P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

117) IV-C-31 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 117 of 142 
P.2 

J**"*** 

\ \mj 

% pRcn*1 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V Q£/ t^i °fc- *~ 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OCT 22 1999 

A-«k>-37 

H'-c-s i 

FFICEOF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable David E. Price 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Price: 

Thank you for your letter of September 29,1999 to Administrator Browner, in support of 

our efforts to simplify and streamline the new source review (NSR) program. You expressed 

concern over the length of time that it takes a large plant to get a permit and that applicability is 

based on 20 years of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpretation of complicated 

regulations. You also expressed concern over reports of EPA engaging in only one more round 

of stakeholder meetings before making decisions on finalizing the NSR Reform rule and 

encouraged us to continue the discussions with the participating stakeholder groups and work to 

reach a resolution supported by all of the stakeholders. 

You alluded to an announcement in 1991 that EPA was going to simplify the NSR 

regulations. To clarify, that announcement was in reference to the revision of regulations to 

implement the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The project to reform the NSR Regulations 

was not initiated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards until 1992 with two public 

workshops in response to complaints by industry that the program was complex and burdensome. 

In 1993, we formed an NSR Reform Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

(CAAAC) to allow the stakeholder discussions to move toward consensus. Eight public 

meetings of the NSR Reform Subcommittee were convened in the 1993-94 time frame. During 

this period, public comment was sought on elements of the package on several occasions 

including a preliminary draft in the summer of 1994 after which EPA began drafting the proposal 

package. Numerous meetings with separate industry groups were interspersed between the fall of 

1994 and proposal in the summer of 1996. A final meeting of the NSR Reform Subcommittee 

was convened shortly after proposal as well as a public hearing and a 6-month public comment 

period.j After that time, further discussions were conducted under the auspices of the Title V, 

Toxics and NSR subcommittee of the CAAAC. In 1997-98 EPA, through analyzing and 

summarizing the many comments on NSR Reform, refined key issues that needed to be 

addressed by the Reform rulemaking. The ensuing Notice of Availability that was published in 

the Federal Register triggered another round of meetings requested by various stakeholder 

groups. 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer) /JLtfAXlO 
P.3 

•t 

In late 1998 during discussions over litigation of the rules governing NSR applicability 

for utilities, EPA made an overture for industry to try one more time to come up with a better 

system for detenriining who or what is or is not covered by NSR. Again, the goal was to provide 

more flexibility for industry, streamline the permitting process where possible, but preserve the 

environmental protection called for by the Clean Air Act. Industry asked to be allowed to pursue 

the task. We have made a special effort over the past year to seek further input from all 

stakeholders on new approaches that will help achieve this goal. A large stakeholder meeting 

was convened on February 2-3 of this year and multiple rounds of follow-on meetings have been 

held with the stakeholders through the month of September. 

Consensus on reforming NSR applicability has been elusive up to the present, even 

among industry groups; however, the meetings have been constructive. Relative to your request 

that we continue these discussions, follow-up meetings on certain issues are likely in October 

and November. Based on the recent progress, we believe we can craft a package that provides an 

acceptable resolution on most issues by late fall. We are also investigating a longer term 

solution, i.e., sector-based approaches for selected industrial groups, such as utilities, that have 

similar manufacturing and emissions characteristics. This will likely be a separate effort that will 

require^further discussion with stakeholders* but may yield important dividends if the legal and 

policy issues can be resolved. 

Again, thank you for your concern and comments. If I can be of further service, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

^5^/^ve<^€^c 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

fl-f-1ld*ifo 

2 
P.4 

Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE 

CONTROL NO: OAR-9901291 

ALT. NUMBER: AI>9902110 

STATUS: PENDING 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 10/18/99 

CORRES.DATE: 09/29/99 

RECEIVED DATE: 10/08/99 

ASSIGNED DATE: 10/08/99 

CLOSED DATE: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

PRICE DAVID E. 

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PRICE: 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ASSIGNED: 

CAROL M. BROWNER 

EPA 

PROPOSED NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) RULE UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards - RTP 

COPD2S OF INCOMING PROVTOED TO: 

SIGNATURE: ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

OAR COMMENTS: 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: 

[Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

10/08/99 

Code/Status 

ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

-

(Untitled) 
P.5 

DAVID PRICE' ' ^ om 

4TH DISTRICT 4t(fit}^

 216 2

 ^YBURN BUILDING 

"lllllzi ? WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

NORTH CAROLINA JS£BM (202)225-1784 

1

 r. » «^^^Ki? 16 E. ROWAN STREET 

COMMITTEE O N APPROPRIATIONS TMffflmW SUITE525 

COMMITTEE O N THE BUDGET RALEIGH, NC 27609 

(919)789-3771 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

 ,7n,ZSKiBLVa 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CHAPEL H.LL.NC 27514 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515

 (919) 967"7924 

September 29,1999

 315E T.TE^ STREE T 

DURHAM, NC 27701 

,_,_,,,, , . , . . (919)688-3004 

Hon. Carol M. Browner, Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20460-0003 

Dear Carol: 

I am writing to urge you to continue the dialogue which EPA began with stakeholders on its 

proposed New Source Review (NSR) rule under the Clean Air Act. 

As you know, the NSR is a Clean Air Act permitting review that is required before certain projects 

or facility modifications can be undertaken. In 1991, EPA announced it would simplify and reform 

the 1980 NSR regulations, which consist of overiseven volumes of interpretive guidance from the 

Agency. NSR at a large plant can reportedly talte fourteen months or longer. Determining 

whether NSR is even applicable to a project depends on analyzing twenty years of EPA 

interpretation of complicated regulations. 

The stakeholder meeting convened by EPA in February of this year was an important first step in 

forging a consensus approach to simplifying the NSR process, and I commend you for initiating 

this dialogue. In June, state regulators asked EPA to continue discussions concerning the 

alternative approaches that EPA asked the stakeholders to develop. 

EPA is reportedly planning to hold only one additional round of stakeholder meetings before 

making a decision on finalizing an NSiR rule. If this report is accurate, I am concerned that a single 

additional round of stakeholder discussions may be insufficient to fully review the alternative 

approaches to NSR reform and bring the variouststakeholders into agreement. I realize it is not 

always possible for the Agency to satisfy every concerned group prior to finalizing a rule, but it is 

certainly preferable to maintain a cooperative approach to the greatest extent possible. 

I urge you to continue discussions on improving the NSR process and to work diligently toward a 

resolution that can be supported by all of the stakeholders. 

DAVID PRICE 

Member of Congress 

DP.dn 

^