by reference the
provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 as amended by the promulgation of the
Tailoring Rule. Specifically, Georgia's September 30, 2010 revision
updates its existing incorporation by reference of the Federal NSR
program to include the relevant Federal Tailoring Rule provisions set
forth at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has preliminarily determined that Georgia's
proposed SIP revision is consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
Furthermore, EPA has preliminarily determined that this revision to
Georgia's SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g.,
Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561.
B. Analysis Regarding Georgia's Changes To Incorporate the NSR
PM2.5 Requirements for PSD
Georgia's Regulation 391-3-1-.02(7) (the subject of this proposed
rulemaking) also incorporates by reference the provisions at 40 CFR
52.21 as amended by the promulgation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule
for PSD. Specifically, Georgia's September 30, 2010, revision updates
its existing incorporation by reference of the Federal NSR program to
include the relevant Federal NSR PM2.5 Rule provisions for
PSD set forth at 40 CFR 52.21. However, in light of EPA's proposed
rulemaking to repeal the PM2.5 ``grandfathering'' provision,
as noted in section IV.B. above, Georgia's revision excludes adoption
of the relevant Federal rule provision, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(ix). EPA has
preliminarily determined that Georgia's proposed SIP revision is
consistent with the NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD. Furthermore, EPA
has preliminarily determined that this revision to Georgia's SIP is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP
revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources and for
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, Georgia's September 30, 2010,
proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability with respect to new and modified GHG-
emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule, and
incorporates Federal requirements related to PSD for the
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the
CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs and for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the State's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the State's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
