OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

3) ll-F-45 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed U/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 3 of 45 

p.1 
P.2 

f 

I rttgrtftd Implementation Group (MD-12) 

Information Transfer and Program Integration Div. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency A. 70-37 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 ^T- F - t S 

FAX Number: (919)541-5509 

FAX TRANSMISSION 

TO: 

PHONS NUMBER 

'AXMJMBE1 

\TM/^cJUjL DuLaJ J PHONE NUMBEX 

919-541- <3£>.3 

COMMENTS: / % i i QaJi 

• h AkoU 00 <*~ 

* & 

•f TZ6L. [eMjn v- (&*&, /?*riw Pop A&<4~ 

OS J&Wul?/^ "& t AttodU) 

TTT 

fj3ru*& dc£fr*nt*fin</kA 

nh S-huKu) 

a^kcb<l&^ , oMaAirtJicok £>-£&£ (AM^ /p**** be&u^i&Cu,ooe<<JLxOm^OcJ)^) *A(AJnJuJL taf pure fft)UJ CLPJU^A uML. . 

Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 15* 

If you did not receive all the pages, please contact the foltewiat^ 

wssssr 

919-541- 2>%Q 
fS-O^t 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON OC 20301-3000 

ACQUISITION ANO 

TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. Maiy Nichols 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Ms. Nichols: 

M MAU 

The purpose of this letter is to request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

issue formal guidance to its Regions clarifying application of the "major source" definition to 

military installations under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), New Source 

Review (NSR), and Title V programs. Currently, the EPA regions and some states take the 

position that military installations are single sources for air pennitting purposes. This results in 

the aggregation of dissimilar sources of emissions in a manner not contemplated by the Congress 

or EPA and in more stringent treatment of military installations than was provided for in the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Enclosed is a oosition paper with suggested guidance language for EPA 

adoption.. 

In developing the "source" definition, it appears that both EPA and Congress intended to 

regulate the common sense notion of an industrial plant. It is clear that EPA did not intend to 

regulate larger entities, such as municipalities. In both size and diversity of functions and 

activities, military installations are analogous to municipalities rather than industrial plants. 

Unless corrected, the current treatment of military installations as single sources will 

unacceptably reduce military operational flexibility, inhibit civilian reuti__Lzation of closing DoD 

facilities, detract from EPA's efforts to improve enforceability of CAA requirements, and 

inequitably increase the administrative comphance burden on DoD installations as a single 

source. 

The Department of Defense is fully committed to meeting Clean Air Act requirements 

We would appreciate your assistance in ensuring the appropriate apphcation of these 

requirements to DoD installations. My point of contact is Major Craig Teller, (703) 696-1230 

^O^m^^--

Enclosure 

'Sherri W. Goodman 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Environmental Security) 

Environmental Security / J Defending our Future 
P.4 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

POSITION PAPER 

ON 

APPLICATION OF THE "MAJOR SOURCE- DEFINITION 

TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

As the Department of Defense (DoD) moves forward to meet 

emerging Clean Air Act (CAA) permit requirements, its efforts are 

hindered by an inflexible application of the "major source" 

definition to military installations. Many EPA regions and state 

regulators currently view military installations as single 

sources for permitting under the Title V, New Source Review 

(NSR), and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs. This results in the improper aggregation of 

dissimilar sources of emissions on a scale not contemplated by 

the Congress or EPA and in more stringent treatment of military 

installations than intended by the CAA § 118(a). This current 

treatment of military installations unacceptably reduces military 

operational flexibility, inhibits civilian reuse of closing DoD 

facilities, detracts from EPA's efforts to improve enforceability 

of CAA requirements, and inequitably increases the administrative 

compliance burden on DoD installations. 

Many state regulators agree that it is not appropriate to 

inflexibly treat military installations as single sources for 

Title V, PSD, and NSR permitting. Without clarifying guidance 

from EPA on the correct application of the* "major source" 

definition to military installations, these states and DoD 

installations are hampered in their ability to make reasonable 

and appropriate decisions regarding the applicability of CAA 

permit requirements. 

DOD POSITION 

EPA should issue formal guidance to its regions clarifying 

application of the "source" definition to military installations 

under the PSD, NSR, and Title V programs. The guidance should 

allow regulators and installations flexibility in making "source" 

determinations. 

DISCUSSION 

1. Military installations are in size and scope of activities 

more analogous to municipalities than to industrial plants. 

In terms of size and scope of activities, military 

installations are vastly different than the typical industrial 

plant subject to Title V, NSR, and PSD requirements, e.g., an 
P.5 

automobile or chemical manufacturing plant with one primary 

manufacturing activity. Military installations are more like 

municipalities. Installations support a unique and wide variety 

of functions and activities, including residential housing, 

schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, 

industrial operations, training ranges, airports, gas stations,' 

utility plants, police and fire departments, and hospitals. For 

example. Fort Bragg, NC, which is not atypical, has 5,166 

buildings, a population of over 64,000 (plus 56,000 reservists 

trained annually), six schools, a shopping center, a 350-bed 

hospital with 17 separate supporting medical or dental clinics, 

an airfield supporting 3 57 aircraft, 2,750 family housing units, 

numerous training ranges, and four large Army commands, each with 

separate command structures, budgets, and missions. 

Installations may also include a variety of tenant 

activities, including other service, non-DoD federal agency, 

contractor, and leased commercial activities. For example, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) , CA has a variety of private 

contractors developing space launch programs independent of DoD 

activities, including the Western Commercial Spaceport Company, 

Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and the Orbital Science Corporation. 

Another example is the Army's Redstone Arsenal, AL, which 

includes NASA's George C. Marshall Space and Flight Center and a 

missile rocket motor and munitions plant operated by Thiokol, 

Inc. 

Finally, as noted above, the geographic size of military 

installations makes military installations a class apart from 

industrial plants. Fort Irwin, CA encompasses over 1000 square 

miles; the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center, CA, 1.1 million 

acres; and Edwards AFB, CA, 300,000 acres. .Some installations 

transcend air quality districts and state and local government. 

boundaries, raising complex compliance issues if treated as a 

single "source." Very large installations, such as Fort Irwin 

and China Lake, have clusters of activities separated by large 

distances and in areas with different attainment designations. 

2. EPA did not intend to treat an entire military installation 

as a single source for Title V, NSR, and PSD. 

Under the definitions of "major source" for Title V, PSD, 

and NSR, stationary sources ("any building, structure, facility. 

or installation") of emissions, located on contiguous or adjacent 

properties; under common control of the same person or persons 

under coiraion control; and belonging to a single major industrial 

grouping (as described in the Standard Industrial Classification 

Manual, 1987) are regulated as part of a single "source." For 

private facilities, regulators apply this definition to "avoia 

the possibility that dissimilar sources, like a power plant and 
P.6 

*fc, _ ou o 

an adjacent coal mine, will be considered as the same source 

because of common ownership." 56 Fed. Reg. 21724. Currently,, 

the same is not true for military installations, where widely 

dissimilar 'sources are lumped together as one source based upon 

common control by an installation commander and a single 

industrial grouping: SIC code "9711, National Security." This 

interpretation with respect to DoD installations is too rigid and 

has consequences not contemplated by Congress or EPA. 

The "major source" definition incorporates three elements: 

(1) contiguous property, (2) common control, and (3) same SIC 

code. See 40 CFR §§ 70.2, 51.165(a)(1), and 51.166(b). While 

the contiguous property and common control elements of the 

definition are statutorily based, the SIC code element is not. 

Use of SIC codes as a means of designating the appropriate 

"source" for regulation originated during the PSD program 

rulemaking. 

In the evolution of the definition of "source" in the PSD 

program, EPA attempted to establish a means to delineate "common* 

sense industrial groupings" as a single stationary source subject 

to regulation. See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. 606 F.2d 1068, 

1077-78 (D.C. Cir 1979). In promulgating the definition of 

"source" for PSD, EPA stated that the "source" definition must 

meet the following criteria: 

(1) it must carry out reasonably the purposes of PSD; 

(2) it must approximate a common sense notion of 

"plant;" and 

(3) it must avoid aggregating pollutant-emitting 

activities that would not fit within the ordinary 

meaning of "building," "structure," "facility," or 

"installation." 

45 Fed. Reg. 52694-95. 

In proposing the Part 70 rule, EPA stated its intent to 

carry over the "source" concept developed in promulgating the PSD 

and NSR regulations. See 56 Fed. Reg. 21724 (May 10, 1991). EPA 

quoted, with approval, the following language from a House 

Committee Report on the 1990 Amendments. 

The definition of "major source" here and elsewhere in 

the bill uses the term "group of sources located within 

a contiguous area and under common control." The 

Committee understands this to mean a group of sources 

with a common industrial grouping, i.e., the same twodigit SIC code. It is the approach followed today by 

EPA as a result of the Alabama Power litigation. It 

avoids the possibility that dissimilar sources, like a 

power plant and an adjacent coal mine. will be 

3 
considered as 

ownership. 

the same "source" because of common 

56Fed; Reg. 21724 (emphasis added). These Congressional and EPA 

objectives afford the basis for the appropriate application of 

t-Vl theO "m__-(,-\* "major- _»,*, source , ,-~__"» *~y-y definitio ~i *i . n unde 3 «,.._ r . _ .. _____ , 

programs to military installations. 

Title V, NSR, and PSD 

3. Pollutant-emitting activities on a typical military 

installation do not fit within the ordinary meaning of 

"building," •» structure, •• "facility," or "installation." 

the PSD, 

Programs, 

NSR, 

there 

In the lengthy development of the 

and New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) 

is no indication that EPA ever intended to expand 

the "source" definition to regulate entities larger than 

plants. The terms "building," "structure," 

and "installation" have consistently been interpreted 

courts to be either smaller than or equivalent to 

essence, the "common sense notion of plant" 

industrial 

"facility, 

by EPA and the 

a "plant." In 

"source" definitions in 

a ^lauu . xxi e_s_sfc:_i<_e, u_ie c-ununon sense notion OJ- pi.oj.i-, 

establishes the outer boundaries of the "source" to be regulated. 

Consequently, while "installation" can mean "a military 

camp, fort, or base," EPA, in development of the PSD rule; viewed 

as having its other commonly accepted meaning: 

that is installed for use." Webster's Ninth New 

Dictionary. See 45 Fed. Reg. 52693 ("and so a 

the term 

"something 

Collegiate 

'building' may include many 'installations.'" Id. at 52697.). 

It is apparent that EPA appropriately envisioned an 

"installation" to be part of an industrial plant. This is 

consistent with Congress' and EPA's general intent to encompass 

within, the definition of "source," the emissions units 

constituting the "common sense notion of a plant." 

4. The SIC code and common control criteria of the "major 

source" definition are being inappropriately applied to military 

installations. 

EPA regions and many state regulators now generally vicw 

military installations as a single "source" under the Title V. 

NSR, and PSD programs, based upon common control by ar. 

installation commander and a single major industrial grouping 

SIC code "9711, National Security." See Latter from EPA Region 

III to the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding PSD applicability 

to Fort Belvoir, Dec. 11. 1992 (encl 1). For the reasons 

discussed' below, this interpretation is too rigid and is an 

inappropriate application of the "source" definition^ to military 

installations. See Memorandum from the Regional Air Pollution 

Control Agency, Dayton, Ohio, regarding Wright Patterson Air 

Force Base, June 8, 1994 (encl 2). 
While some small military facilities reasonably fall under 

SIC code 9711, National Security, this code is not appropriate 

for all installations or all parts of an installation. The 

Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987, pages 18 and 

419,- specifically provides for the use of alternative SIC codes 

in certain situations and, generally, suggests a more flexible 

approach in using the 9711 classification. 

9711 - National Security. Establishments of the armed 

forces, including the National Guard, primarily engaged 

in national security and related activities. 

Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 

ordnance, ships, and other military goods are classified 

in Manufacturing, Division D. Service academies are 

classified in Services, Industry 8221, but military 

training schools are classified here. Military 

hospitals are classified in Services, Industry Group 

806. Establishments of the Coast Guard primarily 

engaged in the administration, operation, or regulation 

of transportation are classified in Industry 9621. 

For the purpose of storm water discharge permitting. EPA has 

taken the position that SIC code 9711 is not representative cf 

the various functional activities on a military installation and 

alternative SIC codes should be used. See EPA NPDES Storm Water 

Program, Question and Answer Document, Vol. 1, page 19 (Mar 16, 

1992); 55 Fed. Reg. 48010 (Nov. 16, 1990). Treatment cf 

installations under the NPDES program is particularly instructive 

in that the CAA Title V Operating Permit Program is modeled after 

the former. Similarly, the use of alternative SIC codes for sorr.e 

activities may be more appropriate to achieving Title V, NSR, ar.d 

PSD goals and objectives. Very simply, the inflexible use of Sic 

code 9711 for military installations, in many cases, will r.ctachieve a "common sense industrial grouping." For example, 

including activities such as an airport, artillery ranges, 

commercial industrial operations, a hospital, and residential 

housing as part of a single stationary source hardly approximates 

the "common sense notion of plant." 

Additionally, while the commander has broad legal authority 

over and responsibility for activities conducted _ on trains tallation, including environmental responsibilities, 

practice, the commander may not have day-to-day supervisory 

control or funding authority over certain tenant activities, sue:. 

as NASA or Lockheed. Most tenant support agreements at Dec 

installations are similar to the typical lessee/lessor agreements 

found i_i, for example, an industrial park. Actual supervisory 

control and funding authority generally are vested in the owner.* 

or managers of the tenant activities. 
P.9 

Consequently, based upon a lack of common control or the use 

of SIC codes that are more representative than 9711, it is 

appropriate to divide some, not all, military installations into 

multiple sources for applicability of Title V, NSR, and PSD 

permitting. Permitting authorities need the flexibility to 

resolve the difficult issues associated with the application of 

the "source" definition to DoD installations on a case-by-case 

basis, considering program objectives and the uniform treatment 

of federal and non-federal facilities. 

5. The current application of the "source" definition to 

military installations does not "carry out reasonably the 

purposesn of the Title v program. 

y* 

Two of the primary objectives of the Title V program are 

"increased source accountability and better enforcement." 57 

Fed. Reg. 32251. The rigid treatment of military installations 

as single sources does not "carry out reasonably" these purposes 

and, in some cases, will be detrimental to accountability and 

enforcement by placing an unreasonable administrative burden upon 

DoD and its installation commanders. 

A. Command and control issues. 

The current application of the "source" definition is a 

significant problem for installation commanders, who may not have 

day-to-day supervisory control or funding authority over some of 

the tenant activities on the installation, such as Lockheed or 

NASA. As the "responsible official" (40 CFR §70-2), the 

commander must personally certify, on a periodic basis and based 

upon reasonable inquiry, full compliance by all of the activities 

included under the permit. 

For example, Vandenberg AFB is regulated as a single 

stationary source, even though it is the home of the commercial 

space program. As it stands now, emissions from the commercial 

space operations are aggregated with existing DoD operations into 

the total air emissions allowed Vandenberg by the local air 

district. As a single emissions source, the installation and its 

commander are responsible for CAA compliance by the commercial 

space tenants. 

There are substantial administrative, control, and funding 

problems associated with including tenant activities, such as 

those described above, within the installation's Title V permit. 

Title V purposes would be better served if the "major source" 

definition is correctly applied so that the Responsible Official 

is also the official with actual authority to control and 

supervise emitting activities. The current application of the 

"major source" definition is counterproductive to Title V goal. 
and purposes in failing to assign responsibility to those 

officials with actual control and authority over emitting 

activities._ The current application of the definition will place 

installation commanders in the anomalous position of having 

responsibility without real supervisory control. Ultimately, 

placing Responsible Officials in such an untenable position can 

only be destructive of the Title V enforcement scheme. 

B. Administrative burden. 

It will be extremely resource intensive for installations to 

inventory and monitor the large number of small emissions units 

within the boundaries of the typical military installation. 

Because military installations typically transcend the "common 

sense notion of plant," EPA could not have contemplated the 

magnitude of the compliance burden under the Title V, NSR, and 

PSD programs. While large private facilities also must account 

for miscellaneous emissions units, private facilities generally 

are significantly smaller (There are no private facilities the 

size of Fort Irwin, approximately 1000 square miles.) and do not 

support the wide variety of military, commercial, industrial, and 

municipal activities found on many military installations. 

Inventorying, monitoring, and controlling the countless minor 

emissions units that exist within the boundaries of a typical 

installation will divert limited DoD resources from effective 

management of the emissions from the "industrial groupings" on an 

installation, which are EPA's intended "major sources" of 

regulation under the Title V, NSR, and PSD programs. Moreover, 

the diversion of significant resources to monitor and track the 

large number of minor emissions units scattered across an 

installation will hinder current federal initiatives to focus 

limited funding and resources on the major environmental problems 

affecting ecosystems. See CRS Report for Congress, Ecosvster, 

Management: Federal Agency Activities (April 19, 1994). 

6. The current application of the "source" definition to 

military installations results in the discriminatory treatment of 

federal installations in violation of Clean Air Act (CAA) § 

110(a). 

CAA § 118(a) provides that federal agencies must "comply 

with, all Federal, state, interstate, and local requirements. 

administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting 

the control and abatement of air pollution in the same manner ar.c 

to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity" (emphasis 

added) . The current inflexible application of the "major source'* 

definition to military installations results in substantially 

more onerous treatment of military installations in comparison cc 

private industrial plants. While, for private plants, regulatorare appropriately applying the "source" definition to "avoid tht. 
P.11 

possibility that dissimilar sources, like a power plant and an 

adjacent coal mine, will be considered as the same source because 

of common ownership" (56 Fed. Reg. 21724), the same is not true 

with respect; to military installations, where widely dissimilar 

sources are lumped together as a single source for Title V, NSR, 

and PSD permitting. Under the current approach, a power plant 

and a coal mine on contiguous property and under common control, 

would be treated as separate sources if privately owned and as 

one source if on a military installation (along with the many 

other activities on the installation) . This unequal treatment 

results in a substantially greater compliance burden on military 

installations and violates CAA § 118(a). 

7. Tha current rigid application of the "source" definition to 

military installations is a break from past practice. 

The current interpretation that an entire installation is 

one "source" is inconsistent with long-standing treatment of 

emissions units on military installations under the PSD and NSR 

programs. Until 1992, regulators routinely issued air permits to 

military installations for individual emissions units on an 

installation, e.g., each boiler or paint shop, as the "sources" 

subject to regulation. This long-standing practice reflected the 

prevailing understanding by EPA, the states, and the regulated 

community, based upon a reasonable and flexible interpretation of 

the "source" definition. See Copy of letter from Region VIII to 

Colorado, Oct 27, 1988, subject: Pueblo Army Depot (encl 3). 

As a result, some installations will not- have complied with 

NSR and PSD requirements that may now be deemed by some 

regulators to have been applicable in light of the current 

interpretation of "source," as applied to military installations. 

Consequently, the Title V permit application process may result 

in a series of unanticipated enforcement actions, and significant 

unfunded compliance requirements for DoD. 

8. The current application of the "major source" definition to 

military installations may hinder commercial reutilization and 

community redevelopment efforts. 

Currently, there are significant efforts within DoD to 

promote the efficient commercial and community reuse of military 

facilities that are no longer needed for defense purposes. These 

efforts provide direct economic benefit to communities facing 

loss bf jobs as a result of a reduced military mission or base 

closure. For example, the Army's Armament Retooling & 

Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Initiative. P.L. 102-484, § 191 .__£. 

seq., provides for the lease of unneeded ammunition manufacturing 

facilities to commercial enterprise. ARMS resulted in an 

estimated community benefit of $31.71M through March 1994. 

8 
_E__1i 

Business activities conducted under ARMS include dog food 

manufacturing, metal fabrication, commercial laundry service, 

office and warehouse space, machine shops, electronic assembly,' 

and wood 'products. Similarly, the Air Force is developing a 

commercial space launch program at*Vandenberg AFB. Some of these 

commercial tenant activities could qualify for synthetic minor 

status if they were properly segregated from DoD activities. 

Conversely, DoD installations may become major sources or lose 

the ability to establish synthetic minor status under Title V by 

virtue of tenant activities over which they lack day-to-day 

control. 

If regulators require inclusion of commercial activities as 

part of the same "source" as all other installation activities, 

it may significantly hamper commercial reuse and leasing 

arrangements. Commanders will want to avoid the Title v, NSR, 

and PSD requirements associated with the commercial activities, 

over which they will lack meaningful control. Commercial 

enterprises will be deterred by the prospect of government 

oversight over emissions generating activities and the inability 

to escape major source status. 

9. Recommended EPA guidance. 

To correct the current misapplication of the "source" 

definition to military installations under the Title V, NSR, and 

PSD programs, EPA should issue the following guidance. 

In applying the "source" definition to federal 

facilities under the Title V Operating Permit, New 

Source Review (NSR), and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) programs, permitting authorities 

must ensure that program requirements apply to federal 

facilities "in the same manner and to the same extent 

as any nongovernmental entity." Clean Air Act § 

118(a). Application of the definition of "source" that 

results in treating federal military installations more 

stringently than comparable nongovernmental entities 

under Title V, NSR, and PSD is not permissible. 

In applying the "source" definition to military 

installations, permitting authorities must recognize 

that military installations support a unique variety of 

dissimilar functions and activities, including 

residential housing, schools, recreational parks, 

wildlife reserves, shopping centers. industrial 

operations, artillery ranges, airports, gas stations, 

utility plants, police and fire departments, and 

hospitals. In terms of size and variety of activities, 

military installations are typically analogous to 
te "A. 

municipalities rather than to industrial plants. 

Consequently, in many cases, it is not appropriate to 

treat an entire military installation as the equivalent 

of an-industrial plant for permitting purposes. 

While many military facilities will fall under the 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code "9711, 

National Security," this classification is not 

appropriate for all installations and all parts of an 

installation. For many installations, the exclusive 

use of SIC code 9711 will not achieve Congress' and 

EPA's objective of defining "source" to "approximate a 

common sense notion of an industrial plant." The use 

of alternative SIC codes for some activities is more 

representative of installation functions and 

appropriate to achieving Title V, NSR, and PSD goals 

and objectives. The Standard Industrial Classification 

Manual, 1987, pages 18 and 419, suggests a flexible 

approach in using the "97H" classification and the use 

of mora representative SIC codes in appropriate cases. 

Consideration of alternative SIC codes also may be 

warranted based upon the treatment of comparable nongovernmental facilities. 

While the commander has broad legal authority over 

and responsibility for all activities conducted on the 

installation, including environmental responsibilities, 

in practice, the commander may not exercise day-to-day 

supervisory control or funding authority over all of 

the tenant activities on the installation. Actual 

supervisory control and funding authority may be vested 

in the owners or managers of the tenant activities. 

Tenan activities on an installation may include 

independent organizations of the same service and other 

service or agency, contractor operated, leased 

commercial, classified, and civilian reuse activities. 

As a result, based upon a lack of common control 

or the use of SIC codes that are more appropriate to 

the circumstances than "9711, National Security," it 

will be appropriate to divide some military 

installations into multiple sources for applicability 

of Title V, NSR, and PSD permitting. Additionally, it 

will be appropriate in some cases to divide 

installations along jurisdictional or air quality 

district boundaries. Permitting authorities must 

resolve the difficult issues associated with the 

application of the "source" definition to military 

installations on a case-by-case basis, considering 

10 
P.14 

ss^^sisLn^s.1.'0TM

creatm9nt °f

 ^^ 

11 
P.15 

b b " 14 'b b U:b 4 l-KOM HtiC INSIflL AND ENUTT O 391913541558 9 PAGE. 00 2 

09/U/ti 12 = 28 «TM 3 « " «

7 3 ES *0ASM a4E >

 ~ *

 0AGC(I ^}

 ..*«001/002_ 

DEPARTMENT OP THE NAVY 

OPTICS OV TH * OtlfTM T •CCMTAMY 

(lN«TAUATlON« AIM CNVIMNMKMT) 

WOO MAW MMTAOOM 

WASMH««Te«. Out zaaso-woo 

14 September 1995 

John S. Seitz 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

United states Environmental Protection Agtncy 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Dear Mr. Seitz: 

I am writing to express appreciation for tha efforts of your 

office in addressing concerns raised by tha Department of Defense 

regarding tho interpretation of the major source definition for 

military installations. In particular, Ms. Michel* Dubow has 

bean especially responsive and helpful in our efforts to find an 

agreeable resolution. 

Since Ms. Goodman, tha Daputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Environmental Security), wrote to Ms. tficbols last March, SPA 

and DoD hava bean talking and axchanging written materials to 

batter define and explain tha issues. On August 10, 1995, BPA 

representatives from Research Triangle Park and Headquarters mat 

with representatives from the Military Services Clean Air Act 

Steering Committee co attempt to finalize agreement on several of 

the issues. As a result of that meeting, DoD and EPA have agreed 

that EPA will issue guidance on this matter in a phased process. 

This is to allow guidance to be distributed quickly on che agreed 

upon items, while reserving the more difficult issues for further 

discussion and subsequent guidance. DoD's agreement to phasad 

guidance does not indicate that the remaining issues are any lass 

important, as significant unresolved issues still exist. 

While we are pleased with che progress we are now achieving, 

we remain concerned that guidance reach tha Regions and States in 

a timely manner to be applied eo the Title V permit applications 

now coining due across the country. We ask that you continue to 

promptly develop and issue guidance so chat ic ie available 

before November 1995. We hope that any subsequent. Phase II, 

guidance could be issued by no later than February 1996. 

orrwtmmt-ittTie. 

FAX TRANSMITTAL »0*l 

SEP 14 '93 12:30

 70 3 S9 S 25? 3 "6E.BBI 
J U ' " " ' J

-

J

"

 lKU " ' ^ '^'HLHH 0 6 „ « , ^ITsTiiJTiii i Pa6EB0 3 n " 

OS/14/93 12:29 970 3 695 2373 ES.OASN <I*E) -»-* 0AGC.I4E. i«uu£/wuA 

Thank you again for your cooperation, I am confident ve can 

find nutually acceptable solutions. 

"WSUMQQ. 

to* SLSXS t- MOKSBLL 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Of the Navy 

(Environment and Safety) 

Copy to: 

A(ILtF) 

,'MIQ 

.IC(CMC-LPL) 

JAOCdfcS) 

CNO(N45) 

DIA-CAAB 

NGB-ARB 

SEP 14 '95 12:30 703 69S Z3?3 PPGR.382 

** TOTAL PfiGE70ff3~^«