Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review-Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 2871-2878 [2013-00581]

Download as PDF Vol. 78 Monday, No. 9 January 14, 2013 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 2872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622; FRL–9770–2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve portions of two SIP revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’’ Environmental Protection Division (EPD), on September 26, 2006(with a clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) and July 26, 2012. The September 26, 2006, SIP submission makes multiple changes to the Georgia SIP including the State’s permit exemption provisions. The July 26, 2012, submission includes changes to Georgia’s New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to incorporate by reference (IBR) federal PSD requirements regarding fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increments, significant impact levels (SILs), significant monitoring concentration (SMC) and the deferral of, until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources as well as additional air quality rule revisions. EPA is proposing to approve portions of both SIP revisions because the Agency has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding NSR permitting. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2013. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2012–0622 by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622, 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 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 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–2012– 0622.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 www.regulations.gov. or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov. your email 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 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 www.regulations.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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; email address: bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For information regarding NSR, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms. Adams’ telephone number is (404) 562–9241; email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. For information regarding the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Huey’s telephone number is (404) 562–9104; email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What action is EPA proposing? II. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action? III. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s SIP revision? IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA proposing? On July 26, 2012, EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval into the Georgia SIP to IBR 1 federal NSR PSD permitting requirements at Georgia’s Air Quality Control Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)— Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. These rule changes were provided to comply with federal NSR permitting regulations and include provisions related to the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for the PSD program as promulgated in the rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 1 Throughout this document IBR means incorporate or incorporates by reference. E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC), Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as ‘‘PM2.5 PSD IncrementSILs-SMC Rule’’) and the deferral until July 21, 2014, of the application of PSD permitting requirement to biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources as promulgated in the rule entitled, ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs,’’ Final Rule, 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011) (hereafter referred to as CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule). Additionally, the July 26, 2012, SIP revision (1) IBR into Georgia SIP EPA’s interim rulemaking entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions,’’ 76 FR 17548 (March 30, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule’’); (2) requests that EPA remove from the SIP the exclusion language at Rule 391–3– 1–.02(7) regarding the coarse particle pollution (PM10) surrogate and grandfathering provision promulgated in the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers,’’ 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’); (3) amends the definitions Rule 391–3–1– .01(nnn)—Definitions regarding testing and monitoring of air pollutants; (4) amends Rules 391–3–1–.02(2)(c)— Incinerators; and (5) revises Rule 391– 3–1–.03(6)—Exemptions by adding a new exemption for cumulative small modifications at an existing quarry where the quarry is not a major source and the associated emissions increase is less than 10 tons per year of particulate matter and PM10. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Georgia’s September 26, 2006, SIP submittal 2 which adds new text at 391– 3–1–.03(6)(i)(3) regarding Georgia’s permit exemptions. The two elements of EPD’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal that EPA is not proposing to approve in this action are: (1) Incorporation of the SIL thresholds and provisions promulgated in EPA’s 2 On September 26, 2006, Georgia submitted to EPA multiple SIP revisions to Georgia’s Air Quality Rules found at Chapter 391–3–1. A clarifying revision was submitted on November 6, 2006. EPA took action on a portion of Georgia’s September 26, 2006, submittal in multiple actions published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6309) and December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74624). Action on the remaining portions of the September 26, 2006, submittal is still under consideration and will be addressed in separate actions. See 75 FR 74624. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 2873 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (for reasons explained later in this notice); and (2) Rules 391–3–1– .02(www)—Sewage Sludge Incineration, 391–3–1–.03(9)—Permit Fees, 391–3–1– .02(8)(b)—New Source Performance Standards and 391–3–1–.02(9)(b)— Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, as these regulations are not part of Georgia’s federally approved SIP. thresholds for the various pollutants are useful tools that enable permitting authorities and PSD applicants to screen out ‘‘insignificant’’ activities; however, these values are not required by the Act as part of an approvable SIP program. EPA believes that most states are likely to adopt the SILs and SMCs because of the useful purpose they serve regardless of EPA’s position that the values are not mandatory. Alternatively, states may II. What is the background for EPA’s develop more stringent values if they proposed action? desire to do so. In any case, states are Today’s proposed action to revise the not under any statutory deadline for Georgia SIP relates to PSD provisions revising their PSD programs to add promulgated in EPA’s PM2.5 PSD these screening tools. See 75 FR 64864, Increment-SILs-SMC Rule and CO2 64900. Biomass Deferral Rule. Additionally, the Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision July 26, 2012, SIP revision addresses IBR the NSR changes promulgated in EPA’s repeal of the grandfathering the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule provision as promulgated in the Rule to be consistent with the federal NSR entitled ‘‘Implementation of the New regulations and to appropriately Source Review Program for Particulate implement the State’s NSR program for Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers the PM2.5 NAAQS. More detail on the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (PM2.5); Final Rule to Repeal can be found in EPA’s October 20, 2010, Grandfather Provision’’ (76 FR 28646, final rule and is summarized below. See May 18, 2011) and the extension of the 75 FR 64864. For the reasons explained stay in the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule. More details regarding these rules below, EPA is not proposing to take action to approve the SILs (promulgated are found in the respective final rulemakings and are summarized below. in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule) into the Georgia SIP in this For more information on the NSR rulemaking. EPA’s authority to Program and the PM2.5 NAAQS please implement the SILs and SMC for PSD refer to the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILspurposes has been challenged by the SMC Rule and the NSR PM2.5 Rule. Sierra Club. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case A. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC-Rule No. 10–1413 (D.C. Circuit Court).4 More On October 20, 2010, EPA finalized details regarding Georgia’s changes to its the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule PSD regulations are also summarized to provide additional regulatory below in Section III. requirements under the PSD program What are PSD increments? regarding the implementation of the As established in part C of title I of PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR. Specifically, the the CAA, EPA’s PSD program protects rule establishes: (1) PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to public health from adverse effects of air pollution by ensuring that construction prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS; (2) of new or modified sources in SILs used as a screening tool (by a major attainment or unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant deterioration of source subject to PSD) to evaluate the air quality while simultaneously impact a proposed major source or ensuring that economic growth will modification may have on the NAAQS occur in a manner consistent with or PSD increment; and (3) a SMC (also a screening tool) used by a major source preservation of clean air resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a subject to PSD to determine if a source must submit to the permitting authority PSD permit applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the proposed one year of pre-construction air quality monitoring data prior to constructing or construction and operation of a facility ‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air modifying a facility. As part of the pollution in excess of any maximum response to comments on the October allowable increase or allowable 20, 2010, final rulemaking, EPA concentration for any pollutant.’’ In explained that the Agency agrees that the SILs and SMCs used as de minimis 3 other words, when a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated pollutant in an area that meets the NAAQS, the state 3 The de minimis principle is grounded in the decision described by the court case Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In this case, reviewing EPA’s 1978 PSD regulations, the court recognized that ‘‘there is likely a basis for an implication of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the burdens PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.’’ 636 F.2d at 360. 4 On April 6, 2012, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court defending the Agency’s authority to implement SILs and SMC for PSD purposes. E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 2874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with and EPA must determine if emissions of the regulated pollutant from the source will cause significant deterioration in air quality. Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the ‘‘maximum allowable increase’’ of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable baseline concentration 5 for that pollutant. PSD increments prevent air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate ‘‘significant deterioration’’ of air quality for a pollutant in an area. For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source is located as well as any other attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source’s emissions of that pollutant are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in an ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 microgram per meter cubed (mg/m3) (annual average). See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). Under EPA’s existing regulations, the establishment of a baseline area for any PSD increment results from the submission of the first complete PSD permit application and is based on the location of the proposed source and its emissions impact on the area. Once the baseline area is established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that area need to consider that a portion of the available increment may have already been consumed by previous emissions increases. In general, the submittal date of the first complete PSD permit application in a particular area is the operative ‘‘baseline date’’ after which new sources must evaluate increment consumption.6 On or before the date of the first complete PSD application, emissions generally are considered to be part of the baseline concentration, except for certain emissions from major stationary sources. Most emissions increases that occur after the baseline date will be counted toward the amount of increment consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases after the baseline date restore or expand the amount of increment that is available. See 75 FR 5 Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a PSD permit in the area. 6 Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a complete PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s new source or modification. Thus, an area may have different baseline dates for different pollutants. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, and pursuant to the authority under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new pollutant 7 for which NAAQS were established after August 7, 1977,8 and derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments for the three area classifications (Class I, II and III) using the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach. See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and ambient air increment table at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1) and 52.21(c). In addition to PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule amended the definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for ‘‘major source baseline date’’ and ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ (including trigger dates) to establish the PM2.5 NAAQS specific dates associated with the implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments. See 75 FR 64864. In accordance with section 166(b) of the CAA, EPA required the states to submit revised implementation plans to EPA for approval (to adopt the PM2.5 PSD increments) within 21 months from promulgation of the final rule (by July 20, 2012). Regardless of when a state submits its revised SIP, the emissions from major sources subject to PSD for PM2.5 for which construction commenced after October 20, 2010 (major source baseline date), consume PM2.5 increment and should be included in the increment analyses occurring after the minor source baseline date is established for an area under the state’s revised PSD program. See 75 FR 64864. As discussed in detail in Section III, Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the PM2.5 PSD increment permitting requirements promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. What are significant monitoring concentrations? Under the CAA and EPA regulations, an applicant for a PSD permit is required to gather preconstruction monitoring data in certain circumstances. CAA Section 165(a)(7) calls for ‘‘such monitoring as may be necessary to determine the effect which 7 EPA generally characterized the PM 2.5 NAAQS as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 as if PM2.5 was a new pollutant even though EPA had already developed air quality criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). 8 EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA promulgates a NAAQS after 1977. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions from any such facility may have, or is having, on air quality in any areas which may be affected by emissions from such source.’’ In addition, CAA section 165(e) requires an analysis of the air quality in areas affected by a proposed major facility or major modification and calls for gathering one year of monitoring data unless the reviewing authority determines that a complete and adequate analysis may be accomplished in a shorter period. These requirements are codified in EPA’s PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(m) and 40 CFR 52.21(m). In accordance with EPA’s Guideline for Air Quality Modeling (40 CFR part 51, appendix W), the preconstruction monitoring data are primarily used to determine background concentrations in modeling conducted to demonstrate that the proposed source or modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 9.2. SMCs are numerical values that represent thresholds of insignificant (i.e., de minimis), monitored (ambient) impacts on pollutant concentrations. In EPA’s PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, EPA established a SMC of 4 mg/m3 for PM2.5. Using the SMC as a screening tool, sources may be able to demonstrate that the modeled air quality impact of emissions from the new source or modification, or the existing air quality level in the area where the source would construct, is less than the SMC (i.e., de minimis), and as such, may be allowed to forego the preconstruction monitoring requirement for a particular pollutant at the discretion of the reviewing authority. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and 52.21(i)(5). SMCs are not minimum required elements of an approvable SIP under the CAA. This de minimis value is widely considered to be a useful component for implementing the PSD program, but is not absolutely necessary for the states to implement PSD programs. States can satisfy the statutory requirements for a PSD program by requiring each PSD applicant to submit air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 without using de minimis thresholds to exempt certain sources from such requirements. See 75 FR 64864. The PM2.5 SMC became effective under the federal PSD program on December 20, 2010. States with EPAapproved PSD programs that adopt the SMC for PM2.5, however, may use the SMC, once it is part of an approved SIP, to determine when it may be appropriate to exempt a particular major stationary source or major modification from the monitoring requirements under E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules its state PSD program. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, revision IBR the SMC provision into the Georgia SIP. Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit challenging EPA’s authority to implement the PM2.5 SILs 9 as well as the SMC for PSD purposes as promulgated in the October 20, 2010, rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10– 1413, D.C. Circuit Court. Specifically regarding the SMC, Sierra Club claims that the use of SMC to exempt a source from submitting a year’s worth of monitoring data is inconsistent with the CAA. EPA responded to Sierra Club’s claims in a brief dated April 6, 2012, which describes the Agency’s authority to develop and promulgate SMCs.10 A copy of EPA’s April 6, 2012, brief can be found in the docket for today’s rulemaking at https:// www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622. B. CO2 Biomass Deferral 1. The GHG Tailoring Rule srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final rulemaking, entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule’’ (hereafter referred to as the GHG Tailoring Rule), for the purpose of relieving overwhelming permitting burdens from the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) that would, in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources. See 75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the GHG Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG emitters.11 On January 13, 2011, EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA to IBR into the Georgia SIP (at 391–3–1–.02(7)), the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010, which included the GHG 9 As mentioned earlier, due to litigation by the Sierra Club, EPA is not proposing to take action on the SILs portion of the Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision at this time but will take action once the court case regarding SILs implementation is resolved. 10 Additional information on this issue can also be found in an April 25, 2012, comment letter from EPA Region 6 to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regarding the SILs-SMC litigation. A copy of this letter can be found in the docket for today’s rulemaking at https:// www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA–R04– OAR–2012–0622. 11 Please refer to the July 12, 2012 rulemaking finalizing GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3. See 77 FR 41051. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 Tailoring Rule thresholds.12 EPA took final action to approve Georgia’s SIP revision on September 8, 2011. See 76 FR 55572. Please refer to the GHG Tailoring Rule for specific details on the PSD thresholds. 2. EPA’s CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule In the July 20, 2011, final rulemaking, EPA deferred until July 21, 2014, the consideration of CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereafter referred to as ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’) when determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD and title V applicability thresholds, including those for the application of best available control technology (BACT).13 See 76 FR 43490. Thus, under the federal PSD rules, stationary sources that combust biomass (or otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct or modify during the deferral period will not be subject to the application of PSD to the biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The deferral applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not affect non-GHG pollutants or other GHGs (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) emitted from the combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions under the PSD and title V programs and does not pertain to any other EPA programs such as the GHG Reporting Program. Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as emissions of CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’ include, but are not limited to: • CO2 generated from the biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment, or manure management processes; • CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment, or manure management processes; • CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production or other industrial fermentation processes; • CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction of municipal solid waste or biosolids; 12 Georgia’s submittal also revised the State’s title V operating permit provisions (which are not included in the federally approved SIP) to incorporate the GHG Tailoring Rule provisions. As such, EPA did not taking final action to approve Georgia’s update to its title V. 13 As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses both PSD and title V requirements. However, EPA is only taking action on Georgia’s PSD program as part of this action. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2875 • CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; and • CO2 derived from combustion of biological material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue, and agricultural material. The deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for no more than three years, to allow the Agency time to conduct detailed examination of the science and technical issues related to accounting for biogenic CO2 emissions, and determine what, if any, treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the PSD and title V programs. The biomass deferral rule is not EPA’s final determination on the treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in those programs. The Agency plans to complete its science and technical review and any follow-up rulemakings within the three-year deferral period and further believes that three years is ample time to complete these tasks. It is possible that the subsequent rulemaking, depending on the nature of EPA’s determinations, would supersede the biomass deferral rulemaking and become effective in fewer than three years. In that event, Georgia may revise its SIP accordingly. EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of the obligation to meet the PSD and title V permitting requirements for other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a future date pending the results of EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular source during the three-year effective period and the study and future rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD and title V permitting requirements for the biogenic CO2 emissions from a source with particular characteristics, then the deferral would end for that type of source and its biogenic CO2 emissions would have to be appropriately considered in any applicability determinations that the source may need to conduct for future stationary source permitting purposes, consistent with that subsequent rulemaking and the final GHG Tailoring Rule (e.g., a major source determination for title V purposes or a major modification determination for PSD purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify that the agency does not require that a PSD permit issued during the deferral period be amended or that any PSD E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 2876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with requirements in a PSD permit existing at the time the deferral took effect, such as BACT limitations, be revised or removed from an effective PSD permit for any reason related to the deferral or when the deferral period expires. Under 40 CFR 52.21(w), any PSD permit shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under the limited conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a source while the deferral was effective need not be reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD applicability after the deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO2 emissions after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its biogenic CO2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD permit to authorize the modification. Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the Georgia SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent rulemaking. The results of EPA’s review of the science related to net atmospheric impacts of biogenic CO2 and the framework to properly account for such emissions in title V and PSD permitting programs based on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, EPA is unable to predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if any, currently subject to the deferral as incorporated into the Georgia SIP would be subject to any permanent exemptions or which currently deferred sources would be potentially required to account for their emissions in the future rulemaking EPA has committed to undertake for such purposes in three or fewer years. Only in that rulemaking can EPA address the question of extending the deferral or putting in place requirements that would have the equivalent effect on sources covered by the biomass deferral. Once that rulemaking has occurred, Georgia may address related revisions to its SIP. III. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s SIP revision? Georgia currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and modified stationary sources. EPD’s PSD preconstruction rules are found at Georgia Air Quality Control Rule 391– 3–1–.02(7)—Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and apply to major stationary sources or modifications constructed in areas VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 designated attainment areas or unclassifiable/attainment areas as required under part C of title I of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Georgia’s Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) IBR the federal NSR PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 into the Georgia SIP. In effect, EPD’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision revises Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) by updating the State’s IBR date to July 20, 2011, which includes the federal PSD permitting updates promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule and the extension of the stay in the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule. Additionally, the July 26, 2012, SIP submission revises Rule 391– 3–1–.02(7) by removing language to address EPA’s repeal of the PM10 surrogate and grandfathering provisions and clarifies at subparagraph (a)(1) of 391–3–1–.01 that all dates associated with IBR of the federal PSD rules (at 40 CFR 52.21) refer to the date of publication of those rules in the Federal Register. In addition to changes to Rule 391–3–1–.02(7), the July 26, 2012, SIP revision also (1) amends Georgia’s definitions at 391–3–1–.01 by revising subparagraph (nnnn) to reference the February 1, 2012, update to Georgia’s ‘‘Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants,’’ and; (2) revises 391–3–1–.02(2)—Incinerators to add exemptions to subparagraph (c)(6)(ix)–(xiii) to exempt certain incinerators from the state rule that are subject to more stringent, state adopted federal standards at Rule 391–3–1.02; and (3) modifies Georgia’s provisions at Rule 391–3–1–.03(6)(i)(4) regarding permit exemptions. Georgia’s September 26, 2006 SIP (with a clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) also revises the permit exemption provisions at Rule 391–1–.03(6)(i)(3). Both 391–3–1– .03(6)(i)(3) and the new provision at (i)(4) provide exemptions from the requirement of a source to obtain a SIP permit for cumulative modifications where the combined emission increases are below specific de minimis thresholds. The September 26, 2006, SIP revision to Rule 391–3–1–.03(6)(i)(3) adds text that excludes contemporaneous emission decreases from the combined emission increases for cumulative modifications when determining if they are below specific emission thresholds for carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, PM10, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds and any hazardous air pollutant. In addition the exemption in Rule, 391–3–1–.03(6)(i)(3) applies to any existing source. The July 26, 2012, SIP revision, adds Rule 391– PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 3–1.03(6)(i)(4) which is an alternative to the exemption (i)(3) that only applies to small modifications at existing quarry sources that are not major sources where the combined emission increases can include contemporaneous emission decreases from all nonexempt modified activities and are less than 10 tons per year of particulate matter and PM10. Neither exemptions may be used to lower the potential to emit below ‘‘major source’’ thresholds, or avoid any ‘‘applicable requirement’’ as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. See Georgia Rule 391–3– 1–.03(6). The changes to Georgia’s rules submitted September 26, 2006 (with a clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) and July 26, 2012, became state effective on March 27, 2006, and August 9, 2012, respectively. EPA is proposing to approve changes to Georgia’s Rule 391–3–1–.02(7), to update the State’s existing SIP-approved PSD program to be consistent with federal NSR regulations (at 40 CFR 52.21) and the CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia’s requested changes to Rules 391–3–1– .01, .02(2) and .03. More details on EPA’s analysis and proposed approval of the portions of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal addressing PSD provisions promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the CO2 Deferral Rule, the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule and the NSR PM2.5 Rule (grandfathering provision) are discussed below. A. Rule 391–3–1–.02(7) SIP Revision 1. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule EPD’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the following provisions into the Georgia SIP at regulation 391–3–1– .02(7) as promulgated in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule: (1) PSD increments for PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA; (2) SILs used as a screening tool (used by a major source subject to PSD) to evaluate the impact a proposed major source or modification may have on the NAAQS or PSD increment; and (3) SMC to determine the level of data gathering required of a major source in support of its PSD permit application for PM2.5 emissions. Specifically, Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR into the Georgia SIP (at 391–3–1–.02(7)) the PM2.5 PSD increments as amended in the tables at 40 CFR 52.21(c) and (p)(5) (for Class I Variances) the amendments to the terms ‘‘major source baseline date’’ (as amended at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)); ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ (including E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4 2877 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules establishment of the ‘‘trigger date’’) (40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(ii)(c)); and the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ (as amended at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i) and (ii)). These changes provide for the implementation of the PM2.5 PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the State’s PSD program. In today’s action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision to address PM2.5 PSD increments. Regarding the SILs and SMC established in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the Sierra Club has challenged EPA’s authority to implement SILs and SMC. In a brief filed in the D.C. Circuit on April 6, 2012, EPA described the Agency’s authority under the CAA to promulgate and implement the SMCs and SILs de minimis thresholds. With respect to the SMC, Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the SMC of 4 g/ m3 for PM2.5 NAAQS at 391–3–1–.02(7). Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision is consistent with EPA’s current promulgated provisions in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILsSMC Rule. EPA is proposing to approve this promulgated threshold into the Georgia SIP as EPA believes the SMC is a valid exercise of the Agency’s de minimis authority. However, EPA notes that future court action may require subsequent rule revisions and SIP revisions from the State of Georgia. The July 26, 2012, SIP revision submitted by Georgia to IBR the new PSD requirements for PM2.55 pursuant to the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule also includes the new regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2), concerning the implementation of SILs for PM2.5. EPA stated in the preamble to the October 20, 2010, final rule that we do not consider the SILs to be a mandatory SIP element, but regard them as discretionary on the part of a regulating authority for use in the PSD permitting process. Nevertheless, the PM2.5 SILs are currently the subject of litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10–1413 (D.C. Circuit). In response to that litigation, EPA has requested that the court remand and vacate the regulatory text in EPA’s PSD regulations at paragraph (k)(2) so that EPA can make necessary rulemaking revisions to that text. In light of EPA’s request for remand and vacatur and the acknowledgement of the need to revise the regulatory text presently contained at paragraph (k)(2) of sections 51.166 and 52.21, EPA does not believe that it is appropriate at this time to approve that portion of Georgia’s SIP revision that contains the affected regulatory text in the State’s PSD regulations, at 391– 3–1–0.2(7). Instead, EPA is taking no VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 action at this time with regard to that specific provision contained in the SIP revision. EPA will take action on the SILs portion of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision in a separate rulemaking once the issue regarding the court case has been resolved. 2. CO2 Biomass Deferral In the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule, similar to the approach with the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the biomass deferral into the Federal PSD program by amending the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, respectively. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR into the Georgia SIP 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, which includes the CO2 Biomass Deferral revision to the definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ deferring, until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s IBR of the CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule. 3. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision also IBR the extension of the stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule into the Georgia PSD program at 391–3–1–.02(7). On December 19, 2008, EPA issued a final rule revising the requirements of the NSR permitting program regarding the treatment of fugitive emissions. See 73 FR 77882. The final rule required fugitive emissions to be included in determining whether a physical or operational change results in a major modification only for sources in industries that have been designated through rulemaking under section 302(j) 14 of the CAA. As a result of EPA granting the Natural Resource Defense Council’s petition for reconsideration on the original Fugitive Emissions Rule 15 on March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011. The stay allowed the Agency time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations. On March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17548), EPA proposed an interim rule which superseded the March 31, 14 Pursuant to CAA section 302(j), examples of these industry sectors include oil refineries, Portland cement plants, and iron and steel mills. 15 On April 24, 2009, EPA agreed to reconsider the approach to handling fugitive emissions and granted a 3-month administrative stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule. The administrative stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule became effective on September 30, 2009. EPA put an additional threemonth stay in place from December 31, 2009, until March 31, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2010, stay and clarified and extended the stay of the Fugitive Emission Rule until EPA completes its reconsideration. The interim rule simply reverts the CFR text back to the language that existed prior to the Fugitive Emissions Rule changes in the December 19, 2008, rulemaking. EPA plans to issue a final rule affirming the interim rule as final. The final rule will remain in effect until EPA completes its reconsideration. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s IBR of the interim rulemaking extending the stay of the Fugitives Emissions Rule into its SIP at Rule 391–3–1–.02(7). 4. PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized regulations to establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas including the grandfather provision which allowed PSD applicants that submitted their complete permit application prior to the July 15, 2008 effective date of the NSR PM2.5 Rule to continue to rely on the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy rather than amend their application to demonstrate compliance directly with the new PM2.5 requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On January 13, 2011, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to IBR into the Georgia SIP the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010 which included language that excluded the grandfathering exemption (at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi)) from the state’s PSD regulations (at Rule 391–3– 1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i)) ensuring that sources were not subject to the grandfathering provision. EPA approved Georgia’s January 13, 2011, SIP revision on September 8, 2011 (76 FR 55572). On May 18, 2011, EPA took final action to repeal the PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). See 76 FR 28646. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal incorporates into the Georgia SIP the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, which includes the May 18, 2011, repeal of the grandfather provision. Thus, the language previously approved into Georgia’s SIP at Rule 391–3–1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i) that excludes the grandfathering provision is no longer necessary. Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal removes the unnecessary language pertaining to the grandfather provision from Rule 391–3– 1–.02(7)(b)(6)(i).16 EPA is proposing to 16 Georgia’s previous incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 at 391–3–1–.02(7) was as of June 3, 2010, which did not include the May 18, 2011, repeal of the PM10 Surrogate Policy; therefore the grandfathering exclusion language at 391–3–1– .02(7)(b)(6)(i) was necessary at that time. The June E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM Continued 14JAP4 2878 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules approve this portion of Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP submittal. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with IV. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve, into the Georgia SIP, portions of Georgia’s September 26, 2006 (with a clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) and the July 26, 2012, SIP revisions adopting federal regulations amended in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC rule; the June 3, 2010, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule; and the March 30, 2011, Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule, amendments regarding the PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision, definition changes regarding testing and monitoring, and changes regarding exemptions from the requirement to obtain a SIP permit and exemptions for incinerators. EPA is not however proposing to approve in this rulemaking Georgia’s July 26, 2012, SIP revision regarding the SIL thresholds and provisions and Rules 391–3–1– .02(www)—Sewage Sludge Incineration, 391–3–1–.03(9)—Permit Fees, 391–3–1– .02(8)(b)—New Source Performance Standards and 391–3–1–.02(9)(b)— Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA has made the preliminary determination that these SIP revisions, with regard to the aforementioned proposed actions, are approvable because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and EPA regulations regarding NSR permitting. V. 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 state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 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 3, 2010, IBR date was approved into the Georgia SIP on September 8, 2011. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 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 F43255, 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 substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 4, 2013. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2013–00581 Filed 1–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622; FRL–9770–1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. EPA is withdrawing a proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2013, to approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration program for the fine particulate matter standards as a result of the inadvertent publication of an incorrect version of the proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The proposed rule published January 2, 2013, is withdrawn as of January 14, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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; email address: bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. DATES: On January 2, 2013 (78 FR 45), a proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review— Prevention of Significant Deterioration’’ to approve changes to Georgia’s SIPapproved regulations entitled ‘‘Air Quality Control Rule 391–3–.1.’’ The proposed rule version published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2013, was an incorrect version and EPA therefore, is now withdrawing its January 2, 2013, proposed rulemaking action. In a separate action, the correct version of EPA’s proposed rulemaking related to Georgia’s Air Quality Control Rule 391–3–.1 is being provided for public comment. This course of action will promote efficiency, mitigate confusion, and create a new comment period on the future proposed action to approve Georgia’s SIP revisions related to Rule 391–3–1 with a proper basis of evaluation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 4, 2013. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2013–00582 Filed 1–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\14JAP4.SGM 14JAP4

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2871-2878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00581]



[[Page 2871]]

Vol. 78

Monday,

No. 9

January 14, 2013

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





49 CFR Parts 571 and 585





Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source 
Review--Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2872]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622; FRL-9770-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New 
Source Review--Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve portions of two SIP revisions to 
the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources'' 
Environmental Protection Division (EPD), on September 26, 2006(with a 
clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) and July 26, 2012. 
The September 26, 2006, SIP submission makes multiple changes to the 
Georgia SIP including the State's permit exemption provisions. The July 
26, 2012, submission includes changes to Georgia's New Source Review 
(NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to 
incorporate by reference (IBR) federal PSD requirements regarding fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) increments, significant impact 
levels (SILs), significant monitoring concentration (SMC) and the 
deferral of, until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to biogenic carbon 
dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic 
stationary sources as well as additional air quality rule revisions. 
EPA is proposing to approve portions of both SIP revisions because the 
Agency has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with 
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations 
regarding NSR permitting.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0622 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622, 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-
2012-0622.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online 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 
www.regulations.gov. or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov. your email 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 
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 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; email address: bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For information 
regarding NSR, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the 
same address above. Ms. Adams' telephone number is (404) 562-9241; 
email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. For information regarding the 
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 
contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development Section, at the same 
address above. Mr. Huey's telephone number is (404) 562-9104; email 
address: huey.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's SIP revision?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On July 26, 2012, EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval 
into the Georgia SIP to IBR \1\ federal NSR PSD permitting requirements 
at Georgia's Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. These rule changes were 
provided to comply with federal NSR permitting regulations and include 
provisions related to the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS 
for the PSD program as promulgated in the rule entitled ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact

[[Page 2873]]

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC), Final 
Rule,'' 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as 
``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule'') and the deferral 
until July 21, 2014, of the application of PSD permitting requirement 
to biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic 
stationary sources as promulgated in the rule entitled, ``Deferral for 
CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 
Programs,'' Final Rule, 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011) (hereafter referred 
to as CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule). Additionally, the July 26, 
2012, SIP revision (1) IBR into Georgia SIP EPA's interim rulemaking 
entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of 
Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions,'' 76 FR 17548 
(March 30, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the ``Fugitive Emissions 
Interim Rule''); (2) requests that EPA remove from the SIP the 
exclusion language at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) regarding the coarse particle 
pollution (PM10) surrogate and grandfathering provision 
promulgated in the ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program 
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers,'' 73 FR 28321, May 
16, 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``NSR PM2.5 Rule''); (3) 
amends the definitions Rule 391-3-1-.01(nnn)--Definitions regarding 
testing and monitoring of air pollutants; (4) amends Rules 391-3-
1-.02(2)(c)--Incinerators; and (5) revises Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)--
Exemptions by adding a new exemption for cumulative small modifications 
at an existing quarry where the quarry is not a major source and the 
associated emissions increase is less than 10 tons per year of 
particulate matter and PM10. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to approve a portion of Georgia's September 26, 2006, SIP submittal \2\ 
which adds new text at 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(3) regarding Georgia's permit 
exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document IBR means incorporate or 
incorporates by reference.
    \2\ On September 26, 2006, Georgia submitted to EPA multiple SIP 
revisions to Georgia's Air Quality Rules found at Chapter 391-3-1. A 
clarifying revision was submitted on November 6, 2006. EPA took 
action on a portion of Georgia's September 26, 2006, submittal in 
multiple actions published in the Federal Register on February 9, 
2010 (75 FR 6309) and December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74624). Action on the 
remaining portions of the September 26, 2006, submittal is still 
under consideration and will be addressed in separate actions. See 
75 FR 74624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two elements of EPD's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal that EPA is 
not proposing to approve in this action are: (1) Incorporation of the 
SIL thresholds and provisions promulgated in EPA's PM2.5 PSD 
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (for reasons explained later in this notice); 
and (2) Rules 391-3-1-.02(www)--Sewage Sludge Incineration, 391-3-
1-.03(9)--Permit Fees, 391-3-1-.02(8)(b)--New Source Performance 
Standards and 391-3-1-.02(9)(b)--Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants, as these regulations are not part of Georgia's federally 
approved SIP.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    Today's proposed action to revise the Georgia SIP relates to PSD 
provisions promulgated in EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC 
Rule and CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule. Additionally, the July 
26, 2012, SIP revision addresses EPA's repeal of the grandfathering 
provision as promulgated in the Rule entitled ``Implementation of the 
New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 
Micrometers (PM2.5); Final Rule to Repeal Grandfather 
Provision'' (76 FR 28646, May 18, 2011) and the extension of the stay 
in the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule. More details regarding these 
rules are found in the respective final rulemakings and are summarized 
below. For more information on the NSR Program and the PM2.5 
NAAQS please refer to the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 
and the NSR PM2.5 Rule.

A. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC-Rule

    On October 20, 2010, EPA finalized the PM2.5 PSD 
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule to provide additional regulatory requirements 
under the PSD program regarding the implementation of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR. Specifically, the rule establishes: (1) 
PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the 
NAAQS; (2) SILs used as a screening tool (by a major source subject to 
PSD) to evaluate the impact a proposed major source or modification may 
have on the NAAQS or PSD increment; and (3) a SMC (also a screening 
tool) used by a major source subject to PSD to determine if a source 
must submit to the permitting authority one year of pre-construction 
air quality monitoring data prior to constructing or modifying a 
facility. As part of the response to comments on the October 20, 2010, 
final rulemaking, EPA explained that the Agency agrees that the SILs 
and SMCs used as de minimis \3\ thresholds for the various pollutants 
are useful tools that enable permitting authorities and PSD applicants 
to screen out ``insignificant'' activities; however, these values are 
not required by the Act as part of an approvable SIP program. EPA 
believes that most states are likely to adopt the SILs and SMCs because 
of the useful purpose they serve regardless of EPA's position that the 
values are not mandatory. Alternatively, states may develop more 
stringent values if they desire to do so. In any case, states are not 
under any statutory deadline for revising their PSD programs to add 
these screening tools. See 75 FR 64864, 64900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The de minimis principle is grounded in the decision 
described by the court case Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 
323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In this case, reviewing EPA's 1978 PSD 
regulations, the court recognized that ``there is likely a basis for 
an implication of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the 
burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.'' 636 
F.2d at 360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the NSR changes 
promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule to be 
consistent with the federal NSR regulations and to appropriately 
implement the State's NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS. More 
detail on the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule can be found 
in EPA's October 20, 2010, final rule and is summarized below. See 75 
FR 64864. For the reasons explained below, EPA is not proposing to take 
action to approve the SILs (promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD 
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule) into the Georgia SIP in this rulemaking. EPA's 
authority to implement the SILs and SMC for PSD purposes has been 
challenged by the Sierra Club. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 10-1413 
(D.C. Circuit Court).\4\ More details regarding Georgia's changes to 
its PSD regulations are also summarized below in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On April 6, 2012, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit 
Court defending the Agency's authority to implement SILs and SMC for 
PSD purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are PSD increments?
    As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program 
protects public health from adverse effects of air pollution by 
ensuring that construction of new or modified sources in attainment or 
unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant deterioration of air 
quality while simultaneously ensuring that economic growth will occur 
in a manner consistent with preservation of clean air resources. Under 
section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must demonstrate 
that emissions from the proposed construction and operation of a 
facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of 
any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for any 
pollutant.'' In other words, when a source applies for a permit to emit 
a regulated pollutant in an area that meets the NAAQS, the state

[[Page 2874]]

and EPA must determine if emissions of the regulated pollutant from the 
source will cause significant deterioration in air quality. Significant 
deterioration occurs when the amount of the new pollution exceeds the 
applicable PSD increment, which is the ``maximum allowable increase'' 
of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable baseline 
concentration \5\ for that pollutant. PSD increments prevent air 
quality in clean areas from deteriorating to the level set by the 
NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate 
``significant deterioration'' of air quality for a pollutant in an 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline 
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is 
generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a 
PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular 
pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or 
unclassifiable area in which the source is located as well as any other 
attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of 
that pollutant are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in an 
ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 microgram per meter cubed 
([mu]g/m\3\) (annual average). See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). Under EPA's 
existing regulations, the establishment of a baseline area for any PSD 
increment results from the submission of the first complete PSD permit 
application and is based on the location of the proposed source and its 
emissions impact on the area. Once the baseline area is established, 
subsequent PSD sources locating in that area need to consider that a 
portion of the available increment may have already been consumed by 
previous emissions increases. In general, the submittal date of the 
first complete PSD permit application in a particular area is the 
operative ``baseline date'' after which new sources must evaluate 
increment consumption.\6\ On or before the date of the first complete 
PSD application, emissions generally are considered to be part of the 
baseline concentration, except for certain emissions from major 
stationary sources. Most emissions increases that occur after the 
baseline date will be counted toward the amount of increment consumed. 
Similarly, emissions decreases after the baseline date restore or 
expand the amount of increment that is available. See 75 FR 64864. As 
described in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, and 
pursuant to the authority under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA 
promulgated numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new 
pollutant \7\ for which NAAQS were established after August 7, 1977,\8\ 
and derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments for the 
three area classifications (Class I, II and III) using the ``contingent 
safe harbor'' approach. See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and ambient air 
increment table at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1) and 52.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a complete 
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those 
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in 
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the 
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
    \7\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a 
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the 
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the 
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained 
the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 as if 
PM2.5 was a new pollutant even though EPA had already 
developed air quality criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864 
(October 20, 2010).
    \8\ EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate 
pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of 
section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA 
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule amended the definition at 
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for ``major source baseline date'' and ``minor 
source baseline date'' (including trigger dates) to establish the 
PM2.5 NAAQS specific dates associated with the 
implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments. See 75 FR 64864. In 
accordance with section 166(b) of the CAA, EPA required the states to 
submit revised implementation plans to EPA for approval (to adopt the 
PM2.5 PSD increments) within 21 months from promulgation of 
the final rule (by July 20, 2012). Regardless of when a state submits 
its revised SIP, the emissions from major sources subject to PSD for 
PM2.5 for which construction commenced after October 20, 
2010 (major source baseline date), consume PM2.5 increment 
and should be included in the increment analyses occurring after the 
minor source baseline date is established for an area under the state's 
revised PSD program. See 75 FR 64864. As discussed in detail in Section 
III, Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the PM2.5 PSD 
increment permitting requirements promulgated in the PM2.5 
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule.
What are significant monitoring concentrations?
    Under the CAA and EPA regulations, an applicant for a PSD permit is 
required to gather preconstruction monitoring data in certain 
circumstances. CAA Section 165(a)(7) calls for ``such monitoring as may 
be necessary to determine the effect which emissions from any such 
facility may have, or is having, on air quality in any areas which may 
be affected by emissions from such source.'' In addition, CAA section 
165(e) requires an analysis of the air quality in areas affected by a 
proposed major facility or major modification and calls for gathering 
one year of monitoring data unless the reviewing authority determines 
that a complete and adequate analysis may be accomplished in a shorter 
period. These requirements are codified in EPA's PSD regulations at 40 
CFR 51.166(m) and 40 CFR 52.21(m). In accordance with EPA's Guideline 
for Air Quality Modeling (40 CFR part 51, appendix W), the 
preconstruction monitoring data are primarily used to determine 
background concentrations in modeling conducted to demonstrate that the 
proposed source or modification will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of the NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 9.2. 
SMCs are numerical values that represent thresholds of insignificant 
(i.e., de minimis), monitored (ambient) impacts on pollutant 
concentrations. In EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, 
EPA established a SMC of 4 [mu]g/m\3\ for PM2.5.
    Using the SMC as a screening tool, sources may be able to 
demonstrate that the modeled air quality impact of emissions from the 
new source or modification, or the existing air quality level in the 
area where the source would construct, is less than the SMC (i.e., de 
minimis), and as such, may be allowed to forego the preconstruction 
monitoring requirement for a particular pollutant at the discretion of 
the reviewing authority. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and 52.21(i)(5). SMCs 
are not minimum required elements of an approvable SIP under the CAA. 
This de minimis value is widely considered to be a useful component for 
implementing the PSD program, but is not absolutely necessary for the 
states to implement PSD programs. States can satisfy the statutory 
requirements for a PSD program by requiring each PSD applicant to 
submit air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 without using 
de minimis thresholds to exempt certain sources from such requirements. 
See 75 FR 64864. The PM2.5 SMC became effective under the 
federal PSD program on December 20, 2010. States with EPA-approved PSD 
programs that adopt the SMC for PM2.5, however, may use the 
SMC, once it is part of an approved SIP, to determine when it may be 
appropriate to exempt a particular major stationary source or major 
modification from the monitoring requirements under

[[Page 2875]]

its state PSD program. Georgia's July 26, 2012, revision IBR the SMC 
provision into the Georgia SIP.
    Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit challenging EPA's authority to 
implement the PM2.5 SILs \9\ as well as the SMC for PSD 
purposes as promulgated in the October 20, 2010, rule. Sierra Club v. 
EPA, Case No 10-1413, D.C. Circuit Court. Specifically regarding the 
SMC, Sierra Club claims that the use of SMC to exempt a source from 
submitting a year's worth of monitoring data is inconsistent with the 
CAA. EPA responded to Sierra Club's claims in a brief dated April 6, 
2012, which describes the Agency's authority to develop and promulgate 
SMCs.\10\ A copy of EPA's April 6, 2012, brief can be found in the 
docket for today's rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov using 
docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As mentioned earlier, due to litigation by the Sierra Club, 
EPA is not proposing to take action on the SILs portion of the 
Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision at this time but will take 
action once the court case regarding SILs implementation is 
resolved.
    \10\ Additional information on this issue can also be found in 
an April 25, 2012, comment letter from EPA Region 6 to the Louisiana 
Department of Environmental Quality regarding the SILs-SMC 
litigation. A copy of this letter can be found in the docket for 
today's rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov using docket ID: 
EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CO2 Biomass Deferral

1. The GHG Tailoring Rule
    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final 
rulemaking, entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (hereafter referred 
to as the GHG Tailoring Rule), for the purpose of relieving 
overwhelming permitting burdens from the regulation of greenhouse gases 
(GHG) that would, in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting 
authorities and sources. See 75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by 
tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which GHG emission 
sources become subject to the PSD program of the CAA. In particular, 
EPA established in the GHG Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD 
applicability and established the first two steps of the phase-in for 
the largest GHG emitters.\11\ On January 13, 2011, EPD submitted a SIP 
revision to EPA to IBR into the Georgia SIP (at 391-3-1-.02(7)), the 
version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010, which included the GHG 
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\12\ EPA took final action to approve 
Georgia's SIP revision on September 8, 2011. See 76 FR 55572. Please 
refer to the GHG Tailoring Rule for specific details on the PSD 
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Please refer to the July 12, 2012 rulemaking finalizing GHG 
Tailoring Rule Step 3. See 77 FR 41051.
    \12\ Georgia's submittal also revised the State's title V 
operating permit provisions (which are not included in the federally 
approved SIP) to incorporate the GHG Tailoring Rule provisions. As 
such, EPA did not taking final action to approve Georgia's update to 
its title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule
    In the July 20, 2011, final rulemaking, EPA deferred until July 21, 
2014, the consideration of CO2 emissions from bioenergy and 
other biogenic sources (hereafter referred to as ``biogenic 
CO2 emissions'') when determining whether a stationary 
source meets the PSD and title V applicability thresholds, including 
those for the application of best available control technology 
(BACT).\13\ See 76 FR 43490. Thus, under the federal PSD rules, 
stationary sources that combust biomass (or otherwise emit biogenic 
CO2 emissions) and construct or modify during the deferral 
period will not be subject to the application of PSD to the biogenic 
CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The deferral 
applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not affect 
non-GHG pollutants or other GHGs (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) 
emitted from the combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the deferral only 
pertains to regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions under the 
PSD and title V programs and does not pertain to any other EPA programs 
such as the GHG Reporting Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses 
both PSD and title V requirements. However, EPA is only taking 
action on Georgia's PSD program as part of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as emissions of 
CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the 
combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than 
fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ``biogenic 
CO2 emissions'' include, but are not limited to:
     CO2 generated from the biological decomposition 
of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment, or manure management 
processes;
     CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected 
from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater 
treatment, or manure management processes;
     CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production 
or other industrial fermentation processes;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction 
of municipal solid waste or biosolids;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction 
of tire-derived fuel; and
     CO2 derived from combustion of biological 
material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 
and agricultural material.
    The deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for 
no more than three years, to allow the Agency time to conduct detailed 
examination of the science and technical issues related to accounting 
for biogenic CO2 emissions, and determine what, if any, 
treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the PSD and 
title V programs. The biomass deferral rule is not EPA's final 
determination on the treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in 
those programs. The Agency plans to complete its science and technical 
review and any follow-up rulemakings within the three-year deferral 
period and further believes that three years is ample time to complete 
these tasks. It is possible that the subsequent rulemaking, depending 
on the nature of EPA's determinations, would supersede the biomass 
deferral rulemaking and become effective in fewer than three years. In 
that event, Georgia may revise its SIP accordingly.
    EPA's final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for 
biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of 
the obligation to meet the PSD and title V permitting requirements for 
other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source 
during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a 
future date pending the results of EPA's study and subsequent 
rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is 
applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular 
source during the three-year effective period and the study and future 
rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD and title 
V permitting requirements for the biogenic CO2 emissions 
from a source with particular characteristics, then the deferral would 
end for that type of source and its biogenic CO2 emissions 
would have to be appropriately considered in any applicability 
determinations that the source may need to conduct for future 
stationary source permitting purposes, consistent with that subsequent 
rulemaking and the final GHG Tailoring Rule (e.g., a major source 
determination for title V purposes or a major modification 
determination for PSD purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify that the 
agency does not require that a PSD permit issued during the deferral 
period be amended or that any PSD

[[Page 2876]]

requirements in a PSD permit existing at the time the deferral took 
effect, such as BACT limitations, be revised or removed from an 
effective PSD permit for any reason related to the deferral or when the 
deferral period expires.
    Under 40 CFR 52.21(w), any PSD permit shall remain in effect, 
unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under the limited 
conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit that is 
issued to a source while the deferral was effective need not be 
reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its 
biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD applicability after the 
deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification 
that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not 
eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO2 emissions 
after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its 
biogenic CO2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD 
permit to authorize the modification.
    Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the 
deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass 
deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the 
Georgia SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent rulemaking. The 
results of EPA's review of the science related to net atmospheric 
impacts of biogenic CO2 and the framework to properly 
account for such emissions in title V and PSD permitting programs based 
on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, EPA is unable to 
predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if any, currently 
subject to the deferral as incorporated into the Georgia SIP would be 
subject to any permanent exemptions or which currently deferred sources 
would be potentially required to account for their emissions in the 
future rulemaking EPA has committed to undertake for such purposes in 
three or fewer years. Only in that rulemaking can EPA address the 
question of extending the deferral or putting in place requirements 
that would have the equivalent effect on sources covered by the biomass 
deferral. Once that rulemaking has occurred, Georgia may address 
related revisions to its SIP.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's SIP revision?

    Georgia currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and 
modified stationary sources. EPD's PSD preconstruction rules are found 
at Georgia Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and apply to major stationary 
sources or modifications constructed in areas designated attainment 
areas or unclassifiable/attainment areas as required under part C of 
title I of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. Georgia's Rule 391-3-
1-.02(7) IBR the federal NSR PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 into the 
Georgia SIP. In effect, EPD's July 26, 2012, SIP revision revises Rule 
391-3-1-.02(7) by updating the State's IBR date to July 20, 2011, which 
includes the federal PSD permitting updates promulgated in the 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the CO2 
Biomass Deferral Rule and the extension of the stay in the Fugitive 
Emissions Interim Rule. Additionally, the July 26, 2012, SIP submission 
revises Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) by removing language to address EPA's 
repeal of the PM10 surrogate and grandfathering provisions 
and clarifies at subparagraph (a)(1) of 391-3-1-.01 that all dates 
associated with IBR of the federal PSD rules (at 40 CFR 52.21) refer to 
the date of publication of those rules in the Federal Register. In 
addition to changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(7), the July 26, 2012, SIP 
revision also (1) amends Georgia's definitions at 391-3-1-.01 by 
revising subparagraph (nnnn) to reference the February 1, 2012, update 
to Georgia's ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air 
Pollutants,'' and; (2) revises 391-3-1-.02(2)--Incinerators to add 
exemptions to subparagraph (c)(6)(ix)-(xiii) to exempt certain 
incinerators from the state rule that are subject to more stringent, 
state adopted federal standards at Rule 391-3-1.02; and (3) modifies 
Georgia's provisions at Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(4) regarding permit 
exemptions.
    Georgia's September 26, 2006 SIP (with a clarifying revision 
submitted on November 6, 2006) also revises the permit exemption 
provisions at Rule 391-1-.03(6)(i)(3). Both 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(3) and 
the new provision at (i)(4) provide exemptions from the requirement of 
a source to obtain a SIP permit for cumulative modifications where the 
combined emission increases are below specific de minimis thresholds. 
The September 26, 2006, SIP revision to Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(3) adds 
text that excludes contemporaneous emission decreases from the combined 
emission increases for cumulative modifications when determining if 
they are below specific emission thresholds for carbon monoxide, lead, 
particulate matter, PM10, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, 
volatile organic compounds and any hazardous air pollutant. In addition 
the exemption in Rule, 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(3) applies to any existing 
source. The July 26, 2012, SIP revision, adds Rule 391-3-1.03(6)(i)(4) 
which is an alternative to the exemption (i)(3) that only applies to 
small modifications at existing quarry sources that are not major 
sources where the combined emission increases can include 
contemporaneous emission decreases from all nonexempt modified 
activities and are less than 10 tons per year of particulate matter and 
PM10. Neither exemptions may be used to lower the potential 
to emit below ``major source'' thresholds, or avoid any ``applicable 
requirement'' as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. See Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.03(6).
    The changes to Georgia's rules submitted September 26, 2006 (with a 
clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006) and July 26, 2012, 
became state effective on March 27, 2006, and August 9, 2012, 
respectively. EPA is proposing to approve changes to Georgia's Rule 
391-3-1-.02(7), to update the State's existing SIP-approved PSD program 
to be consistent with federal NSR regulations (at 40 CFR 52.21) and the 
CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve Georgia's requested changes to 
Rules 391-3-1-.01, .02(2) and .03. More details on EPA's analysis and 
proposed approval of the portions of Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP 
submittal addressing PSD provisions promulgated in the PM2.5 
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the CO2 Deferral Rule, the 
Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule and the NSR PM2.5 Rule 
(grandfathering provision) are discussed below.

A. Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) SIP Revision

1. PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
    EPD's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the following provisions into 
the Georgia SIP at regulation 391-3-1-.02(7) as promulgated in the 
October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule: (1) PSD 
increments for PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS pursuant to 
section 166(a) of the CAA; (2) SILs used as a screening tool (used by a 
major source subject to PSD) to evaluate the impact a proposed major 
source or modification may have on the NAAQS or PSD increment; and (3) 
SMC to determine the level of data gathering required of a major source 
in support of its PSD permit application for PM2.5 
emissions.
    Specifically, Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR into the 
Georgia SIP (at 391-3-1-.02(7)) the PM2.5 PSD increments as 
amended in the tables at 40 CFR 52.21(c) and (p)(5) (for Class I 
Variances) the amendments to the terms ``major source baseline date'' 
(as amended at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)); ``minor source baseline 
date'' (including

[[Page 2877]]

establishment of the ``trigger date'') (40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(ii)(c)); 
and the definition of ``baseline area'' (as amended at 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(15)(i) and (ii)). These changes provide for the implementation 
of the PM2.5 PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS 
in the State's PSD program. In today's action, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision to address 
PM2.5 PSD increments.
    Regarding the SILs and SMC established in the October 20, 2010, 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, the Sierra Club has 
challenged EPA's authority to implement SILs and SMC. In a brief filed 
in the D.C. Circuit on April 6, 2012, EPA described the Agency's 
authority under the CAA to promulgate and implement the SMCs and SILs 
de minimis thresholds. With respect to the SMC, Georgia's July 26, 
2012, SIP revision IBR the SMC of 4 g/m3 for PM2.5 NAAQS at 
391-3-1-.02(7). Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision is consistent 
with EPA's current promulgated provisions in the October 20, 2010, 
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. EPA is proposing to 
approve this promulgated threshold into the Georgia SIP as EPA believes 
the SMC is a valid exercise of the Agency's de minimis authority. 
However, EPA notes that future court action may require subsequent rule 
revisions and SIP revisions from the State of Georgia.
    The July 26, 2012, SIP revision submitted by Georgia to IBR the new 
PSD requirements for PM2.55 pursuant to the PM2.5 
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule also includes the new regulatory text at 40 
CFR 52.21(k)(2), concerning the implementation of SILs for 
PM2.5. EPA stated in the preamble to the October 20, 2010, 
final rule that we do not consider the SILs to be a mandatory SIP 
element, but regard them as discretionary on the part of a regulating 
authority for use in the PSD permitting process. Nevertheless, the 
PM2.5 SILs are currently the subject of litigation before 
the U.S. Court of Appeals. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No 10-1413 (D.C. 
Circuit). In response to that litigation, EPA has requested that the 
court remand and vacate the regulatory text in EPA's PSD regulations at 
paragraph (k)(2) so that EPA can make necessary rulemaking revisions to 
that text. In light of EPA's request for remand and vacatur and the 
acknowledgement of the need to revise the regulatory text presently 
contained at paragraph (k)(2) of sections 51.166 and 52.21, EPA does 
not believe that it is appropriate at this time to approve that portion 
of Georgia's SIP revision that contains the affected regulatory text in 
the State's PSD regulations, at 391-3-1-0.2(7). Instead, EPA is taking 
no action at this time with regard to that specific provision contained 
in the SIP revision. EPA will take action on the SILs portion of 
Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision in a separate rulemaking once the 
issue regarding the court case has been resolved.
2. CO2 Biomass Deferral
    In the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule, similar 
to the approach with the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the 
biomass deferral into the Federal PSD program by amending the 
definition of ``subject to regulation'' under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, 
respectively. Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR into the 
Georgia SIP 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, which includes the 
CO2 Biomass Deferral revision to the definition of ``subject 
to regulation'' deferring, until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to 
biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and 
other biogenic stationary sources. EPA is proposing to approve 
Georgia's IBR of the CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule.
3. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule
    Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision also IBR the extension of the 
stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule into the Georgia PSD program at 
391-3-1-.02(7). On December 19, 2008, EPA issued a final rule revising 
the requirements of the NSR permitting program regarding the treatment 
of fugitive emissions. See 73 FR 77882. The final rule required 
fugitive emissions to be included in determining whether a physical or 
operational change results in a major modification only for sources in 
industries that have been designated through rulemaking under section 
302(j) \14\ of the CAA. As a result of EPA granting the Natural 
Resource Defense Council's petition for reconsideration on the original 
Fugitive Emissions Rule \15\ on March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive 
Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011. The stay 
allowed the Agency time to propose, take comment and issue a final 
action regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR 
applicability determinations. On March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17548), EPA 
proposed an interim rule which superseded the March 31, 2010, stay and 
clarified and extended the stay of the Fugitive Emission Rule until EPA 
completes its reconsideration. The interim rule simply reverts the CFR 
text back to the language that existed prior to the Fugitive Emissions 
Rule changes in the December 19, 2008, rulemaking. EPA plans to issue a 
final rule affirming the interim rule as final. The final rule will 
remain in effect until EPA completes its reconsideration. EPA is 
proposing to approve Georgia's IBR of the interim rulemaking extending 
the stay of the Fugitives Emissions Rule into its SIP at Rule 391-3-
1-.02(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to CAA section 302(j), examples of these industry 
sectors include oil refineries, Portland cement plants, and iron and 
steel mills.
    \15\ On April 24, 2009, EPA agreed to reconsider the approach to 
handling fugitive emissions and granted a 3-month administrative 
stay of the Fugitive Emissions Rule. The administrative stay of the 
Fugitive Emissions Rule became effective on September 30, 2009. EPA 
put an additional three-month stay in place from December 31, 2009, 
until March 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision
    In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA finalized regulations to 
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment 
areas including the grandfather provision which allowed PSD applicants 
that submitted their complete permit application prior to the July 15, 
2008 effective date of the NSR PM2.5 Rule to continue to 
rely on the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy rather than amend 
their application to demonstrate compliance directly with the new 
PM2.5 requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On January 13, 2011, 
Georgia submitted a SIP revision to IBR into the Georgia SIP the 
version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010 which included language that 
excluded the grandfathering exemption (at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi)) from 
the state's PSD regulations (at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i)) ensuring 
that sources were not subject to the grandfathering provision. EPA 
approved Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision on September 8, 2011 
(76 FR 55572).
    On May 18, 2011, EPA took final action to repeal the 
PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). 
See 76 FR 28646. Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal incorporates 
into the Georgia SIP the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, 
which includes the May 18, 2011, repeal of the grandfather provision. 
Thus, the language previously approved into Georgia's SIP at Rule 391-
3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i) that excludes the grandfathering provision is no 
longer necessary. Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal removes the 
unnecessary language pertaining to the grandfather provision from Rule 
391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i).\16\ EPA is proposing to

[[Page 2878]]

approve this portion of Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Georgia's previous incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 
52.21 at 391-3-1-.02(7) was as of June 3, 2010, which did not 
include the May 18, 2011, repeal of the PM10 Surrogate 
Policy; therefore the grandfathering exclusion language at 391-3-
1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i) was necessary at that time. The June 3, 2010, IBR 
date was approved into the Georgia SIP on September 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, into the Georgia SIP, portions of 
Georgia's September 26, 2006 (with a clarifying revision submitted on 
November 6, 2006) and the July 26, 2012, SIP revisions adopting federal 
regulations amended in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD 
Increment-SILs-SMC rule; the June 3, 2010, CO2 Biomass 
Deferral Rule; and the March 30, 2011, Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule, 
amendments regarding the PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision, 
definition changes regarding testing and monitoring, and changes 
regarding exemptions from the requirement to obtain a SIP permit and 
exemptions for incinerators. EPA is not however proposing to approve in 
this rulemaking Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision regarding the SIL 
thresholds and provisions and Rules 391-3-1-.02(www)--Sewage Sludge 
Incineration, 391-3-1-.03(9)--Permit Fees, 391-3-1-.02(8)(b)--New 
Source Performance Standards and 391-3-1-.02(9)(b)--Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that these SIP revisions, with regard to the 
aforementioned proposed actions, are approvable because they are 
consistent with section 110 of the CAA and EPA regulations regarding 
NSR permitting.

V. 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 state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state 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 F43255, 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 substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. 2013-00581 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P