p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 264 ) IV-C-9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:04

AM Sheet 264 of 276

# T P. 2

• v ._osr,, ,

** > r' if UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . 20460


### DE C1 0

### 1991
OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e HenryA . Waxma n Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Healt h an d th e Environmen t Committe e o n Energyan d Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 

## D 

# 1 1 DE CI

### 1199 1 

### o. X 

### DOCKE TJ
Dea r Mr . Chairman : Pleas e fin

d enclose d ou r response s t o question s fro myou r Jul y2 2 hearin g regarding WEPCO . Response s t o question s i nyou r Augus t 1 2 lette r wil l b e answere d shortly
. I f I ca n b e o f furthe r assistance , pleas e le t m e know
. 

### Sincerely , A r<
WilliamG . Rosenber g Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n Enclosur e

Printed on Recycled

PaperP. 3

••--•» . Question : Wha t i s the statu s o f the EPA' s 184(d ) Guidance ?

Answer : I n accordanc e wit hth e statutorydeadline , EPAissue d th e guidanc e require d b ySectio n 184(d ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 . Th e guidanc e documen t i s entitle d "Criteri a fo r Assessin g th e Rol e o f Transporte d Ozone/Precursor s i n Ozon e Nonattainmen t Areas " an d wa s issue d i nMay1991 . Th e documen t provide s a serie s o f modeling analyse s appropriat e fo r characterizing transpor t o f ozon e an d it s precursor s int o nonattainmen t areas . Ai r qualit yan d meteorologica l measurement s neede d t o characteriz e transpor t i n identifie d modelin g technique s ar e als o identified
. Acopyo f th e documen t i s attached
. Question : Pleas e provide a nanalysi s o f th

e overal l environmenta l consequence s tha t ar e expectedt o occur a s a resul t o f th e WEPCOrule . Answer : Th e effect s o f thi s rulemaking ar e linke d closel ywit h th e aci d rai n program . Th e requirement s o f th e aci d rai n program wil l affec t th e utilit yindustryi nsuc ha waytha t pas t action s canno t accuratel ypredic t th e future
. However , fo r severa l reasons , EPAdoe s no t expec t an ynegativ e environmenta l effect s t o occu r a s a resul t o f thi s rulemaking
. First , th e rulemakin g i s intende d t o hel p facilitat e efficien t an d timel y implementatio n o f th e aci d rai nprogramwhic hwil l reduc e annua l emission s o f S0 2 an d NOx . Second , th e proposa l doe s no t allo w fo r increase s i n emission s abov e thos e allowe d i nth e Stat e Implementatio n Pla n o r i n condition s containe d i nindividua l Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) o r nonattainmen t permits
. Finally , th e proposa l doe s no t allo wfo r violation s o f an yai r qualit ystandards , including PS D increments
. Th e WEPC O proposa l i s intende d t o assur e tha t ai r qualit y wil l no t deteriorate
. A s mentione d a t th e Jul y2 2 hearing , th e "environmentall ybeneficial " test , whic hi s par t o f th e pollutio n contro l exclusion , i s intende d t o assur e tha t "increase s i n pollutant s tha t woul d adversel yaffec t th e nonattainmen t areas " d o no t occur . Question : Pleas e provide a nanalysi s o f th

e impact s o f the pollutioncontro l exemption . I nparticular , wha t i s the effec t o nCO , NOx , an

dparticulat e matte r emissions . Answer : Th e EPAexpect s tha t most , i f no t all , pollutio ncontro l project s wil l reduc e ne t actua l emissions
. Th e "environmentall y beneficial " tes t tha t i s par t o f th e pollutio n contro l exclusio n provide s th e Administrato r assurance s tha t thes e type s o f project s wil l no t contribut e t o th e deterioratio n o f ai r quality
. Th e propose d rulemaking als o state s tha t th e sourc e mus t stil lP. 4

- 2 - compl ywit hal l applicabl e SI P requirements , permi t conditions , an d applicabl e NAAQ S an d PS D incremen t limits
. A s state d a t th e Jul y2 2 hearing , EPAwil l consider , o na case-by-cas e basis , whethe r a pollutio ncontro l projec t render s a uni t les s environmentall ybeneficial
. I nmakin g thi s determination , th e EPAwoul d no t expec t th e propose d projec t t o resul t i n an

yincreas e i npollutant s tha t woul d adversel yaffec t nonattainment
. Therefore , EPAdoe s no t expec t an yadvers e environmenta l effect s t o occu r i n thes e area s a s a resul t o f th e pollutio n contro l exclusion
. Th e pollutio n contro l exclusio ni s no t expecte d t o caus e significan t increase s i n CO , PM , o r NO xa t electri c utilit y sources . Question : Pleas e provide a nanalysi s o f the environmenta l effect s expecteda s a resul t o f the NO xBAC T presumption . Wha t effect s wil l thi s presumptio nhav e o narea s sucha s the Chesapeake Ba

y nonattainment area , th e Northeas t ozone nonattainment areas , an do naci ddepositio

ninarea s o f th

e west ? Answer : I n general , th e EPAbelieve s tha t ther e ar e severa l reason s wh

yNO xemission s wil l no t increas e a s a resul t o f th e presumption
. First , th e presumptio ni s jus t tha t —a presumption
. Th e permitting authorit ymus t still , a s par t o f th e permi t process , evaluat e BAC T o n a case-by-cas e basis
. Moreover , th e presumptio n onl yapplie s t o retrofits , no t t o ne wemissio n units
. Additionally , th e ozon e nonattainmen t provision s i n Titl e I provid e authorit yan d requirement s t o dea l wit hsituation s i n whic hNO xcontro l i s neede d t o attain/maintai nth e ozon e standard
. Thes e provisions , i n general , woul d nee d t o b e met , i n additio n t o th e NO xBAC T presumption , i n thos e area s wher e increase s i n NO xemission s woul d contribut e t o ozon e nonattainment
. Existing poin t source s must , a t a minimum , instal l RAC T i n thos e portion s o f th e Northeas t Ozon e Transpor t Regio n wher e NO xcontro l i s needed , unles s th e EPAdetermine s tha t additiona l reduction s o f NO xwil l no t b e beneficia l t o ai r qualit yi n th e region
. Ne wmajo r source s and majo r modification s i n nonattainmen t area s woul d b e require d t o instal l LAER . Moreover , t o th e exten t additiona l NO xcontrol s ar e foun d t o b e appropriat e b

yth e Northeas t Transpor t Commission , the yca nb e require d a s par t o f th e ozon e attainmen t demonstratio n plans
. Th e EPAwoul d trea t thos e portion s o f th e Northeas t regio n wher e NO xcontro l i s beneficia l a s i t woul d a nonattainmen t area . I nP. 5

• " ' .

- 3 -

suc hareas , RAC T woul d b e require d an d majo r modification s woul d b e require d t o mee t th e LAE Rrequirements
. Th e EPAi s concerne d abou t tota l NO xloading s t o th e Chesapeak e Bay . W e ar e workin g t o develo p and appl ymodel s t o determin e whic hsource s contribut e t o thos e loadings
. Nevertheless , th e propose d rul e shoul d hav e little , i f any , impac t o n ai r emission s tha t reac hth e Bay . Excep t fo r par t o f Virginia , al l o f th e State s tha t ar e nea r th e Bayar e locate d i n th e Northeas t Ozon e Transpor t Region ; action s take n t o achiev e th e ozon e NAAQ S i n thi s regio nan d i nth e Stat e o f Virgini a wil l als o serv e t o limi t emission s fromsource s affecte d byth e rule
. Wit hrespec t t o you r questio n abou t th e importanc e o f th e propose d rulemaking i n th e West , curren t utilit yNO xemission s i n th e wes t ar e onl yabou t 10 % o f nationa l utilit yNO xemissions , an d a n eve n smalle r fractio n o f tota l NO xfro mal l sources . A s such , littl e impac t i s expecte d i nth e Wes t a s a resul t o f thi s rulemaking
. Question : CanRAC T ever be a mor e stringent contro l thanBACT ? Answer : Yes . However , i n mos t case s BAC T i s mor e stringen t tha n RACT , RAC T i s a generi c nonattainmen t are a requiremen t whic h prescribe s retrofi t contro l fo r eac hexisting sourc e withi na sourc e categoryt o hel p achiev e attainmen t o f a NAAQ S withi na n area . Retrofi t contro l o f existing source s i s generall ymor e costl yan

d a t time s mor e difficul t t o implemen t tha ncontrol s installe d a t ne wunit s (due t o th e existing plan t spac e limitation s o r th e typ e o f equipment)
. Therefore , BACT , whic h applie s t o ne wo r modifie d source s locate d i nattainmen t area s has , i n th e past , generall ybee nmor e stringen t tha nRACT . Ther e are , however , variou s situation s whic hcoul d lead t o control s o n existing source s bein g mor e stringen t tha nBACT . Fo r instance , nonattainmen t are a requirement s fo r some source s ar e ofte n mor e stringen t tha n thos e i n attainmen t areas . Thus , a situatio n coul d occu r wher e RAC T fo r a sourc e categorylocate d i n a nonattainmen t area , suc ha s Lo s Angeles , i s se t a t level s mor e stringen t tha n woul d normall yb e require d b yth e BAC T requirement s fo r a simila r sourc e i n a nattainmen t area . Similarly , RAC T ma yb e mor e stringen t tha nBAC T du e t o differenc e i n timing
. Fo r example , i t i s possibl e fo r RAC T level s o f th e 1990' s fo r existing source s t o b e mor e stringen t tha n BAC T determination s mad e i nth e 1980' s fo r ne wsources .P. 6

- 4 -
Question : Statu s o f sectio n811 . Answer : Sectio n 811 , o f th e Miscellaneou s Provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , require s th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yt o compar e th e ai r qualit ystandard s an d control s o f majo r trading partner s o f th e Unite d State s an d evaluat e th e economi c effect s o f thos e control s o n th e internationa l competitivenes s o f U.S . industries
. Ther e ar e tw o requirement s unde r Sectio n811 , a ninteri m repor t du e i n mid-Augus t o f 199 1 an d a fina l repor t du e Novembe r o f 1992 . I n orde r t o satisf ythes e requirements , th e Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiatio n (OAR ) establishe d a ninteragenc ytas k forc e t o conduc t th e study
. Represente d o n th e tas k forc e i s th e Stat e Department , th e Departmen t o f Commerce , th e Departmen t o f Energy , Offic e o f U S Trad e Representative , programoffice s withi nOffic e o f Ai r an

d Radiation , th e Offic e o f Polic yPlanning an d Evaluation , th e Offic e o f Genera l Council , th e Offic e o f Researc h an d Development
. Th e projec t i s bein g conducte d i n tw o phases
. Phas e I addresse s th e relativ e stringenc yo f ai r pollutio n contro l regulation s i n selecte d countries
. Phas e I I integrate s th e economi c impact s an d trad e implication s o f th e regulations
. W e estimat e tha t a n interi mrepor t wil l b e read yfo r submissio n t o Congres s i nOctober
. Question : Wh

y ha s EP A cancele

drevie w o f th e CA A sectio n81 2 stud y b y th e scientifi c panel ? Answer : Unfortunately , ther e ha s bee nsome confusio ncreate d b y th e medi a wit hrespec t t o externa l revie wo f th e sectio n81 2 study
. EPAha s not , i n fact , cancele d an yo f th e externa l revie w efforts
. Prio r t o passag e o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments , EPA develope d plan s t o establis ha n Environmenta l Economic s Advisory Committe e (EEAC ) unde r th e auspice s o f th e Scienc e AdvisoryBoar d (SAB) . Th e initia l motivating even t wa s th e releas e o f th e Septembe r 199 0 SA

B Reducing Ris k repor t whic hspecificall y recommende d tha t th e Agenc y"develop improve d method s t o valu e natura l resource s an d t o accoun t fo r long-termenvironmenta l effect s i n it s economi c analyses. " I n additio nt o addressing thi s specifi c recommendation , th e EEAC i s intende d t o serv e a s a standing pane l o f expert s providing advic e t o EPAconcernin g economi c analysis
.P. 7

- 5 -
I t wa s anticipated , therefore , tha t thi s pane l woul d b e well-suite d t o revie wan d advis e th e Agenc ywit hrespec t t o th e sectio n 81 2 studie s o f th e overal l ne t benefit s o f th e Clea nAi r Act . I n fact , EPAexplore d th e possibilit yo f relying o n th e EEAC t o serv e th e purpos e o f th e ad ho c revie wpane l (the AdvisoryCounci l fo r Clea nAi r Ac t Complianc e Analysis , o r ACCACA ) mandate d b ysectio n 81 2 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . However , a revie wo f th e relevan t statute s le d EPA' s Offic e o f Genera l Counse l t o conclud e tha t th e tw o entitie s mus t b e separatel y chartered
. Therefore , i t wa s merel ythi s specifi c strategyo f usin g th e EEAC t o functio n a s th e ACCACAwhic hwa s canceled
. EP Astil l full yintend s t o mee t th e requirement s o f sectio n 81 2 fo r externa l revie wb

yscientifi c experts . However , i t appear s likel ytha t a separat e ad ho c ACCACAwil l hav e t o b e chartered
. EPAwil l continu e t o explore , however , th e possibilitie s fo r cross-membershi p betwee n th e tw o committees
. Question : wha t i s EPA' s regulator y proces s for developmen t o f Conformity

provisiono f th

e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 ? Wha t i s the current statu s o f th e Conformity

rule ? Answer : Th e conformit yprovisio ncontaine d i nSectio n176(c ) o f th e CA Awil l b e develope d using standard Agenc yoperating procedure s fo r rulemaking , whic har e base d o n th e requirement s o f th e Administrativ e Procedure s Act . Th e workgrou p i s currentl y developin g th e propose d rul e i n consultatio nwit hDOT . Afte r th e propose d rulemaking i s developed , pursuan t t o Executiv e Orde r 12291 , i t wil l b e referre d t o OM B fo r review
. Afte r th e Administrato r sign s th e proposal , i t wil l b e publishe d i nth e Federa l Registe r an d th e customarypubli c participatio nwil l follow , including a publi c hearing an d commen t period
. Th e fina l rul e wil l b e develope d afte r ful l consideratio no f al l comments . Question : Wha t i s EP A doin gto respon

dto assertion s tha t contaminatedgasoline wa s use dt o conduc t emissio ntest s for MM

T fue l additive ? Answer : Recently , Ethy l Corporatio n an d EPAhav e bee n conducting testing primaril yt o determin e i f MM T i n gasolin e cause s increase d tailpip e particulat e emissions
. Previou s EPAdat a showe d suc ha n effec t bu t Ethy l testing di d not . I n it s mos t recen t waive r reques t fo r MM T additive , receive d Jul y12 , 1991 , Ethy l claim s tha t contaminant s i nEPA' s tes t fuel , and no t MMT , cause d th e particulat e increase
. Th e tes t fue l use d i nth e An n Arbo r labwa s foun d t o b e contaminate d b yfreo nwhic hleake d fromP. 8

- 6 - testing equipment
. Th e freo ni nth e fue l mi xi s believe d t o hav e cause d th e particulat e increas e found
. A s a result , th e concer n regarding particulat e increase s ha s largel ybee nalleviated
. Unde r th e law , EPAha s 18 0 day s afte r receip t o f a waive r reques t t o reac ha decisio no r th e waive r i s automaticall y granted
. Revie wo f Ethyl' s reques t mus t b e complete d b yJanuary 8 , 1992 . Ther e ar e a numbe r o f importan t issue s tha t mus t b e resolve d befor e a decisio nca n b e mad e o nth e waiver
. A s par t o f EPA' s proces s o f exploring thes e issues , a publi c hearin g wa s hel d o n Septembe r 1 2 a t whic hEPAreceive d comment s o nth e application
. Question : Wa s th

e WEPCORul e th

e produc t o f a

nunusua l or unprecedentedprocedur e wherei nEP A turne dth e writingo f a

nEP A rul e ove r t o a

ninter-agenc

y tas kforc e headedu pb y CE A an d staffe dprincipall y

b y DOE ? (2 ) Ha s an

y prior EP

A rul e eve r beenwrittenb

y anothe r agency ? (3 ) Ha s DOE ever beens o heavil y involvedi nth

e draftin

go f a nEP A rule ? Answer : A s I state d a t th e hearing , th e Administration' s legislativ e proposa l o n WEPC O serve d a s th e blueprin t fo r th e WEPC O propose d rule
. I n preparing thi s legislativ e proposal , EPA wen t throughextensiv e interna l consultation s an d review s i n orde r t o assur e tha t th e legislativ e proposa l serve d th e goa l o f streamlining complianc e wit hth e ne waci d rai n provision s whil e no t compromising effort s t o assur e timel yattainmen t o f al l NAAQ S an d t o preven t significan t deterioratio no f clea n ai r regions
. Thus , th e WEPC O polic yissue s had largel ybee nraise d an d resolve d withi n EPAi n th e proces s o f developing th e Administration' s legislativ e proposal
. Furthermore , following th e hearing a t whic hth e Administration' s positio no nWEPC O wa s se t forth , Senato r Ford' s subcommitte e aske d fo r a n evaluatio no f wha t part s o f th e Administration' s proposa l coul d b e implemente d throughregulatorymean s unde r th e pre-existing statutory language
. Th e developmen t o f response s t o thi s inquiryresulte d i n th e Agenc yconsidering internall ydifferen t rulemaking approaches
. Fo r thes e reasons , whe n th e Agenc ybega nt o develo p it s administrativ e proposal , i t wa s recognize d tha t th e norma l interna l procedure s o f wor k group s an d wid e circulatio n o f draf t rule s wer e no t necessaryt o ensur e ful l interna l revie wo f th e fina l product
. Becaus e o f th e shor t deadline s presente d b ybot hth e Administrator' s commitmen t t o implemen t position s (compatibl e wit happlicabl e law ) reache d b yth e Administratio n durin g th e Clea n Ai r Ac t debate , and , mos t importantly , th e fast-approaching complianc e decision s tha t al l phas e I source s fac e unde r Titl eP. 9

- 7 -
IV , EPAals o decide d t o facilitat e th e OMB revie wproces s unde r Executiv e Orde r 1229 1 b yinviting interagenc yrevie wo f draft s o f th e propose d rule
. Th e CEA , DO E an d DO J wer e thu s brough t int o th e proces s earl yo n an d provide d comment s an d suggestion s throughou t th e developmen t o f th e rule
. A s yo u ar e aware , Dr . Schmalense e too k th e lead i n coordinating interagenc yinput
. A s a resul t o f thi s process , EPA' s propose d rul e cleare d OM B i n onl y on e dayand wa s propose d fo r publi c commen t o nschedule
. A t th e hearing , yo u seize d o n some o f thes e interagenc y revie wdocument s —whic hEPAha d dul ypu t int o th e publi c record

—and asserte d tha t th e WEPC O rul e wa s secretl ywritte n b yDOE . During th e drafting o f th e rule , DO E di d provid e extensiv e comment s o n draft s —whic hwer e carefull yconsidere d b yEPA . However , th e fina l propose d rul e wa s EPA' s produc t an d represent s EPA' s decision s o n ho wt o implemen t throughth e rulemaking proces s position s th e Administratio n ha d adopte d during th e Clean Ai r Debat e t o th e exten t thes e position s wer e consisten t wit h applicabl e law
. You r charg e tha t i t wa s writte n"word-for-word " b yDO E i s simpl ywrong . Man yprovision s requeste d b yDO E wer e rejecte d b

yEPA . O f course , w e d o no t expec t t o followa simila r procedur e wit han yothe r rul e becaus e th e uniqu e factor s whic hled t o th e WEPC O approac hwil l no t b e present . Fo r instance , whil e EPAi s currentl ydrafting a rul e o n BAC T tha t i s th e subjec t o f a simila r interagenc yworkin g group , EPAdoe s no t expec t tha t th e propose d rul e wil l b e publishe d unti l i t ha s bee n subjec t t o ful l interna l procedures , including wor k grou p closur e an

d "red border " review
. Still , i n aneffor t t o shorte n th e perio d o f forma l OMB revie ws o a s t o ensur e tha t Clea n Ai r Ac t regulation s ar e promulgate d o n time , EPAmayo noccasio n provid e OMB o r othe r agencie s wit hearl ydraft s fo r thei r revie wan d comment . Th e DO E als o participate s o n th e Aci d Rai nAdvisoryCommitte e an d ha s provide d constructiv e suggestion s o na numbe r o f Clea nAi r Ac t implementatio n issue s throughthi s foru man d i nconjunctio nwit h EPA' s circulatio n o f draf t rules
. Whil e th e tw o agencie s d o no t alway s agree , EPAcontinue s t o fin d direc t communication s wit h DO E a t th e drafting stag e t o b e advantageous
. Question : Do element s o f th e WEPCOproposa l conflic t wit h sectio n182(e)(2 ) o f the CleanAi r Ac t a s amended ? Answer : Sectio n 182(e ) provide s tha t i nextreme Ozon e nonattainmen t area s (i.e. , Lo s Angeles ) an yphysica l o r operationa l chang e "whic hresult s i nan yincreas e i n emissions " wil l b e considere d a modification , althoughth e sourc e ca navoi d th e offse t requirement s b yinternall yoffsetting an yincreas e i nP.1 0

- 8 - emission s a t a rati o o f 1. 3 t o 1 . Th e provisio nals o provide s tha t th e extreme are a offse t provision s d o no t appl yt o a modificatio n i f suc hmodificatio n consist s o f th e installatio no f equipmen t require d t o compl ywit h"th e applicabl e implementatio n plan , permit , or thi s Act. " EPAdoe s no t tak e th e vie wtha t thi s provision , whic h applie s t o onl yon e non-attainmen t regio ni nth e country , somehow preclude s EPAfromapplying a utilit ypollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n consisten t wit hexisting lawo r fromcodifying fo r utilitie s th e actual-to-actua l methodologyuse d i n th e WEPC O case . Moreover , i t doe s no t appea r tha t th e propose d rul e an d th e sectio n ar e necessaril yi nconflict , a s yo u suggest . Th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n i nth e propose d rul e i s no t preclude d b

yth e languag e eliminating th e offse t requirement s fo r genera l "compliance " projects
. Similarly , thi s provisio nstil l require s a causa l link betwee n th e chang e an d th e emission s increase
. Still , you r questio nha s pinpointe d a potentia l are a o f confusio n tha t shoul d b e addresse d i nth e fina l rulemaking
. Question : Wil l EP A plac e inth

e docke t transcript s o f al l future meeting s an

dtelephone call s betweenEP A an dother agencie s regardin

gth e WEPCOrule ? Answer : A s yo u ar e aware , sectio n 307(d)(4)(B)(ii ) require s EPA t o plac e i n th e docke t al l draft s o f propose d rule s submitte d t o OMB fo r interagenc yreview , a s wel l a s writte ncomment s receive d fro mothe r agencie s during th e interagencyrevie wprocess . EPA ha s scrupulousl yfollowe d thi s requiremen t i nthi s case . Wha t yo u inquir e about , however , goe s fa r furthe r tha nEPA' s statutory requirement s an

d interna l policies , an d woul d involv e informatio n protecte d b

yth e privileg e fo r deliberativ e communications
. I n addition , EPAdoe s no t hav e th e presen t capacit yt o produc e wor d fo r wor d transcript s o f thes e o r othe r informa l contact s tha t agenc yemployee s mayhave
. Finally , a s par t o f EPA' s standar d procedures , EPAemployee s creat e writte nrecord s o f al l contact s wit houtsid e partie s wher e th e part yprovide s EPAwit h significan t informatio n o r data
. Give n thes e existing safeguard s an d EPA' s limite d resources , EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t i t i s eithe r necessaryo r feasibl e t o transcrib e everyinteragenc y contac t fo r inclusio n i n th e docket
.P.1 1

- 9 - Question : Pleas e provide a detailedanalysi s o f emissio n increase s resultin

gfro m th e deman dgrowthprovision s o f th e rule . Answer : Nothin g i n th e propose d rul e allow s a utilit yt o automaticall yeliminat e demand growt hfromit s projectio n o f it s post-chang e utilization
. Rather , th e rul e merel ycodifie s i nth e actual-to-actua l methodologya causatio nrequiremen t tha t i s inheren t i n EPA' s existing ne wsourc e revie wregulation s require d b yth e statut e itsel f (se e sectio n 111(a)(4)) . Becaus e o f this , EPAdoe s no t expec t tha t a causatio nrequiremen t wil l resul t i n an yincreas e i n emissions
. EPAwil l addres s comment s o nthi s poin t i n th e preambl e t o it s fina l rule
.