p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

15) ll-F-57 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 15 of 45 
P.2 

•me 

Office,* A^Q^ityPh^^sJ^ 

U- S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park. NC 277U 

FAX Number: (919)341-5509 £ff. 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

• HMOS. 

2oi/Zl^ - 33S¥ 

Mtmnao. 

E 919-541- 5^= 

COMMENTS: 

fO (°/z- T>00 ) ^-AJ £ 7~<4-L-J-nn&T^sr± 

<LZ'^t^~i<^e-s S/AJO S T^rtS ^£< ^ 0/-«^ > iX£=r2^s>OAJ 

L A^o t»*»»JOC f /***+*£ GG^S*^ /vr/^oe CoMcetiiO/^i . 

3/6-AJ/r £-&s&~& f=»<e. 444.1/ s ) 

Number of Pages (including cover soeet): /<?-

If yoa did not receive ill the pages, pletse conact the 

r 
P.3 , 

10 

not be redesignated) or redesignated as Class I pursuant to 

the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section or section 

52.21(g) of this chapter. 

(39) Federal official means the Federal official 

charged with direct responsibility for management of any 

lands within a Federal Class I area. 

(40) Air quality related value means, for purposes of 

this section, visibility or a scenic, cultural, physical, 

biological, ecological, or recreational resource that may be 

affected by a change in air quality, as defined by the 

Federal Land Manager for federal lands and as defined by a 

State or Indian Governing Body for nonfederal lands within 

their respective jurisdictions. 

(41) Adverse impact on air quality related values 

means, for purposes of this section, an unacceptable 

deleterious effect on any air quality related value 

identified by a Federal Land Manager, resulting in whole or 

in part from emissions from a proposed major source or major 

modification, that interferes with the management, 

protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the air quality 

related values of a Federal Class I area. This 

determination shall be made on a case-by-case basist 

considering the change in. existing air quality (as affected 

by existing and newly-permitted sources not yet in 

operation) resulting from the emissions from the proposed 

source. 

(42) Demonstrated in practice means for the purposes 

of this section, a control technology that has been--

(i) Listed in or required by any of the following: 

(A) The EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse; 

(B) Major source construction permits issued pursuant 

to parts C and D of title I of the Act; 

(C) Emissions limitations contained in federallyapproved plans excluding emissions limitations established 

by permits issued pursuant to programs for non-major 

sources; 

(D) Permits and standards under section 111 and 112 of 

the Act; 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 -- [filename 51_166_6.29] *** 
P.4 

14 

(vi) The permitting agency responsible for issuing the 

permit. 

(5) The plan shall provide that prior to making a 

completeness determination, the permitting authority shall 

provide for any Federal Land Manager review and coordination 

required under paragraph (p)(5) of this section. 

(p) Sources potentially impacting Federal Class I 

areas 

(1) Protection of air quality related values. The 

Federal Land Manager and the Federal Official have an 

affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality 

related values of Federal Class I areas and to consider, in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed 

source or modification will have an adverse impact on such 

values. 

(2) General requirements. (i) Notification of 

potential impacts on a Federal Class I area and requirement 

for impact assessment. The plan shall provide that where 

the Federal Official, Federal Land Manager, the 

Administrator, the Governor of an adjacent State, or the 

governing body of an adjacent Indian Tribe containing a 

Federal Class I area, files, prior to the date a 

completeness determination is mads pursuant to paragraph 

(n) (1) of this section, a written notice alleging that 

emissions of a particular pollutant from a proposed major 

source or major modification may cause or contribute to a 

change in the air quality in such area and identifying the 

potential adverse impact of such change on each affected air 

quality related value identified in the area by the Federal 

Land Manager, a permit shall not be issued unless the owner 

or operator of such source: (A) demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the permitting authority that emissions will 

not cause or contribute to ambient air quality 

concentrations in the Federal Class I area which violate the 

maximum allowable increases over baseline concentrations, 

and (B) provides an analysis of the potential impacts on air 

quality related values at the Federal Class I area. The 

plan may provide that a permit otherwise prohibited under 

this clause may be issued in accordance with the variance 

provisions in paragraph (p)(8) through (p)(11) of this 

section. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 -- [filename 51_166_6.29] *** 
P.5 

16 

(i)_ Ensure that the applicant has provided any 

analysis" required pursuant to paragraph (p) (2) (i) of this 

section; 

(ii) Give the Federal Land Manager 3 0 days from 

receipt of an application to review the application, where 

the Federal Land Manager has received an application 

pursuant to paragraph (p)(4) of this section; 

(iii) Consider any comments provided by the Federal 

Land Manager within the time period under paragraph 

(p) (5) (ii) of this section; and 

(iv) Consult with the Federal Land Manager about any 

inconsistency between the determination by the permitting 

authority and the Federal Land Manager's recommendations. 

(6) Preliminary and final permit determination--No 

Class I increment violation. The plan shall provide that, 

where the permitting authority has determined that the 

emissions from the proposed major source or major 

modification will not cause or contribute to ambient air 

quality concentrations in the Federal Class I area which 

exceed the maximum allowable increases over baseline 

concentrations--

(i) The permitting authority shall not isstte a 

prelimary permit determination until -Fthe Federal Land 

Manager will be has been given at least 6 0 days (from the 

date of issuance of the completeness determination required 

under paragraph (n)(1) of this section that the permit io 

complete) prior to the permitting authority's preliminary 

permit determination to submit a demonstrateion that a 

proposed major source or major modification will have an 

adverse impact on air quality related values. 

(ii) If the permitting authority agrees with the 

Federal Land Manager's demonstration under paragraph 

(p)(6)(i) of this section, the permitting authority shall 

propose to deny the permit. 

(iii) If the permitting authority disagrees is not 

satisfied with the Federal Land Manager's demonstration 

under paragraph (p)(6)(i) of this section, the permitting 

authority shall consult with the Federal Land Manager, 

reference the Federal Land Manager's demonstration of 

adverse impact on air quality related values in the public 

notice announcing the preliminary permit determination 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 -- [filename 51 166 6.29] *** 
P.6 

17 

required under paragraph (q) (4) (iii)—of this ocction,—aftd 

explain-and propose to approve the permit with an 

explanation in writing (for inclusion in the public record! 

required under paragraph (q) (4) (ii)—of this section the 

reasons for proposing to reject the Federal Land Manager's 

demonstration. The permitting authority's written 

evaluation explanation shall contain address, at a minimum, 

the following: 

(A) The basis for any disagreement with the data and 

analyses contained in the Federal Land Manager's 

demonstration of adverse impact on air quality related 

values; 

(B) Any conclusions the permitting authority reaches! 

about whether the adverse impact projected impacts of the 

proposed source's emissions will have an adverse impact on 

air quality related values, that are inconsistent with those 

the conclusions reached in the demonstratedion submitted by 

the Federal Land Manager; and 

(C) Any measures undertaken to mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including 

the estimated effect of any mitigation. 

(iv) In the final permit determination, the permitting 

authority shall address any comments made by the Federal 

Land Manager concerning the permitting authority's 

preliminary determination. 

(7) Mitigation of adverse impacts. The plan shall 

provide that a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate its potential adverse impacts, if any, on air 

quality related values in a Federal Class I area. The 

permitting authority may issue a permit for a proposed major 

source or major modification that would otherwise be denied 

a permit under paragraph (p)(6) of this section, if the 

permitting authority determines, in consultation with the 

Federal Land Manager, that the source has mitigated its 

adverse impact on air quality related values. The owner or 

operator of a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate an adverse impact by obtaining enforceable and 

permanent emissions reductions of sufficient amount and in 

such location that the reductions will offset the change in 

ai:; quality in the Federal Class I area that would have 

resulted from the proposed source. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 -- [filename 51_166_6.29] *** 
P.7 

195 

appropriate amount of time for the FLM to complete any necessary 

analyses without unduly delaying the permit process. 

In addition, the EPA requests comments on its own role. 

Section 165(d)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the FLM and the 

Federal official charged with direct responsibility for land 

management have an "affirmative responsibility" to "consider, in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed major 

emitting facility will have an adverse impact." The EPA is not 

proposing a specific role, beyond the significant programmatic 

changes related to Class I area protection proposed today, 

concerning how it should consult with the FLM. The EPA requests 

comments on this issue. 

(3) Rejection of the FLM's demonstration of an adverse 

impact on AQRVs. Ao described above, The Act and EPA*s PSD 

regulations provide that where the permitting authority 

determines that a proposed source's emissions will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of a Class I increment, the FLM must 

demonstrate |fto the satisfaction of the permitting authority! 

that the proposed will have an adverse impact on AQRVs will 

occur. The permitting authority is thus given the authority to 

accept or inject the FLM's demonstration. The permitting 

authority's concurrence with such demonstration means that the 

permitting authority must propose to deny the PSD permit. See 

existing sections 51.166(p)(3) and 52.21(p)(4). [See also 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.8 

196 

proposed sections 51.166(p)(6)(ii) and 52.21(p)(6)(ii).] If the 

permitting authority determines that the FLM has not demonstrated 

to its satisfaction that a proposed source's emissions will have 

an adverse impact on AQRVs, the permitting authority may propose 

to issue the PSD permit so long as it has a rational basis for 

doing so.59 

Recent permit controversies have underscored the need for 

national guidance addressing the permitting authority's role in 

evaluating the FLM's demonstration of an adverse impact on AQRVs 

and the rationale for any decision to disagree with the FLM's 

findings. For example, in a PSD permit appeal proceeding, the 

EPA's Environmental Appeals Board held that the permitting 

authority erred in summarily rejecting the demonstrations of the 

FLMs for the Shenandoah National Park and James River Face 

Wilderness that the proposed facility would have an adverse 

impact on AQRVs in those Federal Class I areas.60 

59 See 50 FR 28544, 28549 (July 12, 1985); see also Old 

Dominion Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 91-3 9 at 8 and n. 9 

(Jan. 29, 1992). 

60 Hadson Power 14--Buena Vista, PSD Appeal Nos. 92-3, 92-4 

& 92-5 (Oct. 5, 1992). The EPA Environmental Appeals Board 

reasoned that, "States do not have unfettered discretion to 

reject an FLM's adverse impact determination. If a state 

determines that an FLM has not satisfactorily demonstrated an 

adverse impact on AQRVs from the proposed facility, the state 

must provide a 'rational basis' for such a conclusion, 'given the 

FLMs' affirmative responsibility and expertise regarding the 

Class I areas within their jurisdiction.' 50 FR 28549 (July 12, 

1985) . Arbitrary and capricious rejections of adverse impact 

demonstrations are not sustainable." [Hadson at p. 21. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.9 

197 

In an effort to provide clearer guidance and promote more 

reasoned decision-making, the EPA is proposing to establish 

considerations that must inform a permitting authority's 

rejection of the FLM's demonstration of an adverse impact on 

AQRVs. In doing so, the EPA has tried to balance the competing 

statutory provisions concerning the affirmative responsibility 

given to the FLM to protect the AQRVs of Federal Class I areas 

and the Stipulation that the permitting authority must be 

satisfied with the FLM's demonstration of adverse impact on AQRVs 

in any particular situation. 

The FLMs have expert knowledge about the lands they manage 

and are expressly entrusted by the Act with an affirmative 

responsibility to protect the AQRVs of Federal Class I areas. 

Accordingly, the EPA believes it is appropriate for the 

permitting authority to give deference to recognize the FLM's 

scientific and technical expertise in ita own evaluation of the 

FLM'o dcmonotration the identification and evaluation of adverse 

effects on AQRVS. Nevertheless, the permitting authority ia 

plainly given authority to determine whether to accept or reject 

the FLM'o dcmonotration,—and it may reject the dcmonotration ao 

long ao it haa a rational baoio for doing oo. Notwithstanding 

the FLM'b" particular expertise, the permitting authority may call 

upon experts of its own choosing to evaluate the FLM's findings 

(citations omitted)] 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.10 

198 

concerning the estimated impact of a proposed source's emissions, 

the scientific basis upon which the adverse impact demonstration 

is based, as well as the case-specific conclusion that such 

source impacts will adversely affect the AQRVs identified by the 

•fWL. 

Where the permitting authority is not satisfied with the 

;FLM*s demonstration of adverse impact on .AQRVs, Tthe EPA is aloo 

proposing (1) a general consultation provision necessitating some 

form of communication and discussion between the permitting 

authority and the FLM when a disagreement arioco; and {2}-: Ift 

addition,—the EPA io propoaing to a provision require§||| the 

permitting authority to highlight the issues raised by the FLM 

and explain its reasons for disagreement in the public record. 

The permitting authority would satisfy this latter requirement by 

including a brief summary of the Class I area impact issues in 

the public notice announcing the preliminary permit 

determination, and fee explaining in writing, for incluoion in the 

public record, its specific reasons for rejecting the FLM's 

demonstration of adverse impact. See proposed sections 

51.166(p)(6)(iii) and 51.166(q)(4)(ii) and (iii) and section 

52.21(p)(6)(iii). 

As proposed, thio the permitting authority's written 

evaluation explanation must address, at a minimum, the following 

factors: 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.11 

199 

i. Scientific/Technical Basis. 

The permitting authority ohould accord deference to 

recognize the FLM'a ocicntific and technical expertioc. The 

permitting authority must consider all relevant data and analyses 

submitted by the FLM and offer a reasoned explanation for its 

disagreement with the illfl technical data and the resulting 

analyses. See proposed section 51.166(p) (6) (iii) (A) and 

52.21(p)(6)(iii)(A). 

ii. Description of the AQRVs and Adverse Impact. 

The permitting authority must address the FLM's findings 

atatcmento describing the air quality related-value and the 

adverse impact being demonstrated for each affected AQRV, fefee 

mcthoda and procedures by which the FLM hag identified the AQRVo, 

by afl-d explaining any conclusions it reaches, about whether the 

projected impacts of the source's emissions will have an adverse 

impact on the AQRVs, that are inconsistent with thooc recommended 

the conclusions reached in the demonstration submitted by the 

FLM. See proposed section 51.166(p) (6) (iii) (B) and 

52.21(p) (6) (iii) (B) . 

iii. Mitiqative Measures. 

The permitting authority ohould fl|i|f describe any efforts 

that have- been undertaken to mitigate the potential impacts of a 

proposed source on the Federal Class I area of concern, including 

any estimated emissions reductions, and the effect of such 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.12 

210 

determining the need for an AQRV analysis or 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, a notice may be 

filed (as described in section IV.C.I.e. of this preamble) 

alleging that a proposed source's emissions may cause or 

contribute to a*change in the air quality in a Federal Class I 

area and identifying the potential adverse impact of such change. 

The fact, standing alone, that such source's predicted ambient 

impact is less than the applicable significant impact level for! 

Class I increments would neither relieve the applicant, from 

having to complete an analysis of impacts on AQRVs nor provide §| 

categorical basis for the permitting authority to reject the 

FLM's demonstration of adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA requesii 

comments on its proposal to establish significant impact levels] 

for Class I increments in general, and the proposed levels in 

particular. 

The EPA is declining to establish significant impact levels 

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

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.13 

211 

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. 

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 

implementing regulations. The EPA is also proposing changes that 

largely codify existing policy. 

a. Significant Impact Levels for NAAQS and Class II and 

III Increments 

The EPA is proposing several changes to the PSD regulations 

at both section 51.166 and section 52.21 to make the rules 

consistent with current practice. First, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the provisions of existing section 51.166(k) and section 

52.21(k) to clarify that a source, itself, must make a 

"significant contribution" to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD 

Class Ii or III increment before that source would be denied a 

PSD permit. Second, the EPA is proposing to incorporate into the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.14 

A-90-37 

or- f . 57 

KEY ISSUES DRAFT 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY agvcii TO:' 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. BOX 37 U7 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20013-7127 

NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 

TO: 

* r 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

TW> cU2~&zck~ 

id p-^*s\ /UJkUv 

DATE: Ud2L\ 

*A)4^ 

Hi] APR 3 01996 

REMARKS: EPA AIR DOCKET 

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS UITH THIS FAX OR TROUBLE RECEIVING A FAX 

PLEASE CAU THE INDIVIDUAL FRON HHON YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

BLACKUELL, LAUREN 

CONNIKS, BILL 

DPMIS, JOHN 

D1SALVO. CAROL 

EADY. COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON, GARY 

KL1UINSKI, SHARON 

HALKIN. KAREN 

202-208 

202-208 

202-208 

202-210 

202-208 

202-208 

202-208 

202-219 

4912 NCCLELLAM), LINDSAY 

•4631 MILLER. ABBY 

-5193 OLHELL, PEGGY 

-8936 PECK. DEBBY 

-4640 SHAFER. CRAIG 

•8886 WALKER, BILL 

-4639 HATKINS. UILNA 

-3384 WILSON. RITA 

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-219-8933 

202-208-4624 

202-219-8934 

202-219-3386 

202-208-4913 

202-208-3884 
P.15 

.a/- .la* .aA ^ 

L^«»VJ. 'ii i 

CLASS Z IB8DE8 - NEW BODRC8 REVIEW REFORM 

Read tvo-page legislative history describing Federal Land 

Manager's role in PSD nev source reviev: although the federal 

role is otherwise limited, the FLM is to aggressively seek the 

protection of the values and purposes of Class I areas and, in 

the case of doubt, to err on the side of protecting the class 

I resources. 

Industry's concern about Class I issues is overblown. DOI has 

revieved 634 permits since 1978, approximately 40 a year. In 

the vast majority of cases, the FLM processes the permit 

promptly and has no objection. We have formally appealed only 

four (4) permits (Healy, Tenn Luttrell, Multitrade, and IMC 

Fertilizer), and these four appeals vere resolved through 

settlements involving emission offsets, additional controls, 

and/or research and funding. We have initially opposed only 

fifteen (15) other permits, but ve did not appeal* any of 

these. 

OMB, DOE, and industry are picking apart EPA's 6/29/95 

proposed regulation. The process is unfair and unwise. The 

rule is based on a FACA that met over the course of two years, 

1992-1994. EPA provided a draft rule to the stakeholders for 

comment in June 1994. EPA sent its proposed rule to OMB in 

June 1995. This rule vas leaked to industry, vho have 

actively attacked it at OMB through meetings, letters, and 

telephone calls. DOE, which vas represented at the FACA, is 

joining vith certain industry representatives on attacks on 

Class I issues. Not having seen the package, the 

environmentalists are objecting to the process and asking that 

the rule be proposed. 

Certain industry representatives involved in the FACA appears 

supportive of the Class I provisions and desirous of 

publishing the proposed rule (without extensive changes) ASAP. 

The changes to applicability will substantially, and 

appropriately in most cases, reduce the number of sources 

subject to nev source reviev (HSR). This combination of 

incentives and reduced regulation is good regulatory reform. 

with respect to sources still subject to NSR, the 6/29/95 

regulations are the product of long hours of vork and 

negotiation. OMB should be extremely reluctant to make 

substantive changes. 

In fact, this package represents a skillful and delicate 

balance. Although ve are not satisfied vith everything, ve 

strongly believe that it is time to propose for public reviev 

and comment, all the moreso because of the egregious leaking 

of this package. 

1 'H. 
P.16 

L->rt«~tii 

contrary to industry's allegations, this package vill reduce 

uncertainty and delay. 

The status quo is untenable for Class I issues. The problems 

FLMs face include no notice; no analysis (air quality or 

AQRV); no time; state rejection of adverse impact 

determination without rational basis; state refusal to 

consider mitigation proposals, including offsets and 

monitoring; duplicative notice and comment procedures (FLM's 

on adverse impact determination, and state's on permit); 

disparate outcomes among states (e.g.f Virginia included 

offset provisions in permits, whereas Tennessee refused), and 

even vithin a state (Gov. Wilder versus Gov. Allen); 

inevitable litigation. 

This package provides schedules and deadlines, defines 

everyone's role, and evinces a careful and appropriate 

balance. Examples: direct notification for sources within 

100 km versus electronic bulletin board notice for .sources 

beyond 100 km; information sharing, with FLM to provide all 

pertiment information to source as veil asto Class I 

electronic database, and source to provide analyses required 

by state (not FLM). The FLM has an appropriate, albeit 

focused and time-limited, opportunity to make the case for the 

federal interest, and the state has ultimate authority on the 

completeness determination and the permit decision. 

Do not undervalue the political attractiveness of the park 

issue. The Republicans quickly retreated from their attempts 

to cut the NPS budget because of the popular support for 

parks. Support for parks helps define Clinton, vhose vacation 

in the Tetons (a Class I area) identified him more closely 

vith park issues. . (Even George Bush Introduced his 1989 Clean 

Air Act bill with a speech in the Tetonsl) Overall, the NSR 

package can be presented as excellent reform for industryproviding incentives, reducing regulation, improving 

certainty, and minimizing delay—while assuring protection of 

pre-1977 parks and vilderness areas. 

:T 
- " ' *••*' ° " -»• " «*<.« * «. u o »g i u P.17 

OCT 20 '9S 04!89P11 ITPID-IIG/OPG l - . c ,,-'i UUd/U0 6 

» 

f(u./ne«0nJ-f*- 17 - ^(/jyU 

(B) 7 Any conclusions the permitting authority reachest 

about vhether the adverse-impaefe potential effects of the 

proposed source vill have an adverse Impact on air quality 

related values, that are inconsistent with Hhoae the 

conclusions rekched by the Federal Land Manager in*its 

adverse impact demonstratedion-by-the-Feaerai-fcand-Manageieand 

(C) Any measures undertaken to mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including 

the estimated effset oi any mitigation. 

(iv) In the final permit determination, the permitting 

authority shall address any comments made by the Federal 

Land Manager concerning the permitting authority's 

preliminary determination. 

(7) Mitigation of adverse inlets. The plan shall 

provide that a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate its potential adverse impacts, if any, on air 

quality related values in a Federal Class I area. The 

permitting authority may issue a permit for a proposed major 

source or major modification that would otherwise be denied 

a permit under paragraph (p)(6) of this section, if the 

permitting authority determines, in consultation with the 

Federal Land Manager, that the source has mitigated its 

adverse impact on air quality related values. The owner or 

operator of ,a proposed major source or major modification 

may mitigate an adverse impact,. by obtaining enforceable and 

permanent emissions reductions of sufficient amount and in 

such location that the reductions vill offset the change in 

air quality in the Federal class I area that vould have 

resulted from the proposed source. 

* * * * * 

(q) * * * 

(2) The plan may set forth the minimum information 

vhlch must be submitted by public commenters to accompany 

any recommendations for control technology alternatives for 

which permit applicants would not otherwise be responsible 

to consider iq determining best available control technology 

as of the date ah application i| complete according to 

paragraph (j)(5)(iii) of this section. Such information may 

include the name and location of the source utilizing the 

control technology, manufacturer and type of control device, 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRSLIMINASY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AMD DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* October 20, 1995 — [filename 51_166 6.29] *** 
P.18 

OCT 20 '95 04:09PM ITPID-IIG/OPG p^"".''

 yw o 

^k 

16 

(iv) consult with the Federal Land Manager about any 

inconsistency between the determination by the permitting 

authority and the Federal Land Manager's recommendations. 

(6) Preliminary and final permit determination—No 

Cl««« T incramenfc ylolyfcion. The plan shall provide that, 

where the permitting authority has determined that the 

amissions from the proposed major source or major 

modification will not cause or contribute to ambient air 

quality concentrations in the Federal Class I area which 

exceed the maximum allowable increases over baseline 

concentrations— 

(i) The permitting authority shall not issue a 

prelimary permit determination until Sthe Federal Land 

Manager viil-be has<been given at least 60 days (from the 

date of issuance"of"tfte"completeness determination required 

under paragraph (n)(l) oi'this"section fchat-*fehe-perm*«t-is 

eeapiefee) pr ie s-tee-the-pevmitting -aatehesi ty^s-preiiminary 

peemifc-determinatieh to submit . a demonstratelon that a 

proposed major aource or*ma^or"modification will have an 

adverse impact on air quality related values. 

(ii) If the permitting authority agrees with the 

Federal Land Manager's demonstration under paragraph 

(P)(6)(i) of this section, the permitting authority shall 

propose to deny the permit. 

(iii) If the permitting authority disagrees is not 

satisfied vith the Federal Land Manager's demonstration* 

under*paragraph (p)(6)(i) of this section, the permitting 

authority shall consult with the Federal Land Manager, 

ffeferenee-the-Pedera!-6and-Manegej?*s-demenstrafcien-e.e 

adve»se-4»paet-en-a*»-qua-fcity-Feiated-va4uea-in-*he-pubiie 

neteiee-anneaneing-the-preik-kainB«y-permi*-determinetien 

22KJ\ »eqttired-an4es-parag»eph-f^t^lt-**i^^o*-*«4s-seetieR7-ai»d 

r ^ \ explain a*d propose to approve., the ne.ralt vith an 

W \ S-sxplenatLon In writing (for inclusion in the public record) 

A ^J,»eqwre^-ttnder-pa3eagraph-fq)f-*^f*i^-e«-*fehis--seetien the 

Vvv^ reasons for proposing to reject the Federal.LandtManager^s 

VT demonstration. The permitting authority's "written' 

evaluation shall eencain address, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(A) The basis far any disagreement vith the data and 

analyses contained in the Federal Land Manager's 

demonstration of adverse impact on air quality related 

values;

 r H .... * 

THIS DOCOKENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 20V 1995 ~''tXillitiMOU 51_166_6.29] *** 

^ . 
P.19 

. '*\ / .'aVK*l 41JUU0/UU 0 

OCT 20 '95 04:15PM ITPID-IIG/OPG

 p3'6 

14 

(p) Soureea potentially impacting Federal Class I 

(1) Protection of air quality related values. The 

Federal Land Manager and the Federal Official have an 

affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality 

related values of Federal class I areas and to consider, in 

consultation vith the Administrator, vhether a proposed 

source or modification vill have an adverse impact on such 

values. 

(2) Ganeral yequirem*>n.ts. (i) Notification of 

potential impacts on a Federal Class I area ant} requirement 

for impact assessment. The plan shall provide that where 

the Federal Official, Federal Land Manager, the 

Administrator, tha Governor of an adjacent State, or the 

governing body of an adjacent Indian Tribe containing a 

Federal Class I area, files, pfior.^o.the.date a 

completeness determination is made'pursuant'to'paragraph 

n u l of this section, a written notice alleging that 

Mlllfllt l til l I ll f Illl l >.-a.*> l * *» .«.».. a . 

emissions from a proposed major source or major modification 

may cause or contribute to a change in the air quality in 

such area and identifying the potential adverse impact of 

source: (A) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

permitting authority that emissions vill not cause or 

contribute to ambient air quality concentrations in the 

Federal Class I area which violate the maximum allowable 

increases over baseline concentrations, and (B) provides an 

analysis of the potential impacts on air quality related 

values at the Federal Class I area. The plan may provide 

that a permit otherwise prohibited under this clause may be 

issued in accordance vith the variance provisions in 

paragraph (p)(8) through (p)(ll) of this section. 

(ii) ftypilqble Information on air quality related 

values and analytical methods. The Federal Land Manager or 

Federal Official shall provide to the owner or operator of a 

proposed major source or major modification that may have an 

adverse impact on air quality related values in a Federal 

Class I area all available information about such values and 

methods to analyze potential impacts. 

(iii) Consultation with Federal Land Manager. The 

plan shall provide fer consultation and coordination vith 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*«* October 20, 1995 — [filename 5l_l66 6.29] *** 

•..a' J .*-> 
OCT 20 '95 04.07PM ITPID-IIG/OPG r-.co

 U5/00 « 

10 

the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section or sectl-on 

52.21(g) of this chapter. 

(39) Federal official means the Federal official 

charged vith direct responsibility for management of any 

lands within a Federal Class I area. 

(40) Air- quality related value means, for purposes of 

this section, visibility or a scenic, cultural, physical, 

biological, ecological, or recreational resource that.may.be 

affected.by a.change.in.air guality, as defined by'the 

Federal "Land "Manager" lor "£e&er al "iands and as defined by a 

State or Indian Governing Body for nonfederal lands vithin 

their rispectiv. jurisdiction*. eW^ W _e*d.lrt 

(4i) ftflve.rge impqct. Qn air guaLfrar reload v^lires t^Lth , 

means, for purposes of this section,/a deleterious effect,

 lVKA-uc 

resulting in-wheie-er-i»-part from emissions from a 'proposed 

major source or major modification,ithat interferes with the °^ic 

management, protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the -P^a 

air quality related values of a Federal class I area. r 

(42) pemonstrated in practice means for the purposes 

of this section, a control technology that has been— 

(i) Listed in or required by any of the following: 

(A) The EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse; 

(B) Major source construction permits issued pursuant 

to parts C and D of title I of the Act; 

(c) Emissions limitations contained in federally* 

approved plans excluding emissions limitations established 

by permits issued pursuant to programs for non-major 

sources; 

(D) Permits and standards under section ill and 112 of 

the Act; 

(E) The EPA's alternative jcontrol Technology Documents 

and Control Techniques Guidelines; or 

(ii) Not withstanding paragraph (b)(42)(i) of this 

section, installed and operating on an emissions unit or 

units which have operated at a minimum of 50 percent of 

nameplate capacity for 6 months, and the pollution control 

efficiency performance has been verified with a performance 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 20, 1995 — [filename 5l_l66_6.29] *** 
aiu/a^/ao 10:27 -a^z jje* 4 ^ o BAJ)U i>K/Ay ft 

1^)004/008 

# 

DR^r 

Sec. 52.21 (p)(2)(ii) (proposed compromise language in bold): 

Available information on air quality related values and analytical 

methods. The Federal Land Manager or Federal Official shall 

provide to the owner or operator of a proposed major source or 

major modification that may have an adverse impact on the air 

quality related values in a Federal Class I area all available 

information about such values and methods to analyze potential 

impacts at the earliest possible date. In addition, information 

shall be made avail^ils to the public. 

Insert to Preamble, p. 205, new paragraph after line 5 to address 

AQRV significance or de minimus issue; 

Furthermore, vhile the goal of establishing critical loads may be 

laudable, based on current scientific data, it is not reasonable to 

require such site specific critical loadings to be established for 

each AQRV at each Class I area. For example, acid deposition is 

one of the more veil understood effects to AQRVs. PH changes from 

morning until evening and from season to season. There is no 

direct linear relationship between pH of precipitation and pH 

change in lakes and streams. Detailed information on the condition 

of a watershed and hydrologic flow paths through that watershed are 

needed to determine the pH of incoming streamwater. In carrying 

out the congressional mandate to study the feasibility of setting 

an acid deposition standard, EPA and peer reviewers declined to 

suggest establishing a set standard, even though the effects were 

well document. 

EPA requests comment on how AQRVs may be protected on a case by 

case basis, and still provide more certainty for permit applicants. 

Are there practical alternatives to establishing significant impact 

or de minimus levels? Would inclusion of case specific permit 

determinations in a public database provide sufficient guidance to 

prospective permit applicants? 

DRAFT