P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

250) ll-F-40 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 250 of 250 
P.2 

• a * 

Office of At f Q ^

 piannin g ^ su|

^ » Div. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

FAX Number: (919)541-5509 

TO: 

DttK _iL_______/r 

PJAMB 

QgEM MALkiKl pHONB NUMBER 

F»MFANY/OFFiCB , 

FROM: 

•NAME 

^ APRS OB* i|J 

fiVUTNUMBER , 

2r-z /2(x*~ /-/<£-^^ 

- £ OirrCo&c-. E NUMBER 

919-341. ZZs'T? 

COMMENTS: 

7~/W ^ ^ C/JUL. 

Centni-j^Tg. . 

y ^ 6ii£<>;/ <>ic 0 n tfV_ i£)c'j. 

T 

Number of Pages (inchiding cover sheet): -l3 

If you did noc receive all the pages, please contact the following 

DIAMB 

I person: 

frooNB NUMBER 

1 1 919-541-
P.3 

164 

and as defined by a State or Indian Governing Body for nonfederal 

lands within their respective jurisdictions. The proposed 

definition attempts to include the fundamental purposes for which 

such lands have been established and preserved. The proposed 

definition also recognizes that the FLMs have the responsibility 

to identify AQRVs for Federal tllaafl 4r areas. The proposed /^v^ 

definition is also intended to clarify the EPA's position that 

States and Indian Governing Bodies may identify AQRVs in areas 

which they elect to have redesignated as Class I areas.53 See 

proposed section 51.166(b)(40) and section 52.21(b)(41). 

The EPA is proposing to define "adverse impacts on air 

quality related values" as a deleterious effect resulting in 

whole or in part from the emissions of a proposed source or 

modification, that interferes with the management, protection, 

preservation, or enjoyment of the AQRVs of a Federal Class I 

area. See proposed section 51.166(b)(41) and section 

52.21(b)(42). Under the part 52 PSD regulations, the proposed 

definition would be in addition to the existing definition of 

"adverse impact on visibility" [section 52.21(b)(29)] which is 

derived from the EPA's visibility regulations adopted pursuant to 

53 Section 164(e) of the Act provides for EPA protection of 

AQRVs when the EPA is requested to resolve a dispute between a 

State and Tribe about the redesignation of an area or a proposed 

PSD permit. The reader is also referred to the discussion in 

section IV.C.5 of this preamble, where EPA clarifies its position 

concerning the authority of States and Indian tribes to establish 

AQRVs. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.4 

167 

The proposal also satisfies the provisions under 

section 165(e)(3)(B) of the Act which require an analysis of the 

climate and meteorology, terrain, soils and vegetation, and 

visibility "in the area potentially affected by the emissions 

from such facility." Once the status of the Class I increments 

is known from the analysis provided by the applicant, this latter 

information will.provide the basis for a demonstration of whether 

A 

the source will have an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA 

generally believes that the combined informational requirements 

contained in this proposed provision will greatly facilitate 

resolution of AQRV issues which must ultimately be addressed as a 

prerequisite to permit issuance. That is, the analyses will 

reveal whether the Class I increments will be violated, and 

establish the relative roles of the applicant, the FLM and the 

permitting authority in making decisions concerning the AQRVs. 

If a violation of a Class I increment will occur, the 

applicant will provide information pertaining to the source's 

impacts on such things as soils, vegetation and visibility to 

demonstrate that no adverse impact on AQRVs will occur. If the 

FLM agrees with this demonstration, the permitting authority may 

issue the PSD permit even though a violation of a Class I 

increment has been shown. Alternatively, when the applicant's 

analysis shows, to the satisfaction of the permitting authority, 

that no violation of a Class I increment will occur^he 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.5 

168 

information pertaining to impacts on such things as soils, ,r 

itWvf' L ir* 

vegetation and visibility will help the FLM coweidii an adverse 

A 

impact on AQRVs will occur, and to make a demonstration of such 

adverse impact to the permitting authority, where appropriate. 

While the Act is silent concerning the timing for filing '!'. 1,,,-J.. 

this notice, the EPA believes that it is necessa-py-and* reasonable 

A 

to require the FLM or other named officials to file the notice 

before the permitting authority issues its completeness / » 

determination on the permit application.. One reason for this.is 

that the filing of the notice establishes certain informational _ / 

requirements which serve as a measure of the application's 

completeness. Moreover, it is generally important that the 

notice be filed early in the permit process so that the applicant 

can provide the appropriate Class I analyses in a timely manner 

so as not to delay the review and issuance of the permit. 

TAJ. a PA C"ACa U* &.»/ S 

. -In aeiBft ca-ae'S, particularl y where a source proposes t o 

r 

locate within 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area, the 

applicant may oho esse, to coordinate with the FLM prior to the 

submittal of its application in order to be able to learn of any 

FLM im concerns and submit the Class I analyses along with the 

A 

other required information in its initial permit application. 

Otherwise, the FLM would jumml ^ be expected to file the notice 

alleging potential affects on the Federal Class I area, where 

appropriate, during the 3 0-day period for review of the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.6 

169 

application for completeness, as provided under today's proposal 

and described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble. In the absence 

of a notice being filed concerning potential Class I impacts, the 

applicant will be required to demonstrate that emissions from the 

proposed source do not cause or contribute to /(.violation of the 

A 

Class II increments or NAAQS anywhore^ 

(~~ Today's proposal to require the notice to be filed prior to 

the permitting authority's issuance of its completeness 

determination is not intended to preclude the FLM from raising 

concerns about potential affects at a later time during the 

permit review, although the EPA certainly anticipates that this 

will not need to occur frequently. The FLM may file a notice at 

a later time if, for some reason, it was not filed prior to the 

permitting authority's completeness determination; however, in T^ /r\ 

/ /* \-i 

filing later the FLM must assume a greater burden for (JJ^ 

demonstrating an adverse impact on AQRVs. That is, the FLM will 

then have to work with the applicant and the permitting authority 

to obtain the necessary information if it is not already in the 

application. Also, in the absence of a demonstration that the 

proposed source will cause or contribute to a violation of a 

Class I increment, the FLM must demonstrate to the satisfaction 

of the permitting authority an adverse impact on AQRVs. 

The EPA requests comments on this aspect of the proposal in 

light of the specific implications associated with the failure to 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.7 

171 

specific pollutant emissions, its relative location to the Class 

I area, and the known air quality related values in the affected 

Federal Class I area to support the allegation of a potential 

adverse impact on AQRVs. The notice is intended for 

-V* \nxicimr U>-- tr«^u.iiew>£"wi {•**- sp«e.v/vc <T\ass r* u^v&t-v*vaX<..A 

administrative purposes and should not be used for any 

A

 -Jprejudgment on the part of the permitting authority as to whether 

any adverse impact on AQRVs will actually nrmr, nr whether a ' 

An important related issue concerns the responsibility for 

carrying out any additional technical analyses which may be 

necessary for the FLM to demonstrate that a source's emissions 

will have an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA generally expects 

the analyses performed by the applicant under the proposed 

provisions to enable a FLM to -aaaoag the impacts on AQRVs. In 

some cases, however, additional information may be necessary to 

make a thorough AQRV assessment and there is a question as to who 

should bear the responsibility for such information. The 

generally limited resources available to FLMs may make it very 

difficult for them to independently complete all the additional 

analyses which may be needed. Applicants for PSD permits are 

typically required to provide information and analyses necessary 

for the permitting authority to make a variety of ambient air 

quality decisions. Yet, applicants should not necessarily be 

expected to conduct an unlimited number of studiesq»t the rcquost. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND •

iJ>|A"-«'*J 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT/REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 /file name: Master6.29] *** 

v 
P.8 

172 

of tho FLM -in order to acoommodata tha informational needs that 

•the FLM may hava. 

The EPA solicits public comment on this issue in order to 

establish an equitable approach for completing the required 

analyses for Class I areas applicable to individual PSD 

applicants. Specifically, the EPA seeks input in determining 

what the respective responsibilities of the FLM and the permit 

applicant should be for carrying out the analyses necessary to 

enable the FLM to demonstrate an adverse impact on AQRVs. The 

EPA will consider such input and decide whether the regulations 

should explicitly address these individual roles. 

Proposed sections 51.166(p)(2)(i) and 52.21(p)(2)(i) also 

recognize that the FLM is not the only one authorized by the Act 

to file the notice concerning potential impacts on a Federal 

Class I area. Specifically, section 165(d)(2)(C)(i) of the Act 

authorizes that the notice be filed by any one of several 

officials, including the Federal official charged with direct 

responsibility for management of any lands within the Class I 

area potentially affected, the Federal Land Manager of such 

lands, the EPA Administrator, or the Governor of an adjacent 

State containing such Class I lands. Accordingly, the EPA is 

tracking this statutory requirement by including in the proposal 

that the FLM or other named officials may file a notice when it 

< . & • is believed that a proposed source may affect air quality a 

A 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 — - [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.9 

179 

application^The proposed requirements are to apply on the basis 

of the proximity of"the proposed source or modification to a 

Federal Class-xfarea. i With the proposed revisions, the FLM is 

afforded an opportunity to review the contents of any PSD permit 

application to determine whether sufficient information is 

available to assess the potential impacts on a Federal Class I 

area. As described earlier, in section IV.Cl. of this preamble, 

the EPA has proposed to require that the FLM (or other named 

officials) file a notice alleging potential Class I impacts in 

order to trigger specific Class I informational needs in the 

permit application. The proposed 100 kilometer cutoff applies 

only to the automatic notification (including forwarding of 

permit application) of the FLM that such source has applied for a 

PSD permit— There is no i-nhoront accumption that such source 

"O_VM e^^U^ 

will affect the Federal Class I area. 

(1) Notification to FLM for sources located within 100 

kilometers. Because sources located within a 100-kilometer range 

of Federal Class I areas generally have the greatest potential 

for affecting the air quality in those areas, EPA is proposing to 

require notification of the affected FLM when a PSD permit 

application is received for a new or modified source proposing to 

locate within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I area. The 

proposed notification includes the sending of a copy of the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.10 

203 

levels should be adequately conservative. These FLMs have, in 

fact, recommended significant impact levels that are more 

restrictive than those being proposed today by EPA. Their 

recommended levels were developed using the ratios derived from a 

comparison of significant impact levels^ "already used by EPA for Hfe. NAAS 

tf*-^ 4 . <Lv~MMt<LS /ZTZ\ A 

jta&asSPVP incrementTM"- ~~

 J ' >and the respective 

Claaa II increments. For comparative purposes the significant 

impact levels being proposed today by EPA and the levels 

recommended by the FLMs are shown below. 

Pollutant 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Particulate Matter 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Averaging 

Time 

Annual 

24-hour 

3-hour 

Annual 

24-hour 

Annual 

Levels 

Proposed by 

EPA (ug/m3) 

0.1 

0.2 

1.0 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

Levels 

Recommended by 

FLMs (ug/m3) 

0.03 

0.07 

0.48 

0.08 

0.27 

0.03 

The EPA wishes to emphasize that the specific significant 

impact levels that it is proposing today for the Class I 

increments are not intended to serve as thresholds for 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.11 

s X*' 

-fa. MXt^ "*"" /\Gj^vJ

 a 204 

<r<~ 

determining whether an adverse impact/ on AQRVs will occur. An 

adverse impact on AQRVs in a Class I area depends upon the 

sensitivity of the particular AQRV and involves an assessment of 

potential harm. An ambient pollutant concentration that is 

deemed to be of relatively insignificant consequence for purposes 

of increment consumption should not automatically be considered 

inconsequential relative to the inherently fact-specific 

demonstration upon which an adverse impact on AQRVs is to be 

based. Thus,j the fact that a source's predicted ambient impact 

Lin 

is less than an applicable Class I increment significant impact 

level would not relieve a permitting authority of the duty to 

consider the FLM's demonstration that a proposed source will have 

an adverse impact on AQRVs in a Federal Class I area. 

The EPA is declining to establish significant impact levels 

for fact-bound, site-specific AQRVs. The FLM is entrusted with 

protecting AQRVs and the decision to establish any appropriate 

significant impact levels for the AQRVs should rest with the FLM. 

Any significant impact levels for AQRVs may necessarily be sitespecific since each AQRV and its associated critical pollutant 

loadings may be different from area to area and even within 

individual Federal Class I areas. 

As described in section IV.C.I.e., the FLM's Role in 

Triggering a Class I Increment Analysis, the EPA is proposing 

regulations that call for the filing of a notice by the FLM, the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.12 

. / 

/ 

Ill 

205 

Federal official with direct land management responsibility, the 

Administrator or the Governor of an adjacent State containing a 

Federal Class I area to trigger the duty of a source to conduct a 

Class I increment and Class I impact analysis. The notice would 

allege that emissions from a proposed source cause or contribute 

to a change in the air quality in a Federal Class I area and 

would identify the potential effects of such change. 

Sources not receiving the notice are not required to conduct 

a Class I increment analysis. Thus, the significant impact 

levels that EPA is proposing for class I increments would apply 

to proposed sources that have received this notice. A 

determination that a proposed source receiving a Class I notice 

has an insignificant impact on Class I increments would exclude 

it from further increment analysis but not from a class I area 

impacts, assessment. The EPA requests public comments on its 

proposal to establish significant impact levels for Class I 

increments in general and the proposed levels, specifically. 

5. Clarification of Miscellaneous Issues. 

The discussion which follows addresses several relatively 

discrete issues. The EPA is clarifying current policy in areas 

where there is potential for significant confusion or uncertainty 

and, in some instances, is proposing conforming changes to the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.13 

161 

charged with direct responsibility for management of any Federal 

lands within a Class I area have an "affirmative responsibility" 

to protect the air quality related values (AQRVs) (including 

visibility) of such lands. The Act, section 165(d)(2)(B). The 

FLM protects AQRVs through a prescribed statutory role in 

assessing the potential impacts of a proposed PSD source. The 

Act, section 165(d)(2)(C). If a proposed source does not cause 

or contribute to a violation of a Class I increment, the FLM may, 

nevertheless, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting 

authority that the source will have an adverse impact on AQRVs in 

a specific Federal Class I area and, if so demonstrated, the PSD 

permit shall not be issued. Conversely, if the proposed source 

will cause or contribute to a violation of a Class I increment, 

then the owner or operator must demonstrate to the satisfaction 

of the FLM that there will be no adverse impact on AQRVs. The 

Act, section 165(d)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii). 

2. Improving Protection of Air Quality Related Values in 

Class I Areas ^uJL £vM/irirv\»vw,vJ>l «ns<-->s 

Over the past several years Congress .-and -the FLMs have 

expressed increasing concern about the effects of air pollution 

being observed and documented in Class I areas, coupled with the 

and Wildlife Service. In today's notice, the EPA is proposing to 

clarify the definition of "Federal Land Manager" to reflect the 

FLM's authority to designate another official to act on his or 

her behalf with respect to Federal Class I areas. See proposed 

sections 51.166(b)(24) and 52.21(b)(24). 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Masters.29] *** 
P.M 

216 

6. Information Clearinghouse (Federal Class I areas). 

The CAAAC recommended that the EPA establish a clearinghouse 

of information about Federal Class I areas. The EPA is currently 

working on a clearinghouse project to be incorporated into the 

EPA's public NSR bulletin board (NSR BB) which is hosted by the 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Users of the NSR BB may search for, 

retrieve, then read and/or download full text of recent policy 

and guidance material. The users may also solicit from or 

provide to other parties in the NSR permitting community, 

information pertaining to areas of interest within NSR. 

The EPA is expanding the NSR bulletin board's capability in 

two respects to address the CAAAC's recommendations. First, 

consistent with the proposed requirement to improve permitting 

authority and FLM coordination, described in section IV.C.2., 

above, the EPA will install a section exclusively for posting 

notice of major NSR permit applications by permitting authorities 

and/or permit applicants. All FLMs will have access to the 

database. This segment of the NSR BB will provide very basic 

CX. bvvef de-rcrZfrhim af 

source information, such as the name and type of source, its 

location nose* UTM coordinates), the distance between the proposed 

source and all Federal Class I areas within 500 km, and the 

proposed emission rate or net emissions increase of each air 

pollutant associated with the project. It also will allow permit 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] ***