p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

210) ll-J-3 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 210 of 276 
P.2 

•*-) \~L 

II-J-3 

NOTE: Parts of this item are not legible. 

IWI'GTE 0 V ,1 

.'jr— 

'

::! . i | JUN I 2 1991 IHJ

j 

:PA A:R DOC. 4 
P.3 

'*,'. - t . -"-a" a-i' 

•-•-if^ a 

-".?.',*. r r ^ . 

•.'•Jy-j;* 

T.iSji'fliaSta4'*^ 

.- .' < aaf^^K^^la^af l 

1 . 3 

Wednesday 

September 5, 1979 

XZ XiMLL-f" 

Part IV 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

is 

I 

^•ajL.a? 

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, 

and Submittal of State Implementation 

Plans; Approval and Promulgation, of 

State implementation Plans 

:'-•• • .I- ;>n JA; •&V.^^^5aii^^M^^*:^r^ 

• • . -^ -;.v•••"••- :LM^m-:i^m§r. 

••• '' • •'-"-•V?MgTM2TMi&Mtf§k*, 

*•:•• rv'-.-;i.f;^.^3if;-ff?9.aa^*i«S. 

• • ." J, V,vfcJ..; 

.••-* * 

:w 

i..-.-*?* ^ «-*•***'• 

•* •: ziAbfn:.;s:y~:4i*&t-* 

•a » ,a' . •" ' , ' . • a, a.*,. 

2. • -.

:

 vV4^V(a.&.a3Jfe£ 

•;r; i-.-v.-3> rt^Trji-a «0 ^ 

• -^-. v.:.•• '••^$ti&J06' 

ySy*£-J:llZf*i\£?;-&ij0&$ 

.r/AA^AAv&M&l 

1. . -.V,^.-

••fJlVVA 1

 • " *-v^.r-;Bi^ilW**BSHKS 

...•^...-...•-,iy^|g^^ | 

:LA^L'y-";:LLV^^^M 

••••••• • .;•' -• w^M^ r 
P.4 

51924 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday. Sentember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

•CFR Parts 51 and 52] 

--:L 1300-6) 

Requirements for Preparation. 

Adoption, and Submittal of SIP's; 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans 

AOENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed Rules. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to amend its 

regulations for the prevention of 

significant deterioration 40 CFR 51.24, 

5231 (1978) in response to a court 

decision that overturned those 

regulations in major respects. EPA also 

proposes changes to its regulations 

. affecting new source review in 

nonattainment areas, including 

restrictions on further major source 

§i?. growth and requirements under EPA's 

- Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling, 40 

I--ICPR Part 51 App. S, and section 173 of 

Tthe Act to conform those rules to the 

jQOUrt decision. 

(.T0ATE8: The deadline for submitting 

(^written comments is October 5.1979. 

: Comments. Comments 

I be sent (in triplicate if possible) 

ntral Docket Section (A-130), 

[ton. D.C. Atten: Docket No. A-

;et In accordance with section 

fd) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 

d), EPA has established a docket 

lis rulemaking. It bears Docket No. 

i. The docket is an organized and 

te file of all significant 

ation submitted to or otherwise 

lered by EPA during this , 

. The contents of the docket 

jervc as the record :-t the case of 

review under section 307(b) of 

42-U.S.C. 7607(b). The docket is 

hie for public inspection andbetween 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

through Friday, at EPA's 

Docket Section, Room 2903B. A 

ible fee may be charged for 

MHOS: EPA intends to hold 

Barings on the proposals in this 

i September in San Francisco, 

'a, and Washington, D.C. The .r 

a and places will be ' 

(fndue Course. 

I INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lttna. Standards ^,,., 

itioh Branch (MD-15), Office 

ity Planning and Standards. - .-

(^Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,919/--

3UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline 

I. Background: 

A. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

B. Requirements Relating to Nonattainment 

' II. Highlights. 

III. Transition: 

A. PSD Part 52 Regulations. 

B. Nonattainment Regulations. 

C. PSD and Nonattainment SIP Revisions. 

IV. Potential To Emit. 

V. Fifty-Ton Exemption. 

VI. Fugitive Emissions. 

VII. Fugitive Dust Exemption. 

VIII. Source/Facility/Installation: 

A. Definition of Source. 

B. Sources Subject to PSD Requirements. 

C. Sources Subject to Nonattainment 

Requirements. 

D. Summary. 

IX. Modification: 

A. No Net Increase. 

B. Restrictions on Construction. 

C. Accumulation. 

X. "De Minimis" Exemptions. 

XI. Geographic Applicability: 

A. Designated Nonattainment Areas. 

B. Designated Clean Areas. 

C. VOC Sources. 

D. Interstate Pollution. 

XII. Pollutant Applicability. 

XIII. Baseline Concentration: 

XIV. Best Available Control Technology. 

XV. Ambient Monitoring. 

XVI. Notification. 

XVII. PSD SIP Revisions: 

A. Equivalent State Programs. 

B. Baseline Area. 

C. State Monitoring Exemption. 

XVHL AddiUonai Issues: 

A. Innovative Control Technology. 

B. Modified Permits. 

C. Non-profit Institutions. 

D. Portable Facilities. 

E. Secondary Emissions. 

F. Economic impact Assessment. 

G. Comments. 

I. Background 

A. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. In 1974, EPA promulgated 

regulations to prevent emissions of 

sulfur dioxide (SO*) and particulate 

matter (PM) from significantly 

deteriorating air quality in areas where 

concentrations of those pollutants were 

lower than the applicable national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

39 FR 42510 (codified at 40 CFR 5231 

(1977J). EPA made those regulations part 

of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) regulations —• r 

-prohibited the construction of any new s 

source or modification in certaincategories, unless EPA or a delegate -

state had issued a permit evidencing: . 

thatthe source or modification would 2 

apply "best available control " 

technology" (BACT) for SO* and PM; . 

and that emissions of those pollutants",-; 

from the source or modification would H 

not cause significant deterioration of air 

quaiity in any area. 

On August 7.1977. the President 

signed the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1977 (1977 Amendments! into law. 

Pub. L. No. 9595. 91 Stat. 685. Those 

amendments established a new set of 

PSD requirements as Part C of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act (Act). See Sections 

160-169. 42 U.S.C. 7470-79. The new 

requirements follow the outline of the 

old regulations, but are more elaborate 

and in many ways more stringent. The 

1977 Amendments also directed that 

each SIP was to contain the new 

requirements. See Sections 161. 

110(a)(2)(D) and (J). 42 U.S.C. 7471, 

7410(a)(2)(D) and (J). 

In response to that mandate. EPA 

promulgated two sets of PSD regulations 

on June 19,1978. One set specified the 

minimum requirements that a PSD SIP 

revision would have to contain in order 

to warrant EPA approval. 43 FR 26380 

[codified at 40 CFR 51.24 (1978)) 

(hereinafter, the "Part 51 regulations"). 

The other set comprehensively amended 

the old PSD regulations and 

incorporated into them the new PSD 

requirements. 43 FR 26388 (codified at 40 

CFR 52.21 (1978) (hereinafter, the "Part 

52 regulations")). EPA intended that 

until it had approved a PSD SIP. revision' 

for a state, the permitting of new sources 

and modifications to be constructed in 

its clean areas would continue under the 

new Part 52 regulations. The-United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit subsequently 

affirmed that approach. Citizens To 

Save Spencer County v. EPA. 12 ERC 

1961 (March 27.1979). 

Many industrial and environmental 

groups petitioned the same court for 

review of the substantive provisions of 

both the Part 51 and Part 52 regulations. 

On June 18,1979, the court issuecra 

decision that upheld some of those 

provisions and overturned others. 

Alabama Power Company v. Costle, 13 ' 

ERC 1225. In its opinion the court merely 

summarized its rulings, but promised - •."; 

supplemental, comprehensive opinions -• 

in due course, probably by '.'the end of _'•'"• 

this summer." Id: at 1227 n.7. The 'court-: J 

also invited the parties to file petMons.; -: 

for reconsideration, several of which•-'.A"_' 

Were filed but-have not yet been actei4fj.; . 

upon. In an order that ^crcompanl^a^he^r% 

- summary opinion, the court3tajfea*^fi^^;^ 

effect of its decision until it had issued^,.'"! . ->i£ 

the supplemental opinions. TTie:|>uijlii(i^ 

of this procedure, tte.coiirtl^fed^f^iS^^'^% ^ 

.wasJ,[ta;eiubIeERfYt.^prt-^^ 

as possible to commence rulemaking ori 

other proceedings necessary to*' HS^iij , H 

promulgate those revisions in th4?POT^S|^;S 

regulations required by (the eourt's£-p#^^j^ia* ^ 

§ 

•-,• -a' i'.jg W 

-- "'''3'rajj| 

a " -^ ^ 

—"a^jJajrtSS 

';*-s£$j£§S 

.H^fl-f 
P.5 

federal Register / 44. 173 / Wednesday. September 5, 1079 / Proposed Rules 51925 

ti 

-:iings, and to take othor prudent act;on 

io effectuate congressional policies." Id. 

..i 1227. 

3v this notice, EPA is beginning the 

process the court had in mind. It is here 

proposing various amendments to the 

PSD regulations. Some of those 

amendments would replace the 

provisions rejected by the court; others 

would add entirely new provisions to 

supplement the replacement provisions. 

Each of the proposals is discussed in 

detail in material which follows this 

background section. 

B. Requirements Relating to 

Nonattainment Areas. The only 

regulations before the court in Alabama 

Power are EPA's PSD regulations. They 

are therefore the only regulations 

directly affected by the court's decision. 

However, several statutory definitions 

and other'concepts addressed in 

Alabama Power are also relevant to the 

statutory requirements for areas where 

pollution exceeds the national ambient 

air Quality standards (nonattainment 

areas). By this notice, EPA is proposing 

changes to its regulations for 

nonattainment areas, to conform the 

regulations to the decisions in Alabama 

Power. 

There are three separate sets of 

nonattainment requirements affecting 

the review of new or modified major 

stationary sources, each applicable 

under a different set of circumstances. 

First before July 1,1970, EPA's Emission 

Offset Interpretative Ruling (offset 

ruling) governed new construction that 

would cause or contribute to a violation 

of a standard. The offset ruling will still 

be effective in the future but only in a 

few. limited instances. The current, 

revised offset ruling was published by 

EPA on January 16.1978.44 FR 3274. 

Second, after June 30,1979. state plans 

which s&tisfy the requirements-of Part D, 

Title I, of the Act (42 ySC 7501 and . 

following) are to Win effect for aireas . 

designated as nonattahiment areas -

under section 107(d) of the act 42 U.S.C. 

7407(d).H»Ahaspoblishedsaveral ~ 

notices about what constitutes en 

acceptable Part D plan revision. £ee 48 :•'. • 

FR 21673 (May 19,1978), 44 FR 8311-

(February 9,1979). 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 

1979). 44 FR 25243 (April 80,19% 44 FR 

38583 (July 2.1979). In situations Where a 

Part D plan waa not dueby-Jolyil^3ft79,v 

the offset rulingjConttoaet toeppfy(«.j-v 

. where a violation-Of an'uabim^if-r2--}Ar 

standard ia dfecoveraiMn a designated* . 

attainment area, or Whereihedaadline^ 

for a Part D plan for *tecoodaty^>'v 

standard is po»tponri-bnder sectton 

110(b)of the Act ^OACr4l0fbJ). 

Finally, for areas where Part D plans 

are due but WhCTe the pjatt«itft«f doe»-> 

not satisfy Part Doris not carried out in-' 

.-.ccordance with Part D. the Act in 

.•i.e.ions 110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4) provides 

rbr rastrictions on maior new source 

•instruction. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a),2){I) and 

."503(4). On July 2,1979. EPA issuea a 

ruling implementing this restriction, ana 

invited comment on additional language 

to clarify how the statutory restriction 

will apply. 44 FR 38471. 38583. (July 2. 

1979), 44 FR 42195, 42248 (July 19.1979). 

The key aspect of these 

nonattainment requirements that is 

affected by Alabama Power involves the 

definition of the new and modified 

stationary sources that are subject to 

stringent preconstruction permitting 

conditions. In the January 16.1979 

revision to the offset ruling, EPA 

adopted virtually the same definitions of 

"major source" and "major 

modification" as were adopted in the 

PSD regulations and were overturned in 

Alabama Power. EPA stated in the 

preamble to the offset ruling that those 

definitions were also applicable to state 

permitting programs required under Part 

D. EPA also ruled that the definitions 

apply to the prohibition on construction 

under section 110(a)(2)(I) (except that 

the cut-offs to limit review of sources 

with low allowable emissions do not 

apply to section 110(a)(2)(I)). 44 FR at 

3276 (col. 1). 

Although the definitions were adopted 

as final action in the offset ruling, EPA 

invited additional comment 

The statutory language on which the 

"major source" and "major 

modification" definitions were based is 

very similar for the nonattainment 

programs as for PSD, and the reasoning 

in the June IB Alabama Power decision 

generally appears to be applicable to 

both. The comments on the 

nonattainment definitions invited in the 

January 16 notice have therefore been 

renderea infcievant-by the court 

decision, and EPA is'now proposing new 

definitions. • 

Those sections of this preamble which 

relate to the definitions of ''major 

source" and "major modification" 

therefore discuss nonattainment •. 

requirements aa well as the PSD 

regulations. Where the concepts and 

geais of nonattainment and 4-SD differ, . 

we are proposing snd seek comment on 

alternative approaches consistent with - •• 

the distinctive goals of each, tn addition. • 

the discussion otr^Geographic -..~.s.v. 

aAppU(ibili^ addresses the' -- •-..•• 

nonattainment requirements; The court 

did not directly address the- >:.-.-"• 

nonattainment requirement* aeEPA 

offers here two altemative approaches ••.-••• 

for comment. . 

Because of the importance of 

resolving these questions expeditiously. '-

today's proposal does not have an 

•accompanying economic impact 

evaluation. Such an evaluation will be 

performed and be made available for 

public comment prior to promulgation. 

The discussion which follows tirst 

highlights the proposed PSD and 

nonattainment changes and then focuses 

in detail on each of them. 

II. Highlights 

A. Proposed Regulations Affecting -

New Source Review in Both 

Nonattainment and PSD Areas: 

1. Potential to Emit The regulations 

proposed today would.again make 

major construction projects subject to 

new source review (NSR) on the basis of 

increased potential to emit Under the 

proposal the annual emission potential 

of a source would be determined after 

the application of air pollution controls 

rather than before as was generally . 

done under the existing regulations. In 

calculating annual potential emissions 

of a source, maximum "tvniftl rated 

capacity, year-round houra of operation, 

and any enforceable permit conditions. 

on the type of materials combusted or 

processed will be used.. 

2. Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive, 

emissions, as proposed, means those -

emissions released direcdy into the -

atmosphere without passing through a --. 

stack, chimney, vent or other -' ' .' 

functionally equivalent opening. Fugitive': 

emissions are proposed not to be 

considered when determining the annual'"'-

emissions potential of a stationary 

source except when such »H*..*.mM-t* . . 

come from specified industry types. 

3. Source: Source means.any building;.. 

structure, facility, or installation which V 

emits or may emit any regulated ,. . 

pollutant. "Building, structiua, facility dr.. 

installation" means plant JinPSD areas- .'•.. 

and in nonattainment areaf«3tcaptv;Y.,\j\ • 

where die growth prohibitions wyuld /;. Lapply or whereno adeqi«i|«SW^|(Hf^r* 

emission unit within the«i!^t£pc4hfSiij0-c; 

nonattainment review aitwatfy i|iari?lutfi 

manner in which sourcei$ C"""" 

places a vital rolein. 

NSR would apply.-; Wteni 

defined i 

changes at major i 

would be iwbje(-taa«nM)ogri 

(see betow^<2,i^.?a».tfr"' 

4. MajorMpdifi 

would sub^rtchange»faV( 

operatibnofa-io-tji 

to NSRIohly if^IJ^-I 

increase in-tiwi 

pollutant for wftkhr*thei 

would occur, or (2) < 

increases ta the pot 

pollutant regulated iwdOT tM&St.j 

'.Vf 

'>V*S 
P.6 

51926 Federal Register / 14. No. .'ednesdav. Sentember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

at the same source after the .-,ppiic:-b-:e 

NSR ti' •'. of concern that m total wouid 

P\ce..' ..'ie applicable 100/250-ton 

•hresi. .id. The proposal, unkke tne 

existing regulations, would allow certain 

emission reductions occurring at the 

same source to offset any increases due 

to proposed construction and avoid 

review. If a source has the potential to 

emit more than it is legally allowed to 

emit, no offset credit could be taken by 

a source for reducing its potential 

emissions down to the allowed level. . 

5. No Tiered Review: Under the 

existing regulations, only those sources 

and modifications which have large 

uncontrolled emission potential and also 

increased allowable emissions equal to 

-;ater than 50 tons per year would 

r :eive a detailed review. All major 

sources and major modifications are 

now fully covered as discussed 

elsewhere. 

6. Preconstruction Notice: Under the 

proposed regulations, an owner or 

operator of certain sources would be 

required-to give written preconstruction 

notice to the applicable reviewing 

authority in lieu of getting a permit. This 

requirement would apply to (1) 

construction not qualifying as major 

modifications due to sufficient offsetting 

•I'emission reductions, (2) emission 

^"reductions to be used for future offset 

AA credit in (1), and (3) construction not 

^qualifying as major stationary sources 

sfedue to application of air pollution 

f&P Controls not generally required by the 

0: SIP or 40 CFR Parts 60 and 81. The 

'H notice would contain a schedule of the 

iA applicable emissions changes and a 

^.demonstration that the proposed 

reductions are or would be sufficient 

rA and enforceable. 

Ar B. Proposed Changes Specific to 

•2', Nonattainment Requirements. 

-1. Major Modification: The same basic 

^definitional structure for '-major' 

|'Jstationary source" and "major ; 

^•modification" is being proposed for both 

Ipijbpattainment requirements and PSD 

|vt^fKtements. The principal difference is 

j£jtpeexteat to which emission decreases 

Y^-niay be used to offset increases at the 

gKime major stationary source to- - -

^determine whether thesource.isj--

;|<2^Bodified" and needaapennit-. 

2S§ ^ Emissions Baseline-for^~>- - ' • ~. 

"*"""" tificatiomThe proposed regulations 

ddgenerally-subject a changeat a " 

ia^ajdrsoiirce to rtroew ca^if*'-.. • 

^significant net increase intheFpotential 

tgnrt a nonattalnnw-ntpoHotBnt for • 

ch tbe source isniajoifrAtBexceptian 

pathai n-J credit may-be-takenlor •.,. 

flriedncing those potential emission*^ -

-^which are greater than allowable 

'*" " domrJn nonattainmentaiea** -

i the offset ruling or Part D NSR 

-. otmi cicoiy. the applicable S!P wouid 

•:'."*.erniiv aci'ine tne allowable emissions 

•.'.'.i-pi'.ne tor reduction credit, b. 

2*.:bbie" Exemotior.: The use of offsets 

u.sicie the same source is called the 

bubble." EPA proposes use of the 

definition of "source" (see above) to 

limit the use of the bubble unaer 

nonattainment requirements in the 

following respects: 

i. Part D SIPs that include all 

requirements needed to assure 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment by the deadline under 

section 172 and that are being carried 

out need not restrict the use of a 

plantwide bubble, the same as under the 

PSD proposal. 

ii. Part D SIPs that do not meet the 

requirements specified must limit use of 

the bubble by including a definition of 

"installation" as an identifiable piece of 

process equipment. New or modified 

major-source installations would require 

NSR permits regardless of any offsetting 

emission reductions elsewhere in the 

facility. A change or a series of changes 

that do not result in a significant net 

increase in the installation's potential to 

emit, and do not constitute a 

reconstruction of the installation, will 

not be subject to NSR permitting 

requirements. 

iii. The offset ruling is proposed to 

also include a definition of "installation" 

with the effect described in paragraph ii. 

iv. The restriction on construction for 

inadequate Part D SIPs (or failure-to 

carry out die same) under section 

110(a)(2)(l) is proposed to include a 

definition of "installation". However, 

unlike the situation described in 

paragraph ii, no bubble will apply, and 

any significant increase in the 

nonattainment pollutant for which the 

source is major would be subject. 

2. Regulatory Transition: EPA intends 

to promulgate regulations within 90 days 

after issuance of the final Alabama 

Power opinion by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals. Such changes, would generally 

apply to any future permitting situations 

after promulgation, but sources •' ~ 

compelled to meet more restrictive 

requirements under the old regulations 

may apply td the applicable permitting 

authority to reevaluate such 

requirements. A-change in e-permit 

which would make the SIP no longer 

adequate to demonstrate attainment 

would require an accompanying $IP .;.. 

revision to ensure attainment would not 

be jeopardized. 

The proposed changes also affect how;' 

state adopted NSR programs may be 

approved for designated nonattainment 

areas. EPA generally proposes to-^ 

approve any state planihVwotdd meet 

the existing SIP approval eri*tej-ia^ the . 

.-.riteria proposed today. Restrictions on 

j.-owth would be implemented using the 

.•\isting definitions affecting source 

applicability until today's regulations 

-•re promulgated. 

:!. Geographic Applicability: The 

proposed regulations wouid apply the 

Applicable nonattainment NSR 

requirements throughout the area 

designated as nonattainment. The 

existing regulations now allow a source 

within a designated nonattainment area 

to demonstrate that it would construct 

in a clean portion and affect 

significantly no dirty portion of the 

nonattainment area. Growth 

prohibitions. Part D. or the offset ruling 

would also apply when a proposed 

major source or major modification in a 

clean area would significantly impact a 

nonattainment area. 

C. Proposed Changes Specific to PSD 

Requirements. 

1. Baseline Concentration: The term 

"baseline concentration" is used in an 

abstract sense to establish the starting 

point for defining significant 

deterioration occurring from area and 

minor sources of PM and SO*. Under the 

existing regulations, a uniform August 7, 

1977 baseline date was established for 

all PSD areas of the country. Today's 

proposal would establish the baseline 

date as the time after August 7,1977 that 

the first permit application by a 

proposed major source or major 

modification (subject to the regulations 

as promulgated is filed for a clean area 

designated under section 107(d)(1)(D) or 

(E). The baseline date once established 

for any designated clean portion of an 

Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

would apply to all clean parts of the 

AQCR designated under section 

107(d)(1)(D) or (E) for PM and SO* 

2. Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT): The regulations today propose 

that the BACT requirements apply to all 

pollutants regulated under die Act for 

which the major construction would : 

create significant net emission 

increases. The existing requirements . 

require BACT only for. those pollutants, 

for which the proposed construction , . 

would be major. •..•_•.::-

3. Ambient. Monitoring: The proposed pregulations generally will call for morep 

extensive ambient monitoring both .- -. -

before and after construction. The J 

proposal would extend the •••.,:A22c?., 

^reconstruction requirement-foran -^ ,, 

analysis <afthe-air quality existing atthe••.-•. -

area* affected by 4he proposed ,- \:A*yyy^-

constnictiontctaUpoUntantsregulatra^-.-

underthe Act andnot juat ari&$i&&.^y *>>. 

pollutants as the existing PSD ?'•• 2?H-.;.: 

regulatione require.. The new nramtoting,. 

requiremetataappl-y--to;aa-r<pollntantakiaV;a,^ ; 

regulated under the Act without regand^; 

• ';-:£.' 

••• £SM.-5 

7 Jt--"^ 

A*ML 

Lm2 
P.7 

Federal Register / Vol. N'i. 173 / Wednesiav. Seotember 5, 1979 / ProDOsed Rules 51927 

1 )02$AL2 

.*:* whether such noiiutant emissions 

individually qualify the proposed 

construction as being maior. Under 

today's proposal. PM and SOj data as 

required would be used to improve 

modeling predictions of increment 

availability to future sources. 

Regulations governing the adoption of 

acceptable PSD SIPs are also proposed 

to be revised to indicate when state 

authorities can accept less man one 

year's continuous air quality data for a 

criteria pollutant. 

4. "De Minimis" Cutoffs: The 

regulations proposed today would 

exempt on a pollutant specific basis 

major modifications from all permit 

requirements and new major sources tin 

a pollutant specific basis from all 

requirements when emissions of the 

particular pollutant are below a 

specified de minimis or significant 

emission rate. De minimis air quality 

levels are also proposed as guidance for 

j.xempting from PSD monitoring 

requirements on a pollutant specific 

basis a major new source or major 

modification with net emission 

increases that cause air quahty impacts 

below the specified values. 

5. Major Modification: In determining 

whether a "no net increase" in 

emissions would occur for purposes of 

PSD, the regulations as proposed would 

no longer credit emission reductions on 

die basis.of how the emissions being 

reduced would affect the available PSD 

increment Today's PSD regulations 

would parallel nonattainment NSR in 

that the emissions baseline for 

determining a no net increase would be 

the lesser of potential emissions or 

allowable emissions. 

Use of a plant wide "bubble" is 

permitted under PSD in determining if a 

significant increase would Occur in the 

potential tc emit a pollutant for which 

the source is major. '•"••"'.'•';• 

Q.RegriaforyTransition: fa i 

discussed abovein the case of . 

nonattainment permitfeviepws. the 

proposed changes Would generally be 

prospective wiS'tttgardtojfiiture PSD " 

pennits, EPA eitlpetta ihhf.whenlhe ':'-' ' 

regulations ^ pjoposedbecome final, 

sources that *^Ha^^ySDr:MM^^L2^ ' 

under the existl^PSDr^jdlafloiis'A^i 

would have 90HdalJ*ttfhaTe^^-^:';^*-! 

pennits reevaluated under the'ntfl*^ 

rules.-.. _y::p*y^^m^i0^0fpvrt; -

^

J

'^''-" L The r '^s''at^^l^f how-' 

PSD SIPs mayproposes to 

would mee t thi*. 

regulation»-o. 

proposed toda; 

revise 

regulationsra 

defimtiona i»iun^:*itafy^jn»^*-

'•.instruction will be retroactive for 

purposes of increment consumption. 

''. Geographic Applicability: The 

proposed regulations wouid sonerallv 

r.ppiy tne requirements of PSD review to 

ail areas designated under section 

107(d)(1)(D) or (E). However, even 

where an area is designated as 

nonattainment under section 107. PSD 

review would apply when a proposed 

source would have a significant impact 

on a clean area in another state. EPA 

has petitioned the court to restore the 

existing PSD requirements which 

protected clean areas from new source 

emissions regardless of the location of 

the source. 

III. Transition 

A. PSD Part 52 Regulations. As 

described above in the background 

information of this preamble, the court 

in Alabama Power Company v. Costle 

communicated its decisions on the PSD 

regulations in the form of a summary 

opinion. Simultaneously, it stayed the 

effect of those decisions until it had 

considered any petition for 

reconsideration and issued 

supplemental opinions explaining the 

decisions and disposing of any 

petitions. • The court adopted this 

unusual procedure partiy to allow EPA 

to begin as soon as possible to overhaul 

the regulations. The procedure, however, 

has raised many questions about what 

rules should govern PSD preconstruction 

review and for how long. What follows 

are EPA's answers to those questions. 

First, EPA is proposing a set of 

amendments which would replace, or 

delete entirely, each of die provisions 

the court has declared invalid EPA 

intends to promulgate the amendments 

in final form as-soon as possible after -

the issuance of the supplemental 

opinions. EPA may be abie to 

promulgate some amendments, sooner 

than others, since the suppteniental 

opinions of the court may well leave ;. 

little pr no. rppjn for discretion on certain 

issues, Aia' example of such an issue is. 

whether jCbrigr^as. intended the key...: 

phrt^^otetitial to emit" in the ' 

sttftHtoiy^fimtMn^ 

facfljfll^ftfhsfer'^tn'ronti^t^emiaaiona.-' 

Onsomejsa^e*, ttou ^ 

have riioferooin fordiixxi^io^tm'. 

example, the court Lhatruled that EPA : 

has broad discretion todefine the. terra-. 

. 'EP*JE»jgetittaBt*fowHafe^mayi^ratto-i ~ 

7 of iti (fct-UJon oil jep^phio"»ppTk^ill^Iij<iu«ti-- • 

' petttiAnan ham petltltraeid aatb the dedtlon m the' 

defiidtktta^ateDiAtoatt^'^^^'ng^HtdB^afi^^' 

; pollutant* other than mtfur dioxide and parttculats : 

mattia*.tuxipptba modeling of (tackh«i^btvWhan 4 

rel^mtfli^'ae«Afa-ii «re described blater •'p, 

sacoonfof'Hu8***-ea]Bbift,-''>*'-' — -"•-*-•- -'--

:.3 ERC at 1229. Since such rulemaking 

:nay result in extensive public comment, 

it may take EPA longer to promulgate a 

definition of "facility" than a new 

definition of "potential to emit." 

Next, to avoid any moratorium on 

permitting, the Agency is treating the 

existing regulations as being in effect 

now. it is therefore continuing to process 

applications for permits under them. -

EPA intends to continue operating under., 

the existing regulations for s o long as,' 

and to die extent tha t they-remain.i* .*--':.* • 

unchanged. To make this possible, it has 

moved the court for a further stay of the -

effect of its decisions. If granted, the v. --'": 

stay would last until EPA completes thi* J 

rulemaking or until 90 daya after the •, •->. 

issuance of the supplemental opinions, . 

whichever comes first if EPA requires . 

more Uian the extra 90 day s on som e r 

issues, it will move die court for 

additional time. 

EPA intends to put the replacement 

provisions governing PSD applicability w 

into effect immediately.upon-,i; •„,., ••..-, . 

promulgation. Each wouldthen apply to: '•-

anyproposed source or modification - -•• 

which had not filed a complete PSD. pp.' .•:• •• 

application by tfie.timetof,they •••• • :•*•.•• • 

promulgation of the prqvisiooj^Makihg,;. 

the regula tions .immediateiv.effectiva.;K:;,'." 

would eliminate the;de|^^dlaxppija«»i4 

of the permitting prooeaa^of^qanfiin wkfr 

coveredby.tberegulatij^gxqiiiflJee 

the provisions that EPA .utijgdjt to roajtat^t 

effective immediately jipopjo y,,.- • •^A-iiify' 

promulgation are thadafiiyjtkiniirf-rjh, *2: •<-. 

"potential to emit" "statiqaa>&flQuree,"^ 

"facility," and "modification/V; *',.;•-• • ».;•.-• 

Many PSD permits will have-been. ., 

issued by the time-EPA completes ita ---. 

overhaul of the regulauom<vEPA is, .: :, • 1 

proposing here that such-non^ would ^j; 

remain in effect but.-^oiddjwjwti-cindad^/ia 

upon a showing that *qrimm^frnflk 

moclifi<atian.wou!.5iifltanQ^^.r~m'*''i-

J> 

under the newregulat 

S 52^(w). A pennit 

90 daya bom the.timej 

complete ;tn.malce: thi 

way.-prbjecii' wihSb;i 

intended:to. wuierga 1 

obtain reaMfrdniilieiS 

PSD pennit^atgij 

would h4^ftw « 

decisions pin'ap 

records itralghJ 

&'•'& km 

•whetvTOiOT 

good, faith •SBH-i 

for pemttianiaai 

coMldM«tam>Uc^ipo.-

parpoaesafovoidi*) 

reqtdremwit»:<?i?,tiiti: 

ragulfltlQin^] 

wo«ldadodaJii»At|j(Ul|-

appUcattow*, 

EPA»atttjfcT|; 

' EPA'wOT&nof 

r

,

'

r,

k*i*^»<»vi*' - • 

£fi3fcf. 
P.8 

51923 Federal Register ; Vol. 44. No. '.Vednesdav. SeDtember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

if a source or modification were later 

found to be causing or contributing to an 

increment violation, additional controls 

might be necessary. See 40 CFR 

51.24(a)(3) (19781. " 

The proposed definition of "major 

modification" except where the growth 

sanctions wouid apply defines that term 

as any significant net increase in 

potential emissions at a major 

stationary source. In contrast, the 

existing definition defines it as any 

gross increase in potential 

(uncontrolled) emissions above 100 or 

• 250 tons per year, depending on source 

type. 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2) (1978). The 

proposed definition may sweep into PSD 

K

 review some modifications diat the 

existing definition would not. That 

would occur if a particular gross 

increase at the site of an existing major 

stationary source would be under the 

100/250-ton threshold,,but would not be 

offset by sufficient contemporaneous 

emission reductions at die same site. In 

addition, under the existing regulations 

the potential to emit calculation can 

account for limited hours of operation 

whereas it cannot under today's 

proposal. EPA believes that such 

modifications and sources with limited 

operating hours can be grandfathered 

from all future permitting requirements. 

y Itia therefore proposing an amendment 

LtdiS221{i) which would provide that 

p preconstruction review does not apply 

MM any new or modified source obtaining 

ipi^all necessary approvals under the SIP 

fpi before the date the proposed definitions 

V'ot "riiajor modification" and "potential 

. -to emit" come into effect and on which 

physical construction would commence 

within 18 months of this date (or any 

earlier time required under the SIP) if it 

..would not have been a major 

modification or major stationary source 

. underthe existing regulations. See 

ed 5 S2.a(i)(7). 

ejajrpm the new provisions which 

oyem PSD applicability, EPA is 

'provisions which-would . 

[new substantive requirements.< 

i the provisions which 

i any major stationary •-,... 

form air quality, analysis ' 

eJJACTfor any regulated-. _•. 

it it emits insignificant. - ' ~ 

ie proposed paragraphs. P ' 

^fj)(2) of 5 52.21. EPA intends . 

L provisions effective upon 

gation and to. apply .them; ,., 

8{ruction projects wbose7-... . 

i;for a p?rmit were not p.; • 

t this time^lnadditiqn,-p p 

> rujgsappjy daring the A 

pthe newregulationa w( 

*. the pollutant specific p j 

D£ continuous monitonngjdjaja 

^sWp£? 

when i; wouid not have been required 

under the existing regulations. The 

Administrator generally will require less 

than a vear's worth of data on a 

prorated basis. An affected source 

would be required to gather data over 

the time period from the effective date 

of the new regulations until the date that 

the source would file an otherwise 

complete PSD application. 

Finally, in some cases the proposed 

definitions would redefine the baseline 

date, which marks the time that area 

and minor source growth would 

consume the available PSD increment. 

Consequently emissions from some 

sources which consumed increment 

under the existing regulations would 

now be counted as baseline emissions. 

(See discussion on "Baseline 

' Concentration."). 

The existing regulations contain 

various rules for the grandfathering of 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications. In essence, they generally 

provide that the existing regulations do . 

not aoply to a source or modification 

which received certain permits by 

March 1.1978. and commenced 

construction by March 19.1979. See 40 

CFR 52.21(i) (2)-{4) (1978). The proposals 

in this notice would not affect the 

substance of those grandfather 

provisions. Also, it should be noted that 

EPA proposed in a recent Federal 

Register notice to amend the deadlines 

for "commencing" construction in those 

provisions. See 44 FR 42722 (July 16, 

1979).' EPA Will probably promulgate the 

proposed amendment before it 

completes this rulemaking. 

To the existing grandfather 

provisions, EPA is proposing to add two 

new provisions to make explicit 

principles that are merely implicit now. 

Or..- v/ould state that a source or 

modification to which the regulations 

apply must have a PSD permit before 

construction on it may begin. See 

proposed §52.21(1) (1) and (2). The other 

would state that the existing 

preconstruction requirements do not 

apply to any source or modification on 

which construction commenced before 

August 7,1977, the date of enactment of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. 

This provision would merely put into the: 

regulations what eectidh 168(b}ofthe VV- f 

"Act already provides- See 42 U-.S.C2A,yA 

745B{b}.. - -A2 : . -flVAA'r' 

a. Nonattainment NSR Regulations,' p 

. For implementation of ihe offsetmling

 ; 

and the restrictions on new sources r.'•"'" 

: undersections 110(a)(2)(I) and!73{4|of . 

': statesto^quiregenera%the8ajDBfi-i7*V7 

transitiqnprincipleaasforPSD^Pjjaivp 

-Provisions of the final regulations which • 

will be more stitogent than eadating^ ,,-, 

requirements would apply to all 

applications not complete by the time 1 

the final regulations appear in the 

Federal Register. Provisions of the final 

regulations which will be less stringent 

than existing requirements could apply 

(unless the state has in the attainment ? 

demonstration relied upon more • • 

stringent requirements) to all sources j 

and modifications which had not 1 

received a permit before the final i 

regulations are promulgated. | 

Unlike the case of PSD, the | 

Administrator does not believe that EPA , | 

should be directly involved in any ' '•? 

efforts by individual sources to overturn 5 

certain more restrictive aspects of 

permits issued under the existing 

requirements. First, air quality levels 

worse than those judged adequate to 

safeguard public health and welfare are 

involved. Rescinding of permits in such 

areas might jeopardize the applicable 

attainment strategy approved in the plan 

or at least consume in part the growth 

allowance identified in the attainment 

demonstration. Therefore, any action 

taken to rescind a permit must be 

accompanied by a formal revision to the 

SIP so as to adjust the attainment 

demonstration. Next, the plan can use 

various control methods and strategies 

in demonstrating attainment by the 

prescribed date. This, at the state's 

option, can include a more restrictive.*-• '•.-£, 

NSR policy in order to comply with the /••'--

attainment mandate. Finally, states have ' A] 

generally issued the permits, not EPA. ,% 

Permitted sources that want relief from i 

the conditions of permit issued under .'p| 

the existing regulations should, r 

therefore, apply to the applicable state .' | 

reviewing authority for a reevaluation. 

Such sources should remember-that for 

several reasons the state may not be 

able to rescind a'permit 

C. PSD and Nonattainment SIP '. .'. 

Revisions. As discussed above, the'..-

review cf permit applications will be21A' 

governed by the existiugregulations ».- „ 

until the regulations areamended.

 >;y~2-^y 

However, a more flexible approach 'ikiiLr- -

: 

needed for review and,approval of SIP 5,-

revisions. In-brief,EPA^proposes ifX^LL,:-

now to approve a SIP revision if it' \A&$?-r*>s 

• satisfies either the«xi8li^ i^A v^ 

Tegulatioiis or the regulationa-propoBse^f^r 

in tWanotice^^&s ^ 

It is essential that-t3*tate*«dopt ano^^p; pP * A2fAi$ 

EPA. approve iwwaoOTti*$(^«v^r^ 

progrtuna m^m^f2'^^^^*iamK^^-' -•**•»lfl 

deadlinacreateap* 

nonattainmeni 

EPApohcyicalMbf. 

;**:*',•. ; 

•_ adoption of Pa^pbn»flB*wt^Alda%fj 

state ptaiisalreadppreparedhavB^^ 

designedrtosatisfy;EPA*existiiig7^:^^ti. 

regidattons«i5Eo^vo»diai*i^yttf 

|P?s$£*^2^ 

'•-a./ia.^** -

~y-&£:'2?£-:,-.;r-„yy . • •,: ;-,:;i£^-- n sL . •:>/•-* 

-.- '••• r-r1:* V7-'.- Yf^'L -- ---W-'«>-«t^ 

- ,-•'" •, \ "LLA •-- '•'•i, -'-.H L'-*'^ -^--Ous 
P.9 

-"ederai Register Wednesaav. September 5. 1979 / ProDOsed Rules 51929 

itate pians suomitted and approve;-. 

EPA proposes to accept for the time 

'eing any pian that satisfies EPA's 

existing regulations, even if the pian 

does not satisfy all requirements as 

interpreted in Alabama Power. This 

approach is legally acceptable because 

ihe court's mandate is stayed and 

section 406(d) of the 1977 Amendments 

establishes that states have time to 

come into compliance after EPA 

regulations are altered. 

Plans developed to satisfy existing 

regulations will in some respects be 

more stringent than the court has ruled 

are required by law. To encourage 

prompt submittal and approval of plans 

that have already been developed, EPA 

will take a realistic approach toward 

subsequent relaxation of such plans. 

EPA proposes to approve any statesubmitted relaxation so long as the 

revised SIP meets all requirements 

proposed in this rulemaking. This 

proposal approval would apply to only 

plans that would meet as a minimum, 

the proposed regulations and not the 

more lenient alternative approaches 

discussed in the preamble. The 

Administrator does reserve the option to 

approve SIPs where the decision may 

depend upon the final court opinion with 

the understanding Uiat the state will 

have to revise its plan to comply with 

EPA's final regulations. If EPA's final 

regulations are in any respect less 

stringent than the proposed regulations, 

EPA will then permit further relaxation 

if a state so wishes. 

In some respects EPA's final 

regulations implementing Alabama 

Power will be more stringent than the 

existing regulations, and may be more 

stringent than the regulations now being 

proposed. States will have additional 

time after EPA promulgates final 

regulations to submit revisions making 

the SIPs at least as stringent as the EPA 

regulations then required..: • • 

Even during the interim period, -

however, a plan will not be acceptable if 

it meets a combination of old and new 

requirements in such a way that it is less 

stringent than would be allowed under 

either the old or new set of r r 

requirements. For example, in 

determining what modifications nsed 

permits; the propos^ new requirementsare more stringent th^4h#old ones in 

setting the level of emissions {significant 

net increase), but-are-more, lenient in 

allowing contemporaneousreductions tobe considered (the "bubble7)ittjP., 

determining whether tha tlisyel of vj ."•'. 

emissions is surpassed. It would hot be •••• 

acceptable for aplantoanplythe old. -. 

generally more4eni«ntemissit» level in: 

.•.j-iiuin.iiion wuh the new more lenient 

'•tii-Die . 

Wer ihe past several-months. EPA' 

..JvS invited comment on the proposed 

c.-jprovai of individual SIP revisions 

•Pesigned to satisfy requirements for PSD 

or nonattainment. or both. Additional 

proposals will be published in the period 

before final regulations are published 

implementing Alabama Power. EPA 

intends to take final action on individual 

SIP submittals prior to the time it can 

complete its review of comments 

solicited by this notice. Therefore, this 

notice may be considered a part of the 

notice, of proposed rulemaking 

applicable to each individual SIP 

submittal. To the extent issues dicussed 

here are relevent to whether a particular 

plan submittal should be approved, 

commenters may address those issues in 

comments on the particular pian 

submittal. Comments on a particular 

plan may be submitted to the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office during 

the comment period established in the 

proposed rulemaking on the particular 

plan submittal. If the discussion 

published today requires alteration of 

any comments on a plan for which the 

comment period has already ended, the 

commenter should contact the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office 

immediately so tiiat the issue can be 

appropriately dealt with. 

In summary, EPA proposes to find 

SIPs now approvable if they meet the 

minimum requirements of either existing 

EPA regulations, or die regulations now 

being proposed. EPA strongly urges diat, 

where a state has prepared a plan that 

satisfies existing requirements but has 

not yet submitted it to EPA for approval, 

the state should submit it without delay. 

There will be opportunity later to revise 

the plan in accordance witii Alabama 

Power. 

IV. Potential To Emit 

The preconstruction review 

requirements of section 165 of the Act 

apply to any "major emitting facility." 42 

U.S.C. 7475. Under section 169(1), that 

term means any stationary source which 

emits or has "the potential to emit" 100 

tons per year or more of any pollutant 

and comes within any of 28 specified . 

categories. It also includes any other 

source with "the potential to. emit" 250.. 

tons per year or more of any pollutant 

42 U.S.C.7479(1)..: 

The scope of the category "major ._ 

emitting facility"- obviously depends 

largely on the meaning of the phrase-

"potential to emit"; Many more sourceswould fall into the category if the phrase 

referred to the-amount of pollution that . 

a sourcewoukf emit without pollution 

.ontrols than if it referred to the amount 

H source wouid emit with such controls. 

In the PSD regulations promulgated on 

Jane 19.197B. EPA defined "potential to 

i.-r.it" in general as "the capability at 

maximum capacity to emit a pollutant in 

ihe absence of air pollution control 

equipment." 40 CFR 51.24(b)(3). 

52.21(b)(3) (1978) (emphasis added). The 

court in Alabama Power Company v. 

Costle rejected EPA's interpretation. In 

its view Congress intended "potential, to 

emit" to refer to controlled emissions: 

We think the fairly discernible meaning of 

the statute * * ' is that an emitting facility is V 

"major" within the meaning of section 169(1), 

only if it either (1) actually emits the specified >. • 

annual tonnage of any air pollutant or (2) has • -

the potential, when operating at full design ' 

capacity, to emit the statutory amount * * *. 

In our view the design capacity of the facility 

takes into account not only its maximum 

production capacity (which EPA uses) butalso the design controls on emissions. (13 

ERC at 1228.) 

In response to the court's decision, 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

definitions of "potential to emit" in the 

existing PSD regulations. As proposed 

the new definitions would provide, that 

the term means "the capability at 

maximum capacity to emit a pollutant 

after the application of air pollution • 

control equipment" See proposed • 

§§ 51.24(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(3J (amphasis^.v?ig 

added). Thus, whether a source is , j'.AASi 

"major" would depend primarily upon • " A 

what control equipment has been . "• \ 

incorporated into its design., . . ''•' 

The existing defintion of "potential to 

emit" also states: •• -•**• 

Annual potential shall be based on the. • • . :.X 

maximum annual rated capacity of ttte- • l •'Ic 

source, unless the source is subject to 

enforceable permit conditions- which limit the ••"',' 

annual hours of operation. (40 CFR ' 

51.24(h)(3), 52.21(b)(3) (1978) (emptyuis j 

added).) -'.•'•".'.'$. ' 

••;•.- . >V :.'.-*,.-.>.:L- ? ---'- ' 

Under diat sentence, a soutw-oiBP,-'-'^ 

escape PSD reviews, if the^ 

proposing the source binds! 

state NSR permit to limit OT 

hours of operation, that ti&y 

less than full design capacity 

Alabama Power, tWconrt.pl 

thought that the calculat 

"potential to emit" she 

its full design cap 

EPA therefore.!^prop 

"unless": clause,-Iti 

possibility nita.source;.. 

review merely bee 

limitation on hours < 

action also makespHi 

minimize stress plain 

increments by »0*ii*ces« 

operation with IbwvhtiinittiH 

emissions.:EPA would,* 

generaUy-pretrameihat 

y*.ryy2^2'Ai?i^.mi 
P.10 

51930 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

W-> 

implemented for those programs in the 

same way as for PSD. 

EPA has traditionally distinguished 

for the purposes of NRS review between 

:he direct emissions of a source and its 

"secondary emissions." (See discussion 

on "Additional Issues.") In revising the 

offset ruling in January 1979. the Agency 

added a definition of "secondary 

emissions" and a provision describing 

for what purposes and under what 

circumstances those emissions are to be. 

taken into account. See FR 3281. 3283. 

3283-84 (January 16.1979). EPA is 

proposing to add a definition of that 

term to the PSD regulations and to the 

proposed nonattainment provisions 

relating to SIP revisions and restrictions 

on construction. The Agency is also 

proposing to add to each the definitions 

of "potential to emit" in those sets of 

provisions a statement that "secondary 

emissions" are to be excluded in 

determining whether a source or 

modification is "major." How the 

Agency would treat those emissions for 

other purposes, including PSD air 

quality impact analysis, is described 

below. 

V. 50-Ton Exemption 

In the existing PSD regulations, EPA 

in general exempts from full PSD review 

any major stationary source or major 

modification which would have 

allowable emissions for each of its 

pollutanta of less than 50 tons per year, 

1.000 pounds per day, or 100 pounds per 

hour, whichever ia more restrictive 

(hereinafter, a "50-ton source"). 

Specifically, an applicant for a permit 

for a 50-ton source does not have either 

to show that the source would have 

BACT or to provide an ambient impact . 

assessment See 40 CFR 51.24(j)(2), (k), 

52.21(j')(2), (jc) (1978). The exemption 

does not apply in certain narrow 

circumstances. Id. 

In Alabama Power, the court thought 

that its ruling on "potential to emit" 

made a ruling on the 50-ton exemption 

p "academic,** since ho 50-ton source 

would ever be "major" if "potential to- ' 

emitr-l-eferred to controlled emissions. 

13mC&YiSZBirisi. Nevertheless,it 

rdfedi^te^ -

forrteqi-WtMtffiioia' and'ndtedthatthe': " 

aAgeJatt-^hd ewjeededlts authority: in 

eat^ffi^iM&em&tin. Id~hi - ^ 

resp^ftP^A is^^proposing tp delete tile 

* ^ ^ provi^ ^ -.'*: £ L ^ 

t'ti^sfiftelkm^saafliiliil^^a'' parallel p^*crvJs?iaWfa theoi-fW 

afcB8(*!tf11irAtfc!EWW^ .•:.>:.;«; t.s!5.*--,* 

' ifll^NiioaeN^^^^N- ' 

jmasiV 

bf"pitenn^ tofemlP (hat it is -

physically operate 24 hours per day, 365 

days per year. The Administrator asks 

for comment on the need to adjust this 

assumption to the extent that new 

sources wouid have limited hours of 

operation due to physical incapability of 

operating 24 hours a day year round. 

Such an exemption would follow the 

Administrator's proposal to discount the 

amount of credit that can be claimed for 

reductions at existing sources because 

i r of physical incapability, on the part of 

.;?•£ the affected emission unit(s) (see 

-< discussion in "Modification"). 

yy the existing definition recognizes not 

f ooly.iimitations on hours of operation, 

H but also limitations on the amount of 

2; "iP4t«"-"l to be combusted or processed: 

r""'•• Enforceable permit cbnditiorta on the type or 

•yrfotmt of material combusted or processed 

-«< be used in determining the potential 

.amnion rate of a source* (40 -CFR 51.24(b)(3), 

?&21 (b)(9) (1978) (emphasis added):) 

For the same reasons that EPA is 

J. proposing to delete the clause relating to 

S hours of operation; it is proposing to 

•jfedeiBte the words "or amount" in the 

..^sentence quoted above. 

'WL: .Si calculating a source's "potential to 

f S.'emit" under the proposed definition 

j /jnany other variables would have to be 

^Qosktered-Amongihem are the 

r.ofcthe proposed control 

at the sulfur content of any 

tto be burned at the source, and the 

iabOify offugitive emissions. First. 

Lwith the*t»urt's opinion, EPA will 

• that the ^airpoUotion control 

at incorporated into the design 

^the facility will function to control 

emissions in the manner reasonably 

^tgntfcipiited when the calculation is -

lljttiade." 13 ERC at 1228 (emphasis 

i^wtded); Second, with respect to the -

n sulfur content of any. coal to be burned, 

nerafly intends to use a longr 

ominai average. For determining 

. ' h^^fVi-rf'A^-

'"'""'' "mmm^ 

4 inif-M'-:

-*>: 

ti^'f^oi i ofthis; 

I^pbft^al toemit^ls 

"p-i-Tv-al.'; 

*4mtt4iiBtar2 

„r-te*2-

ttrii^SsislViisalsoteii" 

Wit 

EPA,tfwev«';i.*^^ 

tha'F^j^^enff-^o^erttiB^ 

eixm^^^(ji^"6ei^pimo6iS^Ha^-A, 

7475(b). Essentially a source qualifying 

for the exemption would face a limited 

dir quality review for SO* and PM. 

including insulation from the monitoring 

requirement. Use of the exemption 

would be restricted to those 50 tons or 

less modifications of SOt or PM after 

application of BACT which wouid 

impact no Class I area and would not 

interfere with the attainment of I'M and 

SO, standards. In addition, the 

exemption, as proposed, would be 

applicable to the cumulative total of net 

emission increases occurring since 

August 7,1977, at a plant existing on 

that date. 

VI. Fugitive Emissions 

In determining under the existing PSD 

and nonattainment NSR regulations 

whether a stationary source or -

modification has the potential to emit 

100 or 250 tons per year of a pollutant 

EPA commonly takes into account all of 

the emissions of that pollutant, at least 

to the extent that they are reasonably 

quantifiable. Whether-ornot the" 

emissions would be "fugitive" has so far 

been immaterial in requiring permits. 

For example, EPA has generally 

regarded strip mines as candidates for 

PSD review, since if would include the 

dust from the*haul roads,- storage piles, 

and other surfaces at such a mine hr 

determining whether it is "major. "See ' 

43 FR 28395 (June 19.-1978). 

In Alabama Power, ihe court held that 

"fugitive emissions" are to be included 

in determining Whedier a saurce or-; 

modification is "major" "only rf and 

when EPA issues-an appropriate ~ 

legislative rule.? 13 ERC 1231. Thecourt 

did. state, however; that once the 

permitting requirements-otherwise•••' 

applied, then fugitive emissions and; 

nonfugjtive emissions at the same • -.•-. 

source were tobe^nsidered/tnj; ... 

performing tbe.peRiQtanaiynsv-tejsa--^j!. 

holding, the court,todipated that Eg#. >:,•;;.. 

had not yet gone thixnigh.thetreqiriaito^:. -

ndemaki^Withresj ^ 

of the. term "fugitive emissions," jEe;^^ . 

court ri-cogiiuzed.hat ihe Actnowfi^r'wdefinesitId at'ii^j^'NeMir^ i "" * 

it discerned that Cpngress^in^ac 

"fugitive emissid^Vjtn^ii^KOaipl^. 

emissions which ema^te^mdili^|*^ ; 

than a point'HUCKHH A qTqrJt: nr^tffnny.-

ItL at 1230h. i c j^pp P "^^ ^ 

court^i^^t^lsteill ^ 

^omptsfoad^tfoptf^ 4^ 

meanings^o^CTpj^m t%^Mejj> 

trtdititinayif^^tT^ft f^riHl 

bures 

EPAHif 

.3 

'-ppsSj 

•'-•^1 

j -'.r.A'^iiiyf^ 

?L0A<sm 

'Ki; '• -''ViM-irf^'i'i'; 

^%>&i*8gg&* 

3Jw.-^'-<-- lBSPtf^tfiiS-aia^ ^ 

ri'^^-.P-' 

**•** nw&rtSiiriihdas*^ -

— -, -•„- ^•-^•\^-^^'WS*3^t'^^^4^Sii:---

reasbmbl^totifiabte^ 

• AAA® 

Mi 

-JJS>rs^••v^ 

-jgy^rzkfij-,..-, 

^FasSeKt-'-'a'' 

'.-aa'-sSr-^J...- . 

7 fftrt&HS: .:->-"-' 

LL 

*-'^7* lii^'W*^- ''"•i*'~i%7.T"'. 

-2':*J2J^Pt^g^ 

- -•«. ySr ,'P?;>''; ri^r-sM 
P.11 

Federal Register / Vol. -A. .3 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51931 

nciuded in determining whether a 

jource of modification is "major." The 

actions described below appiy to 

regulations both PSD and nonattainment 

NSR. 

First. EPA is proposing to define 

"fugitive emissions" as those emissions 

which do not pass through an opening 

which the owner or operator uses for 

ventilation, such as a stack, chimney, 

roof vent or roof monitor. See proposed 

§§ 51.24(b)(20) and 52.21(b)(20). EPA 

would also delete the existing definition 

of "fugitive dust" at 40 CFR 51.24(b)(6) 

and 52.21(b)(6) (1978). 

Second. EPA is proposing to 

incorporate into the existing regulations 

the principle that rulemaking must 

precede the inclusion of "fugitive 

emissions" in an applicability 

determination by adding the following 

line to the definitions of "potential to 

omit": "Fugitive emissions shall not be 

included in determining potential, 

except with respect to the following 

stationary sources: * * *." 

Finally, the Agency is proposing to list 

the following stationary sources whose 

fugitive emissions are to be taken into 

account: (1) Coal cleaning plants. (2) 

kraft pulp mills, (3) portland cement 

plants, (4) primary zinc smelters, (5) iron 

and steel mill plants. (6) primary 

aluminum ore reduction plants, (7) 

primary copper smelters, (8) municipal 

incinerators, (9) hydrofluoticTsulfuric, or 

nitric acid plants. (10) petroleum 

refineries, (11) lime plants, (12) 

phosphate rock processing plants, (13) 

coke oven batteries, (14) sulfur recovery 

plants, (15) carbon black plants. (18) 

primary lead smelters, (17) fuel 

conversion plants, (18) sintering plants, 

(19) secondary metal production plants, 

(20) chemical process plants, (21) fossil 

fuel-fired boilers, (22) petrolsuro storage 

and transfer units, (23) taconite ore 

processing plants. (24) glass fiber j 

processing planted(25) chanJoal .. 

production plants, {28) fossil fuel-fired 

steam electric plants, and any other 

stationary sourcecategory whidi, at the 

time of the applicability determination, 

is being regulated under section-Ill or 

.112 Of the ACtiT-fep^p- a-Wgi:£ j^i.:^--.. ' 

EPA beKeves^tthiOTisiwriMsdn j 

' whyasoureeofatparticuimpollatant 

regulated under: the Act shouldjBscape ;. 

review because tt^fmiwi^jynf^^ 

the same poUuta^ has teg^^|«^ti f 

the emissions arej^fiigitt^lanho& 

cases. titB-amtijffia.^^ 

NSR Uis(^iin^^ai»^y^'kathe 

, othaft-EF$»-fi*ii«gfc^^ 

experiencein-^uantifS^^s'tftigitive 

c-iriissions" from such sources is. in 

perioral, greater man its experience in 

I'-uantifyina such emissions from other 

sources. See. e.e.. U.S. EPA. Compilation 

oiAir Pollutant Emission Factors (AP42) (3d ed„ August 1977). The 

Administrator over the next several 

months will consider the need for 

additional source types to be added to 

the list beyond those which wouid be 

newly regulated under 40 CFR Parts 60 

and 61, including-strip mines. 

VII. Fugitive Dust Exemption 

The existing PSD regulations provide 

that any "fugitive dust" from a major 

stationary source or major modification 

is to be ignored in determining what the 

effect of the source or modification on 

air quality would be. 40 CFR 51.24(k)(5). 

52.21(k)(5) (1978). Because of its decision 

on "fugitive emissions" and apparently 

because it thought EPA had no authority 

to establish the exemption, the court 

remanded it to the Agency for further 

consideration. 13 ERC at 1231. In 

response, EPA is proposing to delete the 

provisions which embody the 

exemption. The Agency is also 

proposing to delete a parallel provision 

in the offset ruling, 44 FR 3274. 

Vm. Source/Facility Installation 

A. Definition of "Source". In its 

existing PSD regulations and the offset 

ruling, EPA has defined "stationary 

source" as "any structure, building, 

facility, equipment, installation, or 

operation (or combination thereof) 

which is located on one or more 

contiguous or adjacent properties and 

which is owned or operated by the same 

person (or by persons under common 

control)." EPA also defined '.'facility" as 

an "identifiable piece of process 

equipment" 40 CFR 51.24(b)(4), (5), 

52.21(b)C4). (5); 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 

s, sections II.A.l and 2, as amended 44 

FR3282. 

In Alabama Power the court said that 

the definition of "stationary source" in 

section 111(a)(3) governs PSD review. 

Slip op. at 11. Section 111(a)(3) defines 

"stationary source" as "any building, 

structure, facility, or installation which 

emitaturmay emitanyairpollutant"42 • 

U.S.C 7411(ap).Tn>w)uri stated that 

"EPA may not add itemitothis list Slip 

op. at lt^ta conformant with the -

courts-opinionEPA^jm-pasing.to > .; 

delete the ternw.r^pn^toetrt?,' >AA 

"operation" and *«j!ibtoaat*a thereof* . 

from die definition of stationary source -. 

in botlt the PSD and nonattainment 

regulations. The court also found that. .-

EPA exceeded its statutory authority to-, 

the way in which it tried to apply 

preconstruction review to both'--asingle*•.', 

building^structure, facility or 

Installation, which is permitted by 

section 111(a)(3), and a combination of 

-uch units. Slip op. at 12. EPA therefore 

proposes to delete the term 

"combination thereof from the 

definition of stationary source. 

The court did. however, state that 

EPA has substantial discretion to define 

the terms in the definition of source— 

that is, building, structure, facility, or 

installation—to include a wide range of, '•.. 

pollution-emitting sources. Slip op. atlli~>.. 

The components of "source".could be\. 

defined differently for PSD purposes • - -

than for die purposes of other provisioftB 

of the Act". Slip op. at 12, note!3.The :-.,^ • 

key constraint on EPA's discretion is 

that "the definitions applicable to each ..•.*•" 

set of provisions must be reasonably 

appropriate for the purposes of those • • 

sections." Id. The same court has earlier •• 

stated that, in defining the components 

of source, "EPA is guided by a reasonedapplication of the terms of the statute.it a. 

is charged to enforce, not byran abstract 

'dictionary' definition." ASARCO, IHo. V., 

EPA. 578F.2d319,324noteJ7(D.C.Cir.' . 

1978). These two court opinions-instruct' 

the Agency to analyze th&fMdutmy 

purposes of the various$SDftnd v 

nonattainmenlJiS^woryiiiions and .,. 

define tiieueiaiai^bulldiiigw'rstnicture.''. 

"faciUtytfaii*.Sfi^^ .« 

best the statu^intent of Uie t ", '. :".':;.^ 

prorvistonai->;p)./vv;;.. ••:•..•... jx .• ..•..•Hv^^ 

B. Sources Subject to PSD •-•' *~:: 

Requirementa*-Gate ot the fundamental.' 

purposes ofTPSDis to maintain airp-'i . 

quahty better, than the ambient *••'• -" 

standards. This purpose can best be • 

served if NSR applies to the largest - • 

industrial grouping that, as a practical*: 

matter, industry and the reviewing'.:!-,", 

authorities can reasonably dealitfth'-aaa single unit; EPA believes the- 'pi^-V. • p.k 

appropriate groupingIs aU'^hdt^rngi^-^ 

activitiestm ooiiitiguauBo? " """"" 

property end'ltndarcdia-^^ 

typically an industrial 

ForPSD.JEPA^elievei , 

industrial gaping Is'twj| 

unit for review of bpthi 

new plantsandheyf 

pieces of process' 

plants.' " ' "" 

group: 

procesaequf 

. revieWaOfiM, 

unit-^y^initi 

review, 

standards-arid; 

plantacoiBd] 

as a coll""'"" 

;•• ' •::• -

-i'<* 

»V;'-'..ttT,V*-Ks 

S25ytaK-Va>J" 

unitSveacbhelO' 

threshold, and thejrc1->; 

dtogeJhafc-K 

*ijftpsr<j(Xc. }.;'•,,•?''

 }T>i-. rvt - • 

^%/ft'jk*,^<Wv'-

werei .:j-i* ••:•>•• >.rufl>W 

•yi 

••••:WJtf2M 

-.!•-•*' 

?*w:«*t-'* -»:'..-a . 

'•••>t».,a*'V'J-J.li.jS^l 

,Limm 

$ 
51932 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

review, increments and even standards 

could easily be violated. 

While increased protection of air 

quality might be achieved by reviewing 

groupings even bigger than a plant, 

review of larger groupings is infeasible. 

New units not on adjacent property or 

under common control would be anawkward grouping to evaluate and 

regulate. Therefore, PSD review will 

apply to groupings of new construction 

no larger than a plant 

Plant-wide review also serves the 

basic purposes of PSD when pieces of 

equipment are being built or modified at 

existing plants. With plant-wide review, 

industry can construct new and 

modified equipment without a permit by 

reducing emissions enough that net 

emissions at the plant do not increase. 

(Allowing use of offsetting emission 

reductions within the source to avoid 

NSR is called the "bubble" approach. 

For discussion of the bubble, see 

"Modification"). The purposes of PSD 

are served, because assuring that there 

wdl be no net increase in emissions 

from the plant also assures that the 

construction will not interfere with 

maintaining good air quality. 

Permitting offsets'only within 

individual process units would gq 

beyond maintaining tbe status quo. 

WhiTe additional emission reductions 

§p,?neyond existing levelsaire needed to 

J

-attelnstandards-in nonattainmentareas-

^fsee discussion In the next secaonVsuch 

- redactions are ordinarily unnecessary to. 

22meetthe'*puxpov»ot4hePSDprogram.. 

In additioa the review itself would not ; 

make sense relative to RSD goals, if new 

units at sources with offsetting plantwide decreases were forced to undergo 

review. Sources might be required to 

model and monitor inaement ~ 

consumption when ale quality is ••• 

^expected to improve or. stay the same. In 

p-£dditica..«pp!icationottliebubbl«!ona . 

<; of eqmppicot- and growth in^ 

p*e-capady..v:.j.--'?-rt..?j-5^. .y^y' 

' btein^ pf&te'iofl«n less, , 

fM$l(&a,tfme-amj^^ 

tW% 

industrial plant. To accomplish this. 

EPA proposes to define "building, 

structure, facility, or installation" to 

mean a grouping .-.r activities on 

contiguous or aaiacent properties and 

under common control. The term 

"grouping" is intended to include a plant 

consisting ofa single isolated activity, 

as well as a plant consisting of many 

activities. 

C. Sources Subject to Nonattainment 

Requirements. 

1. Purpose to be Served by 

Nonattainment NSR'Definitions. Unlike 

the PSD provisions, the nonattainment 

provisions are primarily intended not 

merely to prevent excessive increases in 

emissions, but to reduce emissions. This 

fundamental difference in purpose 

requires a different approach to defining 

the sources that will be subject to NSR. 

To assure adequate review, EPA 

believes that both entire plants and 

individual pieces of equipment must be 

subject to NSR. The one exception under 

EPA's proposal is for areas subject to ' 

fully complete SIPs satisfying Part D 

requirements. In these areaa where 

attainment is assured. NSR need apply 

only to entire plants. 

. To assure adequate review of new 

plants, a large grouping must be subject 

to nonattainment NSR for the reasons 

discussed above for PSD. To do 

otherwise would allow a new plant that 

is divided into separate process units, 

each below the potential emission 

threshold, to escape review. New 

emissions could thus be added to the 

existing violation, without review, 

making attainment virtually impossible. 

Therefore, EPA believes that 

nonattainment programs, like PSD 

programs, must apply NSR to entireplants. 

EPA believes that pieces of process 

equipment within plants should also be 

subject to NSR under nonattainment 

programs. This would prevent use of '•*• 

plant-wide of&eto f<ie itereasiee from -

construct!on ciriiwtlfflcatioetrftiiajor •••* < 

pieces c^pro<^equli»ae^ the plant*- • 

nonattiii\me^^m^eiia^ian''far PSD "' 

pi-bgram* b*s*s«^^ 6%ly holds'•$"•.»;..•. 

enrission* ramstalteNBBaMaiflateMt' * 

"muatfofci-ti-*^^ 

- - - tftacrttaMfff^ • 

'coiiMfttttiktti^^ 

ftit^nilrrrrrea.^^ . 

i&i^sprequaily large increases from new 

construction, then other, less costeffective ways to reduce emissions must 

be found to achieve attainment. 

Therefore, to ensure that construction 

within existing plants does not make 

attainment of the standards more 

difficult nonattainment programs must 

provide for NSR new and modified 

pieces of equipment The NSR . 

requirements will assure that the most 

stringent controls are applied to new. 

and modified equipment and that more ... 

than offsetting reductions in existing 

emissions are obtained to assure. - . 

adequate continued progress toward . 

attainment The nonattainment -

requirements also ensure that other.7 

sources in the state, owned or operated 

by the same owner, are in compliance, 

with SIP requirements needed for -

attainment 

This policy argument is strongly: 

supported by the legislative history, 

Even where demolition of obsolete- -

equipment reduces emissions. Congress 

indicated that construction of 

replacement equipment should be 

subject to NSR under nonattainment 

programs without regard to the 

offsetting reductions: 

Thus, [under the offset ruling and Part D 

NSR requirements;) a new source is »ttH'' - p 

subject to such requirement** as^towwt-^7-

achievaWe emission raie"*8veirtf it 1st A -.••''".-' 

rnniiliiirtmt ns n rrplsncimnnt fur nu nlilwi t 

facility resulting in a net reduction ficoai - -•• 

previous emission leveisa* (Statemeaiwf/- , 

Senator Mualde, 123 Cong.Rec.ai Sl37fl2xoL. 

2 (daily ediUos. August 4.1977)). ...... 

2. Proposed Definitions. To implement 

this specific expression of Congressionai 

intent air wall as-the general puipgaea-of 

toenonattatnBieat'piovisionBadiaoaneda 

above, EPA fit proposing, to deflated -pc 

"souroeV' to include JWI 0nlyttfflin*wHder;' 

groupnigyofat^fyities^ijutalsdr^^^-

"BiuUdingr.rtftil$ltfl^ 

be defoede """"' 

activities^*! 

would t^defimta^to^ 

pitta m^rttttMbtftiffMi&nteffiA^* 

Th&e* 

of plant-wide^bubbleior 

eqiujMi&ufci^fH 

eno^^i*'''','""'" 

majtJT static 

2fiM 

7 ^ 

ennssioi 

*±VM. 

W^m^^Lr/:-yy 

$f!m!!$'2-2--y-: 

. . - ^.-..aa-.^i.^^-V,-^.'• •-

r-'2$iA?iyi22L2":-

^MS^^i^r^^y-
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 31933 

reuuctions at the plant so that there is 

no net increase in emissions at the plant. 

Furthermore, in accordance with the 

Pcnaressionai intent noted above, a 

replacement of an older piece of 

equipment would be treated as a new 

installation, regardless of any reductions 

from previous emission levels. A 

"reconstruction" wouid be treated in the 

same way as a replacement, when the 

capital cost of the new improvements 

exceeds 50% of a comparable 

replacement. 

The proposed definitions tend to limit 

applications of the bubble, by defining 

certain large kinds of sources and 

certain small kinds of sources, and 

recognizing tiiat some small sources are 

included within the boundaries of large 

sources. This approach is consistent 

with both the language of the Act and 

ihe interpretation in Alabama Power. 

Congress, in defining "source" as any 

"itructure. building, facility, or 

installation" must have contemplated 

that some ot these components could be 

defined to be smaller than others and 

that the small components could be 

found within the large components. 

Defining some sources as small enough 

to be within the boundaries of largerdefined sources is also consistent with 

the court's instruction not to define 

source as a "combination" of facilities, 

installations, or other single source 

units. The proposed regulations define 

"facility" not as a combination of 

narrowly-defined sources, but rather as 

an independently-defined enitity. This 

single entity is composed of a grouping 

of emitting activities (which individually 

may or may not be sources)'meeting 

requirements of common control and 

adjacency. This plant definition is 

exactly ths sort of "common sense 

industrial grouping" that the court said 

is a proper subject for NSR. Slip op. at 

12. • 

The court stated that the same 

definitions of facility, building, structure, 

- and installation, must govern tile 

determination of not only whether there 

is a new major stationary source subject 

to NSR, but also whether there Is a 

modified major 8tationar£&eurce 

subject to NSR. Slip op. at 21. EPA's • 

definitions adhere strictly tb this, P 

principle. Major, facilities and major- . 

installations constitute Jj-^ the new \ 

sources and the modified Sources .. 

'For example, • coal pile ti nM«.p)ebe of proem 

equipment andfe. timi*ttM9*vet'anJlwaflatfim*- *-••' 

under the propaaad-ddSidlionferlsvMWfVattiBaii'a.. 

en*ittin$ activity, and caaiturtferob* part or* ., 

"facility" under the proposed definition*. Tlie , 

Agency recognize* tbat the emission* from tlie coal 

pile would be fugiUmariiMMMMto^ietfe-' 

regulation St dtocnSas£tS!lfeeSGfifl8tMw-MP1q£lfvs--' 

Emitiiona."..-• • '.'^-r'.-.v '' v-•••.&••,-••: Jj!;ii;:•'•:'• 

subject to NSR. Under these definitions, 

construction that is neither a new nor a 

modified major facility may be a new or 

modified installation, and vice versa. 

Congress, in defining "source" to include 

several items in the alternative, 

provided for such a result where 

necessary to achieve the purposes of the 

Act. 

The following illustrates how the 

nonattainment NSR definitions would 

work. Suppose a firm proposed to 

construct three pieces of process 

equipment on a single plant site. Each 

piece of equipment would be an 

"installation," and the entire plant 

would be a "facility". Each installation 

wouid be a "source" and the entire 

facility wouid be a "source." If the 

installations would have annual 

potential emissions of 40.190. and 150 

tons per year, respectively, the facility 

would have potential emissions of 380 

tons per yean 

Installation (A)—40 tons per year Iminor 

source). 

Installation (B)—190 tons per year (major 

source |. 

Installation (C)—150 tons per year (major 

source). 

Facility (A)—380 tons per year (major 

source). 

Permits would be needed for the three 

major sources: installation (B), 

Installation (C), and Facility (A). Since 

the permit for Facility (A) would, as a 

practical matter, cover all three 

installations, only a single permit 

application would be needed. 

Suppose next that the firm proposed 

to modify Installation (C) to increase 

emissions by 70 tons, and decrease 

contemporaneously the emissions of 

Installation (B) by the same amount 

There wouid be no modification of 

Facility (A), whose total emissions woud 

remain the same, but there would be a 

modification of Installation (C). whose 

emissions would increase by 70 tons. A 

permit would be needed tor the 

modification of Installation (C). 

If installation (B) ware-then modified 

to increase its emissions by 60 tons, but 

there were contemptjraneous reductions 

of the same amount at the same 

Installation (B), no net increase in 

emissions would occur at either 

Installation (B) or at Facility (A) ,. 

(technically, there, would be no 

"modification"), and no permit would be 

needed-ttihere were a 20-ton increase 

a I Installation (A) and a '> 

contemporaneous 2S-ton decreased 

InstaUationjQ. there would be a 

modificattonei minor installation (A), 

whose net emissions increased but no 

modification of major Facility (A), 

whose net emissions decreased, and no 

permit would be needed. 

3. Nonattainment Programs to Which 

•he Proposed Definitions Apply. The 

definitions described above are to apply 

lo sources subject to the offset ruling 

and to restrictions on construction unaer 

sections H0(a)(2)(l) and 173(4) of the 

Act. EPA also proposes that these 

definitions apply to "incomplete" state 

plans under Part D of the Act. 

Incomplete plans are those that do not 

yet show reasonable further progress 

and attainment of the ambient 

standards, based exclusively on 

currently adopted, approved, and 

enforceable requirements. Incomplete 

plans therefore include any plan where 

approval under part D is conditioned on 

submission of additional material by the 

state, any plans containing stateadopted schedules for submission of 

additional material.7 and any plans 

where additional submissions are 

needed by July 1,1982, as required by 

section 129(c) of the 1977 Amendments 

[note under 42 U.S.C. 7502). Since 

incomplete plans do not yet include all 

requirements needed for attainment 

EPA believes that the definitions 

described above, including the definition 

of "installation," are needed for the 

reasons discussed above. 

However, EPA believes tiiat complete 

Part D SIPs, which contain adsptedkand' -

enforceable requirements sufficient to 

assure attainment may apply the- -

approach proposed above for PSO. with ' 

plant-wide review but no review of 

individual pieces of equipment Use of 

only a plant-wide definition of source 

will permit plant-wide offsets for 

avoiding NSR of new or modified pieces 

of equipment However, this is only 

appropriate once a SIP is adopted that < 

will assure the reductions in existing -. 

emissions necessary for attainment See - -

44 FR 3276 co!. 3 (January IB. 1979). if 

the level of emissions allowed indie SIP.' 

is low enough to assure reaaonabl* y -«•*•-' 

further progress and attainment now^- . 

construction or modifications w^k.%^ -.'a'.-

enough offset credit to prevent;*!^: AJ~ •':'•' 

emission increase should not jMMMfiLsa'^ •. 

attainment. .Protection oi-atiai^tpqasiLjAy •':• •;>'•& 

under the SIPisalao jui^&jy^^^ ••• « 

permitting offset credit for s^spjsifi^ j,».^, A -. 

reductions required by;th»aiipm^-tottk'£'S*& 

(see "Modification")." •"*. '^'^gl^^itoVaS' -.•'££ 

'"" "WaefciaV*-1'

J

 ;'-y£it% 

no. offsets should be vaaSSiB^SS^^ri^ 

HtftiutiO 

'For a dfecuMtan of c 

schedule*, M*«nt20OT(A**ifrat nmsfi N 

_j858s(jutr-ttgntk-"-;-*;,-*>-• '•?••;"• •^WSftt*.- . .-

* Reeonstractad najor tnetaHatbaa.ri^/mmikttiisf-t 

whether tbe*-- am MMado-ad

 ,1i»odUkja<JBwSom>->j 

under therettrlctiva rirftafflnnof majat ^ 

mocfflcatloit^n'new m»)or tosrem aatyodfu . 

restriction* an contraction.'< • j-S/'-i-MWSi'-j 

I, 

However, for rou^ssubji 

restrictions on cqhatruct: 

110(aJ(2](Il .WltXfimft 
Federal Register / Voi. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rule9 

P.14 

*irh 

proposes to accomplish this through the 

definition of "major modification," 

rather man the definition of the 

components of "source." This is 

discussed in the section on 

"Modification". 

EPA is considering one other 

approach for nonattainment areas. 

Under this approach, all components of 

"source" would be defined as pieces of 

process equipment, and none would be 

defined as plants. NSR wouid apply to 

new pieces of equipment, regardless of 

offsets elsewhere in die plant. For 

modifications of existing pieces of 

equipment offsetting reductions within 

the same piece of equipment could be 

considered in determining whether there 

is a significant net increase in emissions. 

However, under this alternative 

approach, new or modified minor 

installations wouid never be subject to 

review, regardless of whether they are 

part of a major plant. 

Since numerous individual pieces of 

process equipment typically have less 

than 100 tons per year potential, and 

would escape preconstruction review 

even though they are part of a single 

plant with over 100 tons potential 

emissions, this approach would allow 

much new construction to take place 

without preconstruction review. This 

problem could be counteracted 

somewhat by requiring that state plans 

provide for close tracking of new minor 

source construction. However, as 

• I 'discussed above, EPA believes that 

s

 failing to review entire new plants 

would create enough risk of massive 

new emissions that this approach is 

undesirable. 

D. Summary. In summary, EPA is 

proposing two different ways to define 

source for different kinds of NSR 

programs: 

.:•' (IJ'For.PSD and complete Part D SIPs, 

i";'7W*yiew would apply only to plants, with 

—'" an unrestricted plant-wide bubble, 

|2jtror the offset ruling, restrictions on 

.tion, and incomplete Part D 

review would apply to both plants 

Individual pieces of process 

ment causing the plant-wide 

>not to apply for new and 

major pieces of equipment 

-^^<lttaddition, for the restrictions on 

pCotiiterctiotv^PA is proposing to define 

p^J?^ ^ modification'' so as to prohibit 

"ip^fgg|p-Je entirely. Finally,an 

MJillf&uifro discussed but not favored is 

'". toJxayevonly pieces of process . 

ptfquinmeht reviewed, resulting in no-., -

^plant-wide bubbleand allowing jninor 

"Hpitcea of equipment to escape NSR \2" 

..regardless of whether they are within a . 

ntajor plant .. .. L.*A2:'L.u*--*z- . 

ZPA invites comment generally on 

what approach should be used for each 

type of program. 

•X. Modification 

A. No Net Increase. Under current 

EPA regulations, a modification is 

"major'' if potential emission increases 

from the modification would equal or 

exceed the applicable 100/250-ton 

threshold. The court in Alabama Power 

rejected this approach. It held that a 

change in a major stationary source is 

subject to PSD review if it results in a 

net increase in the source's potential to 

emit. The court also held that any 

emission increase which is entirely 

offset by contemporaneous emission 

reductions at the source would not be 

considered a modification. Slip op. 20-

22. These rulings are incorporated into 

the proposed regulations for both PSD 

and nonattainment NSR provisions. The 

one exception is construction 

restrictions under sections 110(a)(2)(I) 

and 173(4), for which EPA proposes not 

to consider offsetting reductions in 

determining whedier there is a 

modification. 

While the court addressed the amount 

of increase that triggers review, it did 

not address which pollutants must be 

increased to trigger review. The court 

thus, did not object to EPA's current 

approach of requiring preconstruction 

review only if the increase in potential 

emissions is for a pollutant for which the 

source is a major source. Nor did the 

court object to EPA's'current approach 

of aggregating small increases in 

emissions occurring after the time of 

program concern (e.g., August 7,1977 for 

PSD) to determine whether they add up 

to enough in total to make the source a 

major source subject to preconstruction 

review. Therefore, these two aspects of 

existing regulations are being retained. 

The fact that review is necessary only 

if there is an increase for a pollutant for 

which the source is a major source is not 

ir.crr-.. intent with the Act's instructions 

that l'2*D requirements apply to all 

pollutants emitted If any one pollutant 

* initiates PSD review, then review is 

required for all pollutants emitted in 

greater than de mimmis amounts but if 

no<one pollutant triggers review, then 

review is not-required for any pollutant-4* 

emitted. y. 

* Tlie court's ruling requires additional > 

guidance on how the new definition of "' 

modification will be implemented, what -

"contemporaneous" change means, 

what emission offsets are creditable, 

and how "net increase" is calculated. It 

should be noted thai the topic of net 

.emission increases is distinct from the 

more general topic of emission offset -

banking, although thayarecipsaly 

related. Banking is discussed in the 

Federal Register notice regarding EPA's 

offset ruling. 44 FR 3274 (January 16, 

19791. 

1. Implementation. The regulations 

proposed today would require that any 

emission increases at a stationary 

source which would qualify as a major 

modification, were it not for sufficient 

contemporaneous emission reductions 

occuring within the source, must be 

reported to the Administrator or 

reviewing authority (the state 

govenuner-il body responsible for 

issuing permits is called the reviewing 

or permitting authority). In addition, a 

source must report emission decreases 

which it wishes to use as future offset 

credit. EPA intends the reporting 

requirement to fill a need for 

preconstruction notice and not to act as 

a time-consuming substitute for a 

permitting program. For more discussion 

of the preconstruction notice 

requirements, see the section of this 

preamble entitled "Notification." 

2. Contemporaneous Reductions. 

Under the court decision, a modification 

is a change, or series of 

contemporaneous changes, that results 

in a net increase in potential to emit. 

The term "change" derives from the 

definition of "modification" under 

section 111(a)(4), and means "any 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a stationary 

source." Only an actual physical change 

in, or change in the method of operation 

of, a major stationary source may be 

considered in calculating 

contemporaneous decreases. In 

addition, because a source's potential to 

emit is calculated based on full design 

capacity assuming year-round. 24-houra-day operation, only an actual change 

that reduces design capacity can be 

credited as en offset in calculating 

whether a net increase has occurred Fpr 

example, imposition of a legal obligation 

to reduce operating hours or operating

 iJ

-

loads will not by itself, qualify as ah: 

actual change decreasing potential to 

emit In contrast, an actual change that 

permanently reduces the source's 

maximum production capacity, such as ' 

disconnecting an entire process.would ' 

qualifyfdrcredit ''".".•"'"•:'•'•'"•";'2J2 , 

The proposal would exempt an • ; ? p 

emissions increase from PSD review tfp ..p 

equal reductions in emissions ^cctirft fepp " 

the same soun» contemporaneously H 

with the emissions increase, in the.r-- Ay 

court's view, this exemption ha s tfae^ y?- p 

advantage of deferring oravoidinguW*'-^ . 

cost of review whUe providing an-:•£••:- AA. ' 

incentive to industry toupjgrade air--";' 22 

pollution control equipment. --.-•• •;,:-:' 

A namnv interprets tioirotthe tere^r*-*•-: 

"contemponmeou8,*w6uldrestriciiV.

Fi>^'-

*--vm 

•&%•* 

af-Si* 

-P-'afP'S 

•Ja^- S 

•'rPCa-lr 

*LM 
P.15 

Federal Register Vol. '<"?, I \V.?rlnesdav. Sentember 5: 1979 / ProDosed Rules 51935 

..-editable emission reductions to ;ho;e 

recurring at the same time as the 

jniission increases beina offset. This, 

however, wouid undercut the incentive 

, .i upgrade controls, since it is not 

jiways possible for a source owner to 

i'ifect the necessary reductions at 

exactly the right time. Although the term 

"contemporaneous" appears to preclude 

ri formal, open-ended banking system 

for previously-achieved emission 

reductions at the same source, it is not 

so limited as to require simultaneous 

offsetting. Requiring sources to continue 

operation of obsolete equipment, simply 

to preserve offset credit, makes little 

economic or air quality sense. 

To provide some latitude for crediting 

emission reductions, EPA is proposing to 

credit any reported reduction that would 

occur after the effective date of the 

promulgated'regulations but before the 

proposed emission increases are 

scheduled to occur. For shutdowns and 

jurtaiiments occurring before these 

regulations are promulgated,.offset 

credit may be retained if the source files 

a notice within 90 days after 

promulgation recording the previous 

shutdown or curtailment A follow-up 

notice would also be required to 

document the construction schedule for 

the increase to be offset and to ensure 

that the applicable offsets are 

enforceable under the SIP. Failure to 

identify1 such a timetable or to comply 

with it will prevent use of the earlier 

emission reductions to offset that 

increase. This, in turn, may require the 

affected owner or operator to obtain a 

NSR permit • 

3. Emission Offset Baseline. -

Additional guidance is necessary on 

how to determine if proposed emission 

reductions at a stationary source are 

sufficient in type and amount to offset 

prospective emission increases at the 

same source/ assuming the changes are 

contemporaneous. The basic rule 

contained in the regulations is that anew increase in a source's potantial.to.-..-

. emit occursvwhenever the sum of :p,„ ..-.• 

increases minus the-sum of tha 

decreases ia greate* than zero. The size 

of the increased^decraseiore,.;•;••;,•>p- •,"•-. 

particular emission> unit Jsgenerally: 

determined by the difference between . 

the units potaiijdalta emit ieforeanjl 7^ • 

after die change pt series of changes... 

As mentioned in VPptential To Emit'',' • 

the Administrator believes thatpqtentiai 

emissions of ah existing source can be;, 

no greater than.its flCtoale-^'aa'Q^pn <-.n $ 

capacity. If a 80-Jure-tfJa»longer :L-'.'.".-A.:_ 

physicallyable to.ppei^tfe4tt.ittt>^.?i"= 

maximum design capacity, its potential ... 

to emit is limited acnnrrijngly.Eoraav: ,;p 

source physically<»iutrained from J 

•ji.Tatins at maximum capacity, offset 

jj.'dit vviil be based on its potential 

-..missions, taking into account physical 

•constraints on ODeration at maximum 

•-.sipacitv. For example, an obsolete unit 

which has been shut down for several 

years due to severe operational 

difficulties would not offer any offset 

credit to new construction. If potential 

emission calculations did not account 

for physical incapabilities inherent in 

the operation of existing sources, a 

source couid offset new usable 

production capacity with old unusable 

production capacity and thereby avoid 

preconstruction review. A common 

result Would be significant and 

unreviewed increases in actual 

emissions. If this were permitted, 

increments and standards couid be 

severely impacted or even exceeded. 

This policy continues a philosophy 

which was implicit in several 

requirements of the existing PSD 

regulations and offset ruling. For 

example, under existing regulations and 

today's proposal, a source's operation 

over a one- to two-year period is 

considered in calculating the size of an 

emission reduction. If a source has not 

been operating at full capacity for a 

significant part of the one- to two-year 

period, it is considered to be physically 

incapable of operating at full capacity 

and its emission reduction credit will be 

calculated based on its operation for the 

one- to two-year period A source owner 

or operator may overcome the 

presumption of physical incapability if 

he shows that it was not physical 

incapability that caused the low 

production rates. 

Physical incapability includes 

situations where one part of an existing 

source cannot be used at its full 

capacity because its capacity is larger 

relative to the rest of Uie associated 

units, and therefore its output is limited 

by the capacity of the other units. In 

addition, if a plan is unsafe for a certain , 

level of operation or has obsolete or 

worn-out components which cannot be -

routinely replaced,- its potential to emit 

would be limited by these conditions. ••• 

Under tha proposal, emission J 

' reductions must be reported to the 

permitting authority-to receive future - • 

offset credit {see "Notification"). EPA -

would accordingly allow full aedit for a 

.systematic phase^wn<^ production., 

•; curtailment at a source Iflt is reported••••• 

in advance to the permitting authority. 

: Industry would be allowed to phase in 

orderly growth withoutranning highly 

: polluting, obsolete units at full 

operation^aimply to accrue maximum -

offset credit-p • 

An adjustment to ther potential -• 

emissionsiuie is needed in a case wherepotential emissions are greater than 

.:ilowable emissions. In such a case, no 

credit mav be taken for reducing 

potential emissions uown to allowable 

jnissions. This adjustment is needed to 

implement Congress' intent, as 

interpreted in Alabama Power, diat 

offsets should be permitted as an 

incentive to upgrade air poliution 

controls. Slip op. at 21. Where the 

improvement in control technology 

would be legally required under the SIP, 

the source should not be permitted to 

take credit for making the legally 

required decrease. This approach 

appears in the offset ruling, which was 

endorsed by Congress. The 1977 

Amendments provide that.the emissions 

baseline for calculating offsets under the 

ruling must be the state plan 

requirement in effect at the time the 

source applies for a permit. See section 

129(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments (note 

under 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(1)). 

In addition, allowing offset ereditfor 

independently required reductions." 

would make it difficult for the SIP to 

reduce total emissions in an area where 

standards or increments are violated. If ' 

such offsets were allowed, a source that , 

came into compliance with a required ;. 

emission limitation could then use the 

same reduction to offset Increases in. •'.' 

emitting capacity such that no net". '.'..". A 

increase would occur. Total emissions " f-'" 

for the source would remain the same •;' 

and the violation would still exist The "> 

proposed regulations would avoid this 

unacceptable result by prohibiting the 

source from taking credit for such a -

reduction. , . 

"Allowable emissions" are defined as 

the most stringent of (1) any new aource . 

performance standard or standard for 

hazardous poilutahta applicable td this .... 

construction under review,? ]2)L-."•'- A.','.A.^"• A

applicable SIP. emission Uii^^^'^Llu^^:^; 

emission rate sftecifiedai'-an^^'rj^^^^^i^ 

enforceable pemidt fjndifiomlljyl*^^ 'l^:'\At§ 

there are'any t-ittforceabltenito*^^ 

limits that nuutttaaronijilie^^ 

future, and wMchuredifferTOt-fiipO!^^ 

limit c**-rrentiy're.}.u^sdWl»Vi^^ 

stringent oi tha present and^atei*^^^ 

emission limitation* is * 

determining the^lloiwable 

To continue ekistiirg i 

policies, the Administrat 

each -candidate) nidiwttfiiH 

following criteria.'*/"-'A^$.p. 

(1) It mustbe enfai?6Miii 

applicable SIP; either! 

•Here the appScahia 

- standard far-hamdona |>nlhrt*n*»ptG/t*} 

standard that a particular ssnrce-l* 

not new standard* ocrevteipn* 

standard* tvhfc* affset 

but that woald oat aj*p.j-<->th*i 
51936 Federal Register '.Yednesdav, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 

revision or an alteration of the source's 

permit. 

\ {2} It must be for tne same pollutant as 

f the emission increase and have 

comparable impacts to health and 

welfare. Section IV.C.4. of the offset 

ruling, involving credit for hydrocarbon 

substitution, should appiy. The criteria 

outlined in the proposed policy 

statement on state implementation of 

the "bubble" concept for existing 

sources (44 FR 3743 col. 1) January 16. 

1979, would also apply. Accordingly, 

reductions of pollutants within the same 

pollutant categories but with different 

health or ambient air impacts cannot be 

traded against each other. 

(3) It must not have been already 

committed to in the SIP. 

(4) Air quality need not improve or 

stay the same at every location affected 

by the proposed construction, but on 

balance the affected area should not be 

adversely impacted. 

The Administrator recognizes a 

problem associated with crediting 

offsets as defined. Under today's 

proposal there is a possible incentive to 

seek a loose BACT requirement when 

undergoing PSD review in order to lay 

' an early claim to an excess amount of 

the increment. If an applicant obtains 

approval of proposed construction under 

p, a looseBACT-requirement he could 

"» then alter the proposal to provide for the 

pllnstallation of the better controls so as 

Jkio-oSaet afutureexpansion at the same 

'JI^IW Without full PSD re vie w. The 

/^Administrator asks for comments on 

'•'' how best to address this problem. 

B. Restrictions on Construction. EPA 

is proposing that the bubble should not 

apply at all for areas subject to 

construction restrictions under section 

10(a)(2)(I) or 173(4). For these 

^visions, EPA is proposing to define 

or modification" as any change in, 

: ange in the method of operation of 

jajor stationary source that results in 

jqtlatrease in the potential to emit of a 

, a- pollutant for which the source is major if 

ase exceeds the de minimis 

ijcnrthe pollutant (See"De • • '• 

JMiJi^Exemptions''). 

j jyA'believes that the Alabama Power 

.establishing that internal 

st be permitted in determining 

BHity of PSD to modifications, 

. . i»«tft apply to section 110{a)(2)(I) or 

p'i-^Stft^restrictions on construction. The 

•i^BSiiftthiling was essentially, an interim 

^TM*^'-"~ Mow some furthCT growth 

aate plan revisions were 

edp EPA believes that in 

<

1e*ipiaingJttjet>ffBet ruling on June 3a 

'i&atlatid restricting further major - . 

pafefiiffutation until Part Dplaids are '-< c ' 

approved and implemented Congress 

intended to terminate: not only offset . 

nctions between different sources 

JUI :;:;o those within the same plant, ln 

tijht of this intent, not permitting 

,:.t.--- -. offsets is particularly important 

j!; „ t

 •• most offset transactions 

permitted under the offset ruling have 

involved offsets inside the same source. 

This interpretation is also required to 

avoid undermining the purpose of the 

restrictions on construction. As 

discussed in the "Source/Facility/ 

Installation" section of the preamble, 

when a source matches an emission 

reduction with an equal amount of 

increased emissions from new 

construction, the nonattainment problem 

gets harder to solve. This is especially 

true where there is no adequate SIP that 

demonstrates attainment. EPA believes 

that the restriction on construction was 

designed to stop the problem from 

becoming worse and provide an 

incentive for states to submit and carry 

out corrective SIPs. Allowing offset 

credit for reductions wouid instead 

provide an incentive for sources to seek 

delays in the adoption of acceptable 

state plans. Delay would allow sources 

more time to convert reductions into 

offsets before a plan requiring those 

reductions can be adopte and approved. 

An alternative to prohibiting the 

bubble outright may be to allow no 

offset credit for reducing potential 

emissions down to the level that would 

be required if reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) were 

applied. Since RACT is required in 

approvable Part D SIPs, the effect would 

be to discount credit for reductions that 

would be legally required if an 

approvable SIP were in place. Such a 

policy would preserve the incentive to 

submit adequate SIP revisions for 

. affected areas. 

While Congress removed a similar 

RACT baseline from the offset ruling, in 

section 129(a) of the 1977 Amendments, 

EPA does not believe that Congress 

prohibited a similar approach where 

areas do not have, or have failed to 

implement acceptable Part D plans. A 

major drawback to this approach, 

- however, is that RACT may be difficult 

to define in the absence of a full 

regulatory proceeding, such as those 

required for SIP submission and 

approvals. Therefore. EPA is proposing 

instead to prohibit internal offsets in 

artas subject to construction 

restrictions. However, EPA also invites 

comment on the alternative approach of 

permitting offset credit in areas where 

the growth prohibitions apply if RACT 

were first apphed- -•-••'•' "• "• 

C. Accumulation. As noted above. 

' EPA proposed to continue the current; 

policy of requiring NSR for a source p 

wh^n aggregate new emissions from*•* ; 

if 

individually minor units at the same site. 

ufter an applicable date, are sufficient to 

quaiifv the series of changes as a major 

modification. For PSD review, the date 

irom wnich emissions increases are 

aggregated is August 7,1977, (40 CFR 

51.24(b)(2), 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)) and for 

sources subject to the offset ruling. 

December 21,1976, 44 FR 3283, coi. 1 

(January 16.1979). These dates continue 

current EPA policy. For sources subject 

to Part D plans and restrictions on 

construction affecting designated 

nonattainment areas, the applicable 

date for accumulation will also be 

December 21,1976. Accumulating net 

emission increases from that date 

forward ensures that modifications 

resulting in emissions which Congress 

defined as major will be subject to 

review under a Part D plan or else to the 

restrictions on growth. In addition, tiiese 

sources received notice as of December 

21.1976 that accumulation could later 

subject them to nonattainment review. 

EPA is proposing one change to tis 

existing accumulation provision to 

conform it to the court's decision. The 

current accumulation regulation 

aggregates emission increases after an 

applicable date, with no credit given for 

contemporaneous emission decreases. 

The court, however, defined 

modification as a net increase in 

potential to emit To make the 

accumulation provision consistent with 

this definition, EPA is proposing that a 

source be subject to NSR when the* 

aggregate net increase in its potential to 

emit after the applicable date qualifies it 

as a major stationary source. As in the 

existing regulations, only net emission 

increases after August 7,1977 for PSD — 

sources, and December 21,1976 for 

sources subject to nonattainment 

requirements will be considered in V.. 

determining if a source is subject to 

NSR. -...*-'. 

Under this approach, if a modification •-•': 

at a minor source results in a net '•-'2'A'y"- 2 ' 

increase in emissions, such that itsaggregate net increases in potential ;'p*-"-

'""' 

emissions since the date of concerrt'j'if

 ?P" 

exceeds the applicahlel0p/25O-ton *"X: 

threshold the modification will bis . -Ji .*f-'•': .•: 

subject to review. This approach -^.a.w .: pp 

requires review for esin^e motlificatid'H>air /"'" 

to a minor source constructed before tKt&jH * 

applicable date *rbmih^od&cati(&^ .'. 

results in a Txttamai^it^t'^M^S^AL^y. 

emissions of over the applicable iob/^%^r..vs<^ 

250-ton threshold5---'.::. ;HHs't^^^H" ' 

Once a seriesof todftddual miito^*^ 

changes'accnmiifet^tt^jB"Sa.4j&F;^!p^^^>: ...., 

modification, questions hrise conceraifi^^i: J p 

the degree of reidew tha't would ajpipjj^t?'v*pp; 

the earlier eddiia^'^^a8^l^7^^r*

1

f^^ 

geirtralvtocilaiy^ 

,:-* 

I 

m 

m 

-*fi^ki0^2Ar 2$ 

2->M *^m 

'-•'• • • -.ria'.aaaT&arP--' 

• V-V.}??. 
Federal Register / .Veiinesriav. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51937 

:JJ requirement to npniy BACT or I.AF.K 

J.I oniv that emissions increase wnich 

—.:ikes ihe source subject to review. On 

•ie oir.er hand, totai aggregated 

-missions trom tne source win be oi 

i.ancern when performing air quality 

:ests. Such tests include increment 

•naiysis tor PSD sources and those 

relevant to emission offsets for sources 

subject to nonattainment NSR. Any 

subsequent modification at the source 

resulting in a net increase in potential to 

emit that exceeds the de minimis cutoff 

will be subject to NSR. 

The accumulation approach as 

modified to conform with the court's 

decision closes a loophole in EPA's 

current regulations. Previously, a 

modification was not subject to review 

unless it increased a source's potential 

emissions by 100 or 2K0 tons per year, 

whichever was applicable. Under both 

the existing and proposed accumulation 

provision, a power plant constructed 

.uter tne date of concern which emits 90 

tons of SOi and then adds a new 50 ton 

SO» boiler, would be subject to control 

technology requirements for the 50-ton 

unit and to air quality review for the 

entire facility. Under the existing 

provision, if the plant then added 

another 90-ton boiler, however, the 

boiler would.not be subject to existing 

review requirements because it would 

not meet the 100-ton threshold. This is 

true because.the current regulations 

allow the accumulation slate to be 

wiped clean after a permit was 

obtained. Under the approach proposed 

today; any.net increase in potential to 

emit after the source becomes major is 

subject to review. Consequently, the 

next 90-ton increase would be subject to 

review, unless there were sufficient 

contemporaneous emission decreases. 

The de minimis exemption, as 

discussed more fully in iha section on 

"De Minimis Exemptions." would also -

apply to emissions from major, 

modifications on a cumulative basis. 

J Once a minor source is subject to review 

because its aggregate potential 

emissions make it major, any future net .-. 

emission increase will also be reviewed 

unless it qualifies as a de minimis -

increase.dHowever, any future da •-?.... 

minimis net increase-front:a-; 

modification will be cumulated with net 

increases from subsequent p-* 

modifications to determine-if total net.-r,p 

increases exceed the applicable ate 

minimis cutoff.

 :.->';'. :pr.-.p•.-.-_:...";_-.-

Finally, if a minor aource becomes*., ; 

major throt^accumolatkmof lt*7~- .:. 

emissions and thesourcemtocated-iha . 

PSD area where no baseline date .--

applies, that source's application far a ., 

major modifteatiottpeniiH.wittJtrigger a -.-•• 

baseline date for the area. The baseline 

::.-? wouin Oe tne date a compic'.s 

implication tor tne maior modification is 

ry.yd anti not tpt? date on wnich the first 

-.-_r.it of the thcr.-nmor source was 

:ns!ruc.eu. 

X. "De Minimis" Exemption 

in the Alabama Power decision, ihe 

court provided that EPA may exempt 

from review those situations determined 

to be de minimis. Specifically, the court 

stated: "The Agency does possess 

authority, inherent in the statutory 

scheme, to overlook circumstances that 

in context fairly may be considered de 

minimis." Slip op. at 10. The court spoke 

of the administrator's ability to exempt 

from review modifications with small 

net. increases and to dispense with the 

BACT and monitoring requirements 

through the application of de minimis 

thresholds for those pollutants emitted 

by an otherwise subject source. The 

court did limit the Administrator's 

discretion in formulating such 

exemption cutoffs by stating that a costeffectiveness rationale wouid not be 

appropriate. 

The Administrator is today proposing 

to exercise this authority by establishing 

a pollutant specific exemption system 

that excludes or limits review of 

proposed construction having emissions 

or air quality impacts below certain 

values. Table 1 contains for each 

pollutant regulated under the Act an 

emission cutoff that would be 

considered insignificant or de minimis. 

Table 1 would have two principal uses. 

First, it would be used to show diat the 

net increase associated with a 

modification would be de minimis for all 

pollutants for which the source is major. 

In nonattainment areas, this 

demonstration would involve only the 

nonattainment pollutant(s). while a 

showing for all regulated pollutants for 

which the source is major would be 

required of modifications at major 

stationary sources in PSD areas. A 

successful showing would exempt a 

modification from PSD and 

nonattainment permit requirements. 

However, such a source would be 

required to provide notice to the •-.... 

Administrator and. therein, make the die 

m/n/m/s demonstration (see section on 

"NOTTFICATION")cThe.'proposed 

regulations incorporate ihedejnininiis ...-,. 

concept by requiring "that major' H p 

modifications have a significant neti r ,p ~ 

increase in. potential emissions.-, ~ y. 2A.-LTable 1—Gtiidefiae? 

Rates.- - --'•••.. -vigntfinant 

Pollutant and Emission Rate 

Carbon mmoxide^-ipo tana per year. 

Nitrogen dioxide—10 tons per year. 

Potni Suspended particulates—10 tons per 

'. a'ar. 

^'lil'ur dioxide—10 Ions Der year, 

'..'/.cm.:—10 ions per year ui volatile organic 

...jmoounus. 

'.-..•.iu—l ion per year. 

Pi.-rcurv—.1 Urns pur voir. 

Uerviiium—0.1XH ton per year. 

Asbcsios—1 ion per year. 

Fluorides—(1.02 ton per year. 

Sulfuric acid mist—1 ton per year. 

Vinyl chloride—1 ton per year. 

Total Reduced Sulfur 

Hydrogen sulfide—1 ton per year. 

Methyl mercaptan—1 ton per year. • 

Dimethyl sulfide—1 ton per year. 

Dimethyl disulfide—1 ton per year. . 

Reduced Sulfur Compounds: 

Hydrogen sulfide (see above). 

Carbon disulfide—10 tons per year.. 

Carbonyl sulfide—10 tons per year. • 

Even if a modification cannot be 

shown to be minor, Table 1 can be used 

to limit the pollutants for which BACT . 

must be applied or an air quality,:. 

analysis done. If a modification toi-a "• ' • 

source is subject to review because it 

results in a significant net increase in 

potential emissions of a "pollutant for 

which the source is major, ora new 

source is subject to review because it ' 

will have the potential to emit a 

regulated pollutant in major amounts, 

the source may still avoid B.ACT or an 

air quality analysis for other pollutants 

it emits if it emits such pollutants '•ia.it&.'ii.. ,- ( 

minimis amounts. Table 1 identifies the-' 

emission cutoffs that would trigger the *y' 

need for control technology and ambient 

review for those other pollutants. Thus.*-" 

when a major stationary.sliurce or..' 

modification is subject to PSD review, i' 

because of potential emissions of one or 

more pollutants the review would apply 

to only those other pollutants which the 

source would have the potential to emit" 

in amounts above those proposed in.. 

Table 1. No notice requirement is . 

neccssaiy for these pollutants since the . 

source or. modification would make the T" 

de minimis demonstration as 

permit application. ,;'," 

Table 2 is; proposed a&4as$ 

mechanism to limit the air" 

review for certain pollutant* 

source wouldhavethe po ' 

in significant amounts-tan insignificant ajmbte 

may.occurfrequehdy.8i 

emission values in Table 

from, the air qu^SyJjay; 

preliminary, 

conservative 

values in Table 2represent* 

fractiMiaof thosean»fcian 

to be protrctivecrf p^blfcsp 

welfare;.Tab!e l'ddWndf,ij 

pollutants for whlcn^aije' 

would emit in excess of thjej 

100/250-ton threshold nor "*" 

S^Ssa'*.^ 

•fr'rr.-^jtft^&i'.'i. 

... . -.ar. a « -">&':' 

••rrrrA^j^r^M 

...•i v.^trfl-.-'.a 

„-.Si; 

-A" 
P.18 

51938 Federal Register •A'ednesdav. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

to maior construction trim wouia ioi.ate 

in ti nonaitainment area or would 

adversely impact a Class 1 area. 

Table 2—Guidelines for Significant Ambient 

Air Quality impacts 

Poliutar.t and Air Quality Impact 

Carbon monoxide—500 M-g/m3. B-hour avg. 

Nitrogen dioxide—l|ig/mJ. annual. 

Total suspended particulates—5 ug/mJ. 24-

hour. 

Sulfur dioxide—5 fig/m3, 24-hour. 

Ozone—1!>. 

Lead—.03 ng/m3, 3-month. 

Mercury—0.1 -tg/m3. 24-hour. 

Beryllium—.005 fig/m3, 24-hour. 

Asbestos—1 ng/m3.1-hour. 

Fluorides—.01 ns/m3, 24-hour. 

Sulfuric acid mist—1 ug/m3. 24-hour. 

Vinyl chloride—1 wj/mJ,- maximum value. 

Total reduced sulfur: 

Hydrogen sulfide—1 ng/m1,1-hour. 

Methyl mercaptan—.5 ng/m3, 1-hour. 

Dimethyl sulfide—.5 ng/m3. 1-hour. 

Dimethyl disulfide—2 ng/m3. 1-hour. 

Reduced sulfur compounds: 

Hydrogen sulfide (see above). 

Carbon disulfide—200 ng/m1- 1-hour. 

1

 Carbonyi sulfider-200 ng/m1. 1-hour. 

In order to utilize Table 2, sources are 

required to use a preliminary screening 

technique to determine if their air 

quality impact will exceed the 

•M&J. acceptable de minimis guidelines. The 

jll^screening technique is set forth in 

'^rGmdelines for Air Quality Maintenance 

A Planning and Analysis Vol. 10 

ix&yRpvised); Procedures for Evaluating Air 

•mZ'XZuaJity Impact of New Stationary 

ffLSbiirces (October 1977. U.S. EPA. Office 

} H of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

j v. Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711). If a 

source's ambient impacts are expected 

" to exceed the de minimis guidelines 

using this conservative technique, it may 

:_ elect to do a more sophisticated 

- modeling analysis to demonstrate a de 

,. minimis impact. Upon a showing that 

•.•-^he anticipated impact of a regulated 

lir"'" "utant wouid be less than significant 

jor stationary source or major 

ifk-ation would not face the detailed 

nt impact analyses of PSD for that 

t (subject to the exceptions 

above). Thus, such a source would 

• required to do an analysis for its 

t on increments and standards, 

ppwould such a source be required to 

its effect on soils, vegetation, 

:

^Pji|!i3^pisib.lity or to conduct any ambient 

studies.-. -

--following is an example of how 

posed dual de minimis approach -• 

-*Urork. Suppose a new source 

2v ^tfoxhtninimis air quality level ta piupiiwd for 

oione. However. any net increase of 100 loot per < 

yearol volatile organic compound! rabject to PSD • 

would be required to perform an ambient impact 

.eqaljaia, including the gathering of ambient air > • 

.£iafii)r.dataa - ;•-v..... .7-.j • 

.:J;KC; to PSD wouid emit P " tons ot 

SO., but oniy 5 tons Der year of PM and 

10 (ons per vear of both nitrogen dioxide 

'.'0%.l and volatile orsunic compounds 

20C2,. A DACT analysis would be 

:iL'cessary ior S02. NO,, and VOC but 

not for PM. An ambient air quaiitv 

analysis wouid be required for S02. The 

source could do a screening analysis to 

determine if an ambient analysis is also 

required for NOT. No ambient analysis 

would be required for the VOC 

emissions because the potential VOC 

emissions are under 100 tons per year. 

The numbers proposed in Table 2 for 

criteria pollutants reflect the levels of 

significant impact promulgated in the 

existing PSD regulations on June 9.1978 

(43 FR 26398). while the de minimis air 

quality guidance proposed for beryllium, 

fluorides, and mercury has been derived 

from health effects data contained in the 

report entitled "Effects of Trace 

Contaminants from Coal Combustion"— 

proceedings of an ERDA workshop 

conference August 2-6.1976. The 

remaining de minimis air quality 

guidance was formulated following a 

review of state ambient air quality 

standards, state emission regulations, 

and background documents used to 

develop standards under 40 CFR Parts 

60 and 61. The one exception to this 

pattern in Table 2 is ozone. The 

Administrator here is proposing the 

major source cutoff of 100 tons per year 

as the value to trigger ambient concern 

after BACT has been applied. A 

background document will be issued by 

EPA providing the methodology, data, 

and references used in developing both 

Table 1 and 2. 

The Administrator would like to point 

out that the proposed de minimis 

numbers, particularly the air quality 

values, may be too high or too low. 

Because of the urgency associated with 

today's proposal, the numbers identified 

in Tables 1 and 2 are not supported by 

extensive analysis. Public comment or 

followup investigations may result in 

changes in the numbers in the final -

package. 

Although the values in Table 1 and 

Table 2 are subject to change, the 

Administrator believes that de minimis 

guidelines are necessary. EPA believes 

that these exemptions are not only 

justified by disassociated insignificant 

air quahty impacts but also by 

administrative necessity. The potential 

administrative burden of processing 

permits for nearly every minor change at 

ai major stationary source appears 

unmanageable. For example, if no de 

minimis exemption were provided, any 

new element in an oil refinery, including 

a valve or small space heater, wouldbe-

..•ji>iect to N-SR. In the Agency's view, 

neither air quality nor efficient 

.-•dministrative operation are served by 

"jquirina preconstruction review for 

auch changes, or for new sources-with a 

comparaoie impact. 

In addition to requesting comments on 

ihe proposed values in Tables 1 and 2. 

the Administrator solicits comments 

regarding the need for both air quality ' 

and emission de minimis numbers and 

the need to put either directly into the 

regulations. 

XI. Geographic Applicability 

This section addresses issues raised 

by the court's interpretation of the 

geographic applicability of the PSD 

regulations. Four major topics are 

discussed: (1) sources constructing in 

designated nonattainment areas. (2) 

sources constructing in designated 

attainment or unclassifiable areas. (3) 

VOC source considerations, and (4) 

interstate pollution. 

A. Designated Nonattainment Areas. 

in the Alabama Power decision, the 

court held that the PSD provisions apply 

only to major sources either locating in 

areas specifically designated as 

attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107 ("clean air areas"), or 

locating in any area from which the 

source would substantially impact a 

clean air area in another state. 

EPA has filed a petition for 

reconsideration regarding the court's 

restriction of the geographic 

applicability of the PSD provisions of 

the Act. In the petition, EPA argues that 

Congress intended PSD review to apply 

to major construction, whether located 

inside or outside a designated 

nonattainment area, that would 

significantly impact any clean area. The 

Agency argued further that, even if the 

court doc-3 not accept EPA's entire 

position, the court should rule that the 

PSD provisions should apply to any 

major construction that would impact a -

Class I area or a tribal reservation. The 

Administrator believes that as much as 

40 percent of the total acreage of the 

mandatory Class I areas is located in or 

adjacent to formally designated 

nonattainment areas, and must be -

r

 - '"• -y 

protected against the impact'of new4"-•• * 

construction in the nonattainment areas. 

Today's proposal conforms to the--V 

court's June 18,1979 opinion. EPA would 

require permits only for major '22LL:^2r 

construction occurring iii designated "§•&'~-

attainment or unclassifiable • areas:or- for*.' -

construction in a designated ' .../.a*.-

nonattainment area.that Wpuld^j?H'-ir:-fr 

significantlyimpact a clean air area in> 

another state. If the court alters its 

opinionas Q>A aakedit todo, EPA WM-J--

have to reconsider this proposal:-- - "iAL'L 

•X-i* 

-.->.-** 

A2*2 

:A4s£&i* 

.-TXfSS 
P.19 

:

ederal Register / Wednesday. September 5. 1979 / Prorjosed Rules 51939 

EPA is also proposms to extend NSR 

• mder section 173 and tne offset nihne. 

ind the Part D restrictions on srowth. to 

..ever major sources everywhere in the 

josignated nonattainment area. This 

;ule would appiy regardless of whether 

the source could demonstrate that it 

•.vould not significantly impact the 

specific pointjs) of violation. This would 

be a change to the current policy, which 

now allows a source to be exempt from 

nonattainment requirements if it makes 

such a demonstration. 

The above change is needed to 

overcome a very significant shortcoming 

that would otherwise be created in the 

regulatory system. Under the current 

regulations, proposed major sources in 

designated nonattainment areas with no 

significant impact on the violations 

could be exempted from nonattainment 

requirements because they are made 

subject to PSD preconstruction review 

requirements. But. under Alabama 

Power and the regulations now being 

proposed, such major sources wouid 

usually not be subject to PSD 

requirements. It would be inequitable 

and contrary to the apparent statutory 

purpose to allow such major sources to 

be totally exempt from any 

preconstruction review permit 

requirements, including no minimum 

emission control requirement and no 

evaluation of air quality impact. 

Therefore. EPA proposes to eliminate 

the shortcoming by extending 

nonattainment requirements to all major 

sources constructing in designated 

nonattainment areas. If the court 

accepts EPA's petition for rehearing, and 

extends PSD requirements to more 

sources in designated nonattainment 

areas, EPA may reconsider this 

proposal. 

B. Designated Attainment and 

Unclassifiable Areas. Hie court's 

decision in the AlabamvPower case 

addressed only the issue of whether the 

PSD requirements of the Act appiy to 

sources in designated nonattainment 

areas. The court did not address the 

"issue of whether the Agency may apply 

the nonattainment preconstruction 

permit requirements of the Act to 

sources locating in areas designated . 

attainment or unclassifiable.-. -

Currendy, major sources in designated 

attainment or unclassifiable areas that 

would cause or contribute to a violation 

of a standard anywhere, a*e required to 

meet all applicable nonattainment 

requirements. These include state plan -

requirements adopted to meet Part D of 

the Act for neighboring designated ' 

nonattainment areas, and offset ruling 

requirements for newly discovered 

violationain areas designated 

.:(ainment orunciassiiiable.11 lr. 

I'-.oition. EPA has proposed thai the 

r friction cn construction for a 

• •••sicnated nonattainment area wuh an 

..iadequaie (or inadequately 

::*iD.ememed) Part D plan should apply 

to major construction outside of the 

area, if it would significantlv impact on 

anv pointis) of violation in the area. (44 

FR 38585. July 2,1979.) 

Although specific regulatory ianguage 

is not being proposed, EPA is 

considering changing its policy on the 

applicability of nonattainment 

requirements to sources in designated 

clean areas. Under the approach being 

considered, nonattainment requirements 

would only apply to proposed major 

construction either inside a designated 

nonattainment area, or proposed in a 

designated clean area for a site where 

an ambient standard is actually 

violated. State pian requirements 

providing for NSR under section 173 of 

the Act wouid appiy oniy to major 

construction widiin the designated 

nonattainment area. Likewise, the 

restrictions on construction for failure to 

have or carry out a Part D plan would 

apply to major construction only within 

the designated nonattainment area. The 

offset ruling would apply to major 

source construction at a site where the 

standard is violated widiin a designated 

clean area. 

Major construction that would have a 

significant impact on a violation of a 

standard anywhere, but locating where 

the standard is attained, would still 

have to reduce its imapct enough so that 

it would not cause or contribute to the 

violation. The source could reduce its 

impact the needed amount by applying 

more emission controls, by obtaining 

offsets, or both. 

EPA has earlier proposed the legal 

argument that the existing, more 

restrictive approach is required by 

section 165(a)(3)(B). This section.states 

that no source subject to PSD review 

may be constructed unless the permit 

applicant demonstrates that the source 

will not cause or contribute to air 

pollution in excess of any national 

ambient air .quality standard in any air 

quahty region. In the earlier proposal. 

EPA stated the view that this provision 

applies to any source whose own. 

emissions, irrespective of offsets, causes 

or contributes to the violation, 44 FR 

38584 (July 2.1979). In the proposal, EPA 

interpreted the literal language:of= -

section 165(a)(3)(B) as forbidding any 

such source to construct at ail: Q'A saw 

this prohibition overridden only" if the 

80urce«atisfiedaD conditions of theoffset ruling or a state plan program 

" See44ER327Bcoi4.JairaaiylB.1879:/ 

under section 173. If no Part D plan were 

i.i effect and carried out after the 

jradiine for having such a plan, EPA 

•"'-.en proposed that the restrictions on 

construction described in sections 

:i0(a)(2j(l) and 173(4) would apply, 

through strict application of the 

language of section 165(a)(3)(B). EPA 

invites comment on whether the more 

relaxed approach now under 

consideration would satisfy the 

requirements of section 165(a)(3)(B). 

This change in approach is not 

required by the court's opinion in 

Alabama Power. The court's decision 

was based on its interpretation of the 

phrase "any area to which this part 

applies" in section 165 and a review of.-

other provisions in the Act. In contrast., 

section 172(b)(6) simply states that 

nonattainment preconstruction review -

should apply to "new and modified • -

major stationary sources." There is no 

language iimiting Part D review to -

sources in any particular area; Likewise, 

the offset ruling which was~ratified by 

Congress in section 129 of the 1977 

Amendments, applies by its terms to all 

sources wherever located, that cause or 

contribute to an ambient violation. 

Finally, section 165 requires that prior to 

construction a source cannot create a -

violation anywhere. There is no--

comparable language in Part D'8aying.jgf<;'v 

that Part D sources must protect PSD /'.'.<•;;-• 

increments. All of thesefactoretend to'.-.' '•' 

distinguish the nonattainment program.^' 

from the PSD program, so that Alabama 

Power should not be viewed as" ••"•. 

governing geographic applicability of 

nonattainment requirements., '•'-. , 

Although neither the court's opinion-2" 

nor the statute prohibit the application . 

of nonattainment requirements, to PSD"! 

sources, EPA believes that there may be . 

significant policy and administrative. .pvreasons for limiting the applicability^ol;,'-vnonattainment NSR inihis w^l^Q^|jJ -

PSD requirement of BACT and air.:.VH?S.Vquality offsets (i.e., an impacting AQUI 

must offset its contribution to,_kviolai 

anywhere) provides sufflciehlair 

protection for an area thatisduithi 

designated nonattalnmmt ntffffi^,^ 

actually violating the/standsi^v'^^^ij 

Application of all nonai " 

requirements to PSD.ei 

burdensome to bothimi^; 

authority-and the permil 

On the t-Jtherh! 

important programreai 

the offset ruling com 

with PSDrequiremi 

. constrectiaiLat :a.sii 

:• dean but where ,••.-— 

the standard.'Co'natrtiufft»wMa^t»^^| 

where.there is a/yfUakti^jm^klytlffin 

the greatest iInptBdi:on"^it^^^i^Ujtiifl||B| 

• •a . , a ' "'i . t . . ^l ^.^^^fll^^m 

• ., r:sL$-<c<m 

- .:• • - • *• Xh*x&* 

•_..... ..'.. ,' -a^rta i 

-•Am:^^ .T*.^r-l

*\i 

$£^ Vf•'**?- ay;0 a-ja^. 
51940 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / U'ednesdav. September 5. 1979 / ProDOsed Rules 

W is therefore most in need of stringent 

i\ nonattainment controls. In addition. 

jf retaining otfset ruling requirements for 

/ construction at sites with ambient 

p violations would reduce any incentive 

states and sources might otherwise have 

to include too much territory within the 

boundaries of designated clean areas. 

This approach is legally permissible 

because, as explained above. EPA 

believes nonattainment requirements 

including the offset ruling may apply 

regardless of the applicable designation. 

However, EPA also invites comment on 

whether such construction should be 

totally exempt from nonattainment 

requirements includingthe offset ruling, 

as is proposed for other constructianin.. 

designated clean areas. 

In addition, if EPA should adopt this 

applicability approach. EPA seeks 

comments on whether states should be 

allowed time to consider adjusting ' 

boundaries of existing area designations 

before EPA changes its policy. 

C. Geographic Applicability for VOC 

Sources. Whatever approach is taken on, 

the legal and policy issue discussed 

above, it will be necessary to determine, 

as a.factual matter, whether a standard 

is violated at any particular site, and 

1 whether a major sourca at that site 

| would aignificantiy contribute to a 

violation elsewhere. This raises 

particular difficult issues for sources of 

' .. . volatile, organic compounds. 

On publishing its offset ruling on 

January 16,1979, the Agency sought 

public comment on applicability issues 

specific to sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) that would impact an 

area of ozone NAAQS violation. 

- Atmospheric simulation techniques are 

generally not available to estimate the 

air quality impact of an individual VOC 

source. In the offset ruling, the Agency 

prtjKB&d^he policy that in lieu of 

$•$. a major VOC source would ba 

Kto review, as significantly . . 

"" [to the violation, if it 

{'construction within 36 hours 

B of a- no*ua ttuinment monitor, 

_,. 1 conditions associated with 

• thyozone concentrations found to 

-ie5c^id=me NAAQSfor ozone: > 

were solicited on die final 

apestabhshment of the *"38 hour rote." : 

nents have raisedr 

questions on the technical 

i-rule. Also;stateswith • 

_ she monitoring networks--. 

ipoaaieaied thatthe1rule gave *-••-. 

(x>n^Mrtittvaaconomicadv«ntage to ^ 

' statessWith lessjraffldeiitaanitodng • • •?. 

8ystem£OthertnffiBmeats:iiotedthatiha • 

: 38 hourrule presentslturall^dr-nothlng -".; 

^toation reqitii±3g.fiiffarnooffsata^nto -

jjigjujigmentiorfidloffietratpotnntially 

long" distances from a nonattainment 

monitor was considered inequitable 

treatment of VOC sources which (1) 

-.vould not be able to avoid the 

nonattainment requirements by reducing 

emissions so that the impact is less than 

significant. (2) would be subject to offset 

requirements even if the source is 

significantly farther away from the 

violation than would be required for 

particulate or sulfur dioxide sources that 

impact on PM or SO- violations, and (3) 

would be subject to offset requirements 

based on less rigorous technical 

estimates than required for PM and SO» 

sources. 

In response to the comments received, 

the Agency proposes to eliminate the 36 

hour rule as a criterion for determining 

whether or not a VOC source will 

impact a nonattainment area. Under the 

proposal, EPA would assume that 

proposed construction would have a 

significant impact on an ozone violation 

oniy if the source is physically within 

the boundaries of a designated 

nonattainment area or is at a site in 

another area where the ozone standard 

is actually violated. If a source were in a 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

area at a site where there is no violation 

of the ozone standard. EPA proposes to 

treat the source as having no significant 

impact on any ozone violation 

anywhere. 

The monitoring required for a PSD 

permit would in most cases indicate 

whether the particular site attains the 

ozone standard

 irHowever. in some 

cases, a source located in a designated 

clean area with potential emissions over 

100 tons but less than 250 tons will not 

be subject to PSD review but may be 

subject to review under the offset 

ruling.li Unlike PSD, the offset ruling 

does not require monitoring. For any 

sources covered by this ruling, but not 

PSD, it may therefore be necessary to 

determine, without monitoring of the 

particular site Whether the ozone 

standard is violated To simplify such 

determinations, EPA is considering 

whether a violation measured at one 

monitor should.be presumed to extend 

throughout the entire county where the 

monitor .B located,' or to some other area 

around the monitor thought to be -

representative of air quality; Comment 

itfinvited on the -question of how far 

around a monitored violationtha---"-

"The AganejMWronttyaBowt a source toaubfeet 

lt*ettta*ltmttaBM*tx^uqatomuaM*ttaBak*. 

pi-aKmatii^eQ VOC monitoring lo-allow •>'•" 

-ImiharfUta^wiiiieiinemantof conatimcttoa. ao Jong • 

aa poetaconatraetfai* niimilurtug la undertaker to' • 

deteMtoBwhittil<t<t»iaavtohtloB»Bqrinn»s -

SIP mriaioBo-jder Part D. , . v , 

. "The oifat ruling applies to all Mtuce* with: 

potential emissions of J00 too* or mora. wWa for.: 

VSD ma t kinds of tomcat aw not tablet to reriewunless potential ami ssinne are 250 tons or more. 

standard violation should be presumed 

to extend, fn the absence of monitoring 

data, there wouid be a presumption that 

the standard is attained throughout an 

area designated as attainment. 

The Agency is of the opinion that 

exceedances of the ozone standard can 

be found in all directions from a major 

city. Thus, a source proposing to locate 

upwind of a nearby city should expect 

to find ozone NAAQS exceedances 

when monitoring according to EPA's 

monitoring procedures found in Ambient 

Air Monitoring Guidelines for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

OAQPS No. 1.2-096, ILS. EPA Research 

Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711. A 

policy memorandum outlining the 

background data for diis decision has 

been made a part of the Docket14 

D. Interstate Pollution. The court's 

discussion of the geographic 

applicability of PSD raises issues 

concerning interstate pollution. The 

court in Alabama Power gave new 

emphasis to protection against interstate 

pollution of PSD areas, pointing to 

sections 160(4) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the 

Act as prohibiting emissions that would 

interfere with another state's PSD plan. 

Alabama Power, Slip op. at 28-27. The 

Agency seeks comment on when a -

source shuld be subject to review 

because of its interstate impacts and 

how to set emission limits necessary to 

protect against pollution that interferes, 

or may interfere, with another state's -

PSD measures. 

The Agency intends to continue using 

the already established levels of 

significance for determining whether an 

impact on a Class II or III area warrants 

review. See, e.g. 43 FR 26398 (June 10.. ; 

1978). EPA also proposes to maintain its 

current policy of allocating increment 

consumption equally at state lines in , 

cases of interetate disputes. Commenta > 

are sought on this approach. Finally. j : 

EPA is considering whether interference 

witii another state's PSD program is-'-* 

adequately prevented by permitting- j. 

sources iocatedin one-atate but A*Airi-i? 

impacting on another state, to use one~: 

hatf of the remaini^ increment at tho^ 

pointrof impact in^e other stat&EPAaa-. 

solicits comments :oa whether interstate 

protection shouMJw broadened to/.; 

require.a^B^aj^|^i;ttBuapk^^p;,,-. y.Auil 

limitations crothrtPt©;requirem«jt»tPa p. • .,-1 

contained in the pteutftha:-.--, •.,-, -p.;-;-- yf. p -.-" -\ -r-' 

- *'•— ; 2-t^y''•'-'-'.iv"^-:" •'.•'•••&sr!i>iSfc,iy-. -.V.pV?. ^ 

--• Tho.reguktittispropoaed.today wouid - •'' > r^t 

maintain the practice cifdetermini^i-g. 

M 

M3 

wl&k*^^£r*&tsi$$, 

- Barter to OB^eTOWtti^iigBhBi^a^ ^ 

New or Modified VOC Sources. . • ,-. • #-. -

;

 ' V' •:>'S'??.*S-"^ 

T •'.; a-^-j.- - — 

'•'

 r>'-,-'-y-rA*-?s^ 

' . „,•;:'••;• r.y.yi^.t-:-:^ 
r

ederai Register / ,• oi . •A'ednesaav. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 31941 

pollutant bv pollutant vvnettier a source 

.3 suuiect to PSD review, nonattainment 

,-sview or both. However, in accordance 

•vith the Alabama Power decision, once 

.: source is suDject to PSD review, it 

must meet the applicable control 

.ccnnoiogy and air quality analysis 

requirements for each pollutant. For 

nonattainment NSR. only emissions of 

• he nonattainment pollutant are subject 

to the applicable review requirements. 

Under today's proposal, a 

modification would be subject to PSD if 

it wouid result in a significant net 

increase in the emissions of any 

regulated pollutant for which the source 

is major. In addition, die area must be 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

for the pollutant, or designated 

nonattainment if the source impacts a 

PSD area in another state. In contrast, 

the NSR requirements of section 173, the 

offset ruling, or the section 110(a)(2)(I) 

construction restrictions would apply 

only to a modification which would 

result in a significant net increase in the 

amount of the nonattainment pollutant 

which die source already emits in major 

amounts (i.e., 100 or more tons per year). 

A large addition or a series of small 

additions since the applicable time of 

concern at an existing "minor" source 

would be treated as a "major 

modification": Provided, That the net 

emissions resulting from the addition or 

additions, in conjunction with the 

emissions from the existing minor 

source would exceed the applicable 

threshold for a major stationary source 

(see discussion on "Accumulation" in 

"Modification"). 

The applicability of the proposed 

regulations to new sources is more 

straightforward For PSD, a new source 

is subject to review if its potential to -

emit any pollutant regulated under the 

Act y.ouid make it a major stationary 

source. Nonattainment review -..,•• 

"applicabilityagpunrequire»4hst fto-' 

nonattainment pollutant be potientiaUy 

#ftnittedin major amounts. '> 

^Examples of the proposed 

^applicability follow: •-.-•. 

.

 r H (1) Construction of a new plant with... 

Ar^y potential emissions of SOO tons peryear " 

^^(fry ) SOeAnd.60 tpy hydrocarbons (HQ 

--^;^.p;plocatingin an areadesignatBdpv4pJ:J p 

' p;, -.. attainment for SQ»hut aouaftaihrnent r^. 

- r--for ozone would be subjortptd PSD -# 

, v preconstnict^roviewiS^^ 

H|^||rtllutants. PSD review {MCTanAaitp 

<igjpr; fi^ahty aiudysis requirements) applie^to • 

any poUutaat emitted by the source once 

.... p: the source is subject lo review fop one* jr 

---;-•••: pollutant --...•; ••,.^-2^^~.LL'Li^r:\L22i:A-\-. 

(2} Construction of thaaamephmtH 

described in example (i) in a- .'=•-•-•js;^.-. 

non^ttainmtnrtjMe^fprbotk.Spsand^ 

-i.'.. ozone would" 

replicable nonattainment provisions tor 

i-Oa. No PSD or nonattainment 

requirements wouid be applicable for 

MC because nonattainment 

requirements appiy oniy to poiiutants 

fcr which the source is major. This 

assumes tnat the source wouid affect no 

clean air area in another state. 

(3) A modification to the example (1) 

piant which wouid cause a significant 

net increase in both SOa emissions and 

HC emissions would be subject to PSD 

review for SOa as well as HC. 

Nonattainment review for the net HC 

emission increase would not be 

applicable unless the new construction 

would itself qualify as a major 

modification. 

(4) Modification at an existing source 

of 50 tpy SOa emissions, itself 

constructed since December 21,1976, in 

a nonattainment area for SOa, adding a 

new unit with 90 tpy SOa emissions, 

would subject the source to 

nonattainment requirements. 

(5) Construction of a new source with 

potential emissions of 500 tpy HC and 50 

tpy SOa locating in an ozone 

nonattainment area would subject the 

source only to nonattainment review. 

Since the source is not major for other 

pollutants regulated under the Act for 

which the area is designated 

unclassifiable or attainment, PSD would 

not apply. 

(6) Modification to a source with 

emissions of 500 tpy SO, and 50 tpy HC 

in an area designated nonattainment for 

both SOa and ozone, resulting in 20-ton 

net increases in the level of emissions 

for both pollutants, would subject the 

source to applicable nonattainment 

provisions only for the SO* emission 

increase. There is no requirement in the 

nonattainment provisions of the Act 

comparable to the requirement in the 

PSD provisions, that subjects a source to 

review for all regulated pollutants it 

emits once.it is subject to review for one 

pollutant - • • 

(7) A hew source with potential 

emissions of 150 tpy of PM located in an 

area designated attainment for PM but 

impactingoiva violationin.a designated 

nonattainment area to which a Part D 

plan applieB.'Uhdttf the regulations .•<•:••• 

proposed todajKfhe sourca would-be 

subject td bt^PSD^ahdndnattainment 

. requirements (see "Geographic-^- ;. 

.ApplicabUity'' dUeussfonfrTtds would 

; indude appUcationnf LAER.^5 .•T~,'V'\j'. 

certification of statewide compliance by 

:otha sources owned or operated by the 

'iwxi-c&inm^ -' 

, offsets to insurerreasonable further A 

progresspin the nonattainment area-,:.' • -—-

(-reconstruction monitoring and >p 

!B) A new plant which would be a 50-

py source 01 both SOa and HC proposes 

to construct in an area designated 

nonattainment for SOa and ozone. 

Neither PSD nor any nonattainment NSR 

under section 173. the offset ruling, or 

the section 110 restrictions on 

construction wouid apply. 

XIII. Baseline Concentration 

The term "baseline concentration" 

generally means the actual ambient 

concentration levels of pollutants in an 

area as of the applicable baseline date. 

This term is applicable only for sources 

of SOa and PM. The baseline 

concentration of an area is important 

because all emissions not counted in the 

baseline concentration count against' 

allowable increments. 

EPA's current regulations set a 

uniform baseline date of August 7,1977 

(40 CFR 51.24(b)(ll), 52.21(b)(ll) (1978)) • 

as explained at 43 FR 26400 (June 19, 

1978). The court in Alabama Power 

found that this uniform baseline date 

deviated impermissibly from section 

169(4) of the Act which generally. 

defines baseline in terms of the ambient 

concentration existing at the time of the 

first application for a permit in an area. 

Slip op. at 37. 

As a consequence of the court's 

decision, EPA proposes to remove the< -

uniform baseline date of AuguBt7t1977;i;p^ 

and set the baseline concentration at tfee~";;i 

time after August 7,1977, "of tha&tt-v-t' 

application for a permit in an-are»?v:'.-•"•'•.•. 

subject to this part." Section 169(4); 42 A* 

U.S.C. 7479(4). •*. ••„,?., 

In order to implement the mandate:. 

expressed in section 169(4), EPA- •" 

generally intends to define "area subject 

to this part" on the basis of AQCRs.•••-.• 

When a major stationary sourca o»•'•• 

major modification for any-pollutant~ •*• 

regulated under the Actapplies for a- •'., p. 

PSD permit in a part of an AQCRl•?;>...••••-; 

designated as unclassifiable or^S^i<2:A*Lll 

attainment undeMectidn405lt;. 

(E) ("clean air areas"), H esta 

baseline date for both PM 

parts of the AQCR that are 

attainment or unclassified, 

pollutants! 

. As mentioned in the 81 

Transition;? the hew 

major stationary source* 

modification* would boi: 

baseline dates 

baseline\date$rbidd£*: 

applicationrforauchwaa afil-^whichpWasp 

complete for ptirpof es^Of; 

the appHtAblep; ""'""*' 

Therefbre/sourc** 

$1 

>-i 

sssiti'sk^ .Haix 

'..'. i ' . .. ' . I V l* 

•«&£&?"?; 

•^j-,: increment analysis, j -• &*•'•*>&&**•**?*?'*. 

!:V^-v!p 

which wquld.hbt qdalif^jE 

-constructbu-Eimdttfjtht^ 

•-. . a.-?-'-:--' V^.?;A>'a'V(a.J 

•'•:•&%?& 

:: * .-•-•••-;- -*-r.

:

. y.- • •.•-'-vc.''a.. « , ,Aj ... , v J * 

J-- -a - ' J-*'r ^- - -•^*-^»y.4't.'--tV,-;r^.V^,'aOai 

• .-t.« . 

mm 
P.22 

51942 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

would not trigger the baseline date. 

Similarly, sources diat were not subject 

to the existing regulations but would be 

under the final ones would not have 

triggered the baseline date since no PSD 

application was filed. This definition is 

proposed to conform to the court's 

mandate, to minimize administrative 

and technical problems, and to preserve 

future growth options to the states. 

The phrase "area to which (the PSD) 

part applies" in section 165 includes 

dean air areas and those nonattainment 

areas for which major construction is 

proposed that would have a substantial 

impact on a clean air area in another 

' state; Clean air areas must be AQCR's 

or portions thereof. Section 107,42 

' U.S.C. 7407. EPA's proposed definition 

of "area" for purposes of the section 

169(4) baseline date thus comports witii 

the term "area" as used in sections 107 

and 165. EPA, however, has asked the 

court to reconsider and broaden its 

interpretation of "area" in section 165 

and should the court do so, EPA's 

proposal under 169(4) might be affected. 

In formulating its proposed definition 

of "area subject to (the PSD) part," EPA 

Weighed the ease of administration 

under competing interpretations. The 

courts have recognized that a policy of 

'regularity and simplicity in regulation 

e£„*Herceles; 

Llnt&lEP&AZmC 1378,1394(1978). 

,}r^ti^BP^i'ptapoiahthebaseline date 

^^^udrt^^ ^-i^ea*s& areas -

ri-raKHW&i&tWAQCR^This mininriw-s 

p^adtiihdstretiva probteniB that Wouid 

result from the profusion of different 

baselhie starting points in the same 

AQCR.. Forexample-,-if "area" was 

. -ili-fiMKiiiya source's area of impact 

cumbersome recordkeeping procedures 

woujd^ requitisd^ASaiotrvouiCM aV< 

appit^ foi PS) pfermlts, areas *rf sovroe -

itoov«riap«ijd'f&a' 

ld!growujora>comp{*]ttSdck 

' * \m^&mHf*^9PX^tif 

^a*k^tiooa«fe«aL*.:" ^a.^?s -: 

snrato>4tote<wugafeSaat 

Mt a* & baseline are* 

iSome^dtrfntiairdf 

-lemsLGMJsfato^laa^ 

i a PSDspurce wouktidcaiajj r 

tfiut would 

options of the state. 43 FR 26401 (June 

13.1978). Many states have, in some 

cases, designated clean air areas more 

narrowly than by AQCR. If a state can 

in its revised SIP define "area" for 

purposes of baseline concentration as 

narrowly as a designated portion of an 

AQCR this might have the effect of 

establishing a later baseline date for 

some areas and increasing the amount* 

of increment available for growth. This 

might be attractive to a state, especially 

if it feels the administrative and 

technical problems caused by 

proliferating baseline dates could be 

overcome. However, if EPA were to 

define "area" as each clean air area 

designation or source impact area, a 

state that wanted to expand the 

definition to AQCR-wide or statewide to 

ease administrative or technical 

problems might feel constrained from 

doing so. This is because the expansion 

of "area" might result in an earlier 

baseline date such that less increment 

would be available for future growth. 

See die additional discussion in "PSD 

SIP REVISIONS." Therefore. EPA is 

proposing to allow states some 

flexibility in defining "area" to which a 

baseline date applies. 

EPA specifically solicits comments on 

its proposed definition of "area subject 

to (the PSD) part" Commenters are 

urged to address the legal, . 

administrative and technical effect of 

any other definition, as well as the effect 

on future growth options of the states. 

Finally. EPA generally intends to 

continue the actual emissions concept 

(explained at 43 FR 26400 (June 19, 

1978)) in r-fllfji-UHng baseline . ' . 

concentration as of. the applicable. 

baseline data-in the June 18,1978 

promulgation. EPA outlined certain 

.exe^ons-to,^a strici;.use ot-anjictual; 

vSnuMfai^j--gg^^ 

c^^xi^w^dconcen^iE^.y Ar . 

example, sources that would increase 

, actual eausaionaby, 

prbefore.the 

jbjgvsof 

imA 

$fe2«H 

.„ _ v .„„.*»•.«--<«. 

"-T"ltifmit miAmwmiinHmm . 

,&&B&^i$MmiWri 

*H&£prH 

L'L&LrrA. 

XIV. Best Available Control Technology 

Section 165(a) of the Act provides in 

part that any "major emitting facility" to 

be constructed in a PSD area must apply 

best available control technology 

(BACT) "for each pollutant subject to 

regulation under this Act emitted from. 

or which results from, such facility." 42 

U.S.C. 7475(a)(4). In die existing PSD, 

regulations. EPA limited die BACT' 

requirement to each pollutant for which 

a major stationary source or major 

modification would be "major;" 40 CFR 

51.24(i)(l), 52.21(i)(l) (1978). For 

example, if a major stationary source in 

one of die 28*categories would emit-only 

50 tons per year ef carbon monoxide, it 

would not have to apply BACT for that, 

pollutant. 

In Alabama Power, the court held that 

EPA had no authority to limit the BACT 

requirement in that way. Slip op. at 31.it 

did hold, though, that .EPA has authority 

to apply de minimis thresholds tb the_ 

BACT requirement, as long as they are 

"formulated with reasoned 

consideration for their context with . 

attention to the nature of the pollutant 

involved"Id. .--.•.-• 

In response to the court's decision. 

EPA is proposing to require a'mafor . 

stationary source or major modification 

to apply BACT for each regulated.".-.• 

pollutant that it would emit .Sea.:'',., A.L 

proposed H&L24(j)(i>and &2^j#j|*; 

Section 165(aJ of the ^ provides ih^ 

part that any "major enutiii-g facility^ to 

be constructed in aP§P areamust apply 

• best available, control technology j 

(BACT) "for each pollutant subject to. Aregulation under this Act emitted fcom. 

or which results .from, such facility;" 44, 

U.S.C. 7475(a)(4); hiluexm^^^A 

regulatioaia, EPA^t^,^^g^ ;. f Jt 

requirement to e^ppijbtfJ^fcKiWiadt p 

a major: atatianMj&flttfji^fc^ 

modificatiaRftcenMb^ 

exaagitetti^iMioBaitt^prtwyiWaw 

one of the 28 Categoi^i«^*^ii*fei; 

50 tons per yewtalm^a^aoiKM^tA2 

wouldnot have U>api^BiM£ElbbthpMa»«r 

s i. . . . •• :;;'•'\*-".*" •f-^--:. »i"*.•-•"•- •• .*:ui ^.u-ja,-/"-^ *• • 

•-;•£•: 

,:f 

m 

- - • L'?r^••-&*-&?&**.••?--r-'-i-yr ••"•-•' : •-' - -j J'•'*'•••••-• •-,*-'••••••. •••• •• • ••••-••.-J.^'->^'i'-'-r''"^.'-Jf^^r'*af^s^!irS^^s^a 

. >-- 47j;7f-.ji'a*i--Vv.a.XiSWtei 
P.23 

Federal Register 44. No. "3 / Wednesday. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51943 

proposed §§ 51.24(i)(l) and 52.21(i)(l). 

As noted in the section on .Transition," 

,.nis new requirement wouid appiy oniy 

to a source or modification whose 

application for a PSD permit is not 

complete before the requirement comes 

into effect 

EPA believes tiiat closely tailored de 

minimis exemptions may be 

unnecessary, since in setting BACT, the 

permitting authority may take into 

account the relative cost of the various 

control alternatives. See sections 169(3), 

42 U.S.C. 7479(3); 40 .CFR 51.24(b)(10) 

(1978). Except where a standard of 

performance for new sources imposed a 

minimal level of stringency, the 

authority could decide that BACT for a 

pollutant emitted in "minor" amounts 

was no control at all, in view of the high 

cost of any control. Nevertheless, the 

Administrator has proposed de minimis 

emission rates (see section on "De 

Minimis Exemptions^ which would 

appiy to the applicable BACT and LAER 

requirements. The reader is asked to 

comment on the need for the proposed 

de minimis levels. 

XV. Ambient Monitoring 

In uphdldingthe environmental 

petitioners' challenges to EPA's PSD 

monitoring regulations (40 CFR 51.24(n)), 

52.21(n) (1978)); the court identified three 

areas where the regulations fell short of 

the statutory mandate fa Bection 165(e) 

of the Act The pollutants for which 

monitoring is required; required uses of 

monitoring data; and guidelines for state 

exemption authbrity.-Tharefore, EPA is 

proposing to amend Its PSD regulations 

to correct shortcoming^ tar the existing 

monitoring requiremeots. In addition, 

EPA is propV»itig%!fr:teeidf certain tfe

 : 

minimis <a*Rerie whidr'wBidd'gtTvern the 

requirement foi- mohitbrihg-tota'as part -; 

of aas^xja^^S^fiy^^'^'^'- ~*-c> 

m/n/m/yt-rifeaattfc'nfr^^ 

"De M//7iOT/s Ese^*t^-s>iafiWdF the 

pTeambfeittcu&UiS&^ 

> exemption guidanre is folfedtt^tfiij^p'•'•*•'• 

A. Precbrutrvci 

court feeld'thatagclWffti 

ArticqiiaCFW-taa 

ana 

regijHaewunuWia«?^tta*:] 

applyihgfoi 

EPA's 

i-only for pollute 

ambient afir 

. (criteria 

ofpoUufiwt».«t* 

standarda*jdst' 

hazardous po 

regulated undernev? 

perfoniialttsfir 

and ' TH 

hazuruuttr^pounl 

EPA intends to comply with the court's 

riiing by requiring an ambient air 

puaiity analysis for ail regulated 

poiiutants. The analysis eeneraily will 

be required to include ambient 

monitoring data. To meet the monitoring 

requirement, a proposed source will 

have to establish an appropriate 

monitoring network prior to applying for 

a PSD permit, or will have to gather and 

analyze representative air monitoring 

data resulting from ongoing monitoring 

activities. 

Preconstruction monitoring data will . 

not be required where the estimated 

impact of a pollutant emitted from a 

proposed source, as determined by 

modeling, is lower than the de minimis 

air quality ievel and the source is not a 

major stationary source for the 

pollutant An explanation of how the de 

minimis exemption applies to 

monitoring requirements is in the 

preamble section of "De Minimis 

Exemptions." 

EPA will perform a case-by-case 

analysis of a proposed source which 

impacts a Class i area, even though a 

proposed source may demonstrate that 

its impact fails below the de minimis. 

level. In such cases, monitoring data 

may be required where it is determined • 

that the proposed source will 

significandy impact the Class I area. • 

Guidance on this and otiier monitoring 

situations addressed in today's proposal 

will be further described in a revised 

version of the Ambient Monitoring 

Guidelines for Prevention ofSignificant 

Deterioration (PSD). OAQPS 1.2-098. 

U.S. environmental Protection Agency, 

Office <of Air Quality Planning and -

Standards, Research triangle Parity N.C. 

27711, originally published in May 1978.. 

Copies of this revised guidelmeAflybe 

obtained for reviewed comment by-a-^j 

writing to EPA'* Monfteirfeigltod .'Odttfc&a 

Analysis Division (%0^14) afjme above 

addreas-sB'ji--;;'; p 'Ay^A":L'A\2^::-

For-certaih-nonLrllerifi ppflotantsr-• • "•-

including siilfiirfc add Btist carboii: • -' -'-r 

disuffidiilaiiFbonytw^ 

mercaptan, end dimethyl disulfide, EPA; 

currenuy ratM wareiM 

methodvi^fS^mafeH^and--

 : 

internal ^WfconlKrfpSk^^tr^ 

perform b* evel 

,-r.odeling to estimate the air quality 

impact of these pollutants. As 

.nonitoring techniques are developed 

notices of availability will be published 

in the Federal Register and sources will 

be required to appiy these techniques. • 

in meeting the requirements for ' 

preconstruction monitoring, 

representative air quality data. as. •< 

determined through modeling, toay-.b©;'.:.inappropriate for some sources^In; j,,-/;; :-...;.> 

particidar, representative data tsar.bev 

adequate for isolated sources* whenrt s-l: 

few, if any other sources, would affect^-, 

background concentrations in the»i':*;r,,;v 

source's area of impact. EPA soliciteaior,, 

comment on the use of representative*.;;? 

air quality data-in general and--:.--'..::ivpr' 

specifically for isolated Bourooa>.p-;-rP-. •• 

Aside from the hsted naneritetia, s w 

pollutants.monitoring.techn^iMBa-are-ai 

available and monitoringreq^UKaments^^. 

will be phased in as discussed i*lbap>.v, 

"Transition" section. EPA recognoeSr-"., 

however, that currendy a vailal^p^H! 

monitoring teehiuquea-for;£aro,Qfrtng$«b: 

pollutants may be experimental in,.>;C>J 

nature. In addition, as to some-p* ~v>''i,.:. 

pollutants, other components of aftf 

acceptable monitoringjsysteniv 

standard reference materials^, 

and external quality contjK^.; 

and network and

 dl,**"g^^Tihftrifrfltfrtftlr'1

-'' 

be fully, developed. With' 

limitations in;mind, EPAMMMpra^wj*^;,-•> 

impleiaeat noacritanaa 

-

f

y 

Lt 

•'• $ 

• " . 

-."a. 

;

'4. 

]

:24 

.'V 

'I 

">i 

*tig-y»%^';.*M 

. -i-f^it . •*• • I*- ' * ia.-l'ailJl 

pollutant monitoring ._ ... _ . w 

case-by-casa Kno-i.| T),n..f ijjjj^SflR^^, H^| 

consider tlM^st^te^-^h^j^Me^ff^^A^A 

reliability of data in detfts^^aii^fV^rV^ 

techniques will be required^J^^VJ*,*^'--. ,-P 

B. Post-construction AfSJa-tf""*^-^^ •* 

addition to th^<pre-appli^aUt 

monitoring r^vdrements

 T" 

described, todays p: ' " * 

discretionary^a ' 

detenxiiiia4^M 

emissions 'ioo,allowable, 

addinon^uoafcconsio 

\ncremeia^(g^actfi' 

made th|buiw4Bdda' 

EPA 

m 
1944 Federal Register .'ednesdav. Sentember 5. 1979'/ Proposed Rules 

ata.may 

inchnqnnt consi 

source or modification, or where all 

sources located in the area of concern 

have emissions which count against the 

increment. In any case, where an 

applicant or other party believes that a 

model required by EPA has either 

overpredicted or under predicted the air 

quality impact of a source, monitoring 

data will be evaluated to the extent 

possible to determine whether modeling 

adjustments are necessary. 

Over time, the development of more 

sophisticated monitoring techniques 

may permit increased use of monitoring 

data to track increment consumption 

and establish ambient baselines, as well 

as improve the level of confidence in 

modeling. 

XVI. Notification 

Each person who plans to construct a 

source or modification must determine 

initially whether it is "major." Currently, 

EPA does not actively police these 

negative determinations. In particular, 

the Administrator does not require any 

notice of die construction of any source 

or modification which is indeed not 

"major." As a result, if an owner or 

operator believes that his construction 

would not be "major," he is free to 

construct the source or modification 

widiout a construction permit and 

without notifying the appropriate 

permitting authority. Undoubtedly, few 

persons making a negative 

determination would give any notice of 

construction to the reviewing authority. 

In view of the new definitions, of 

"potential to emit" and "modification" 

proposed today, the Administrator 

believes preconstruction notice is now 

necessary for certain sources. Since 

"potential to emit" refers to controlled 

emissions and "major modifications" to 

net increases only, the scope of PSD 

preconstruction review will shrink 

dramatically with many more sources 

having the opportunity to construct or 

modify without preconstruction review. 

In EPA's judgment thebdrderline cases 

.where mistakes or evasion could occur 

will increaseauffitfentlyJo justify 

scnitinyV''^7^-77--'p ^v-^r-P'. •.?."•-; • 

. • Based,an 4he Administrator's r v ;..,.. 

authority imderaet^^ -

any.owher. or p4Jeretorto prori 

•igforrt'at^'ai^^ . 

' L- -^ ^ ?eittoBalijEiequire, 

TTsfficop *E i ni-n uoiyof thCTelimitatif^^A i ;

 O de'terihinatioiSi^ 

tot-the pwseatgBidaiiorii^^-nqttefl' i^uirementwould jppear in J 

;52^v)gtePialSind4h subparagraph H 

of setgb^a^Af t offset ruling.--

pj.UmJ^J^prDjiasedTeguktions.an^. -.. 

require monitoring only to determine 

-.vhether an applicable national ambient 

. tandard will be exceeded. The court 

-.oted that section 165|e)(2) provides 

:nat continuous air quality monitoring 

data must also be used to determine 

whether increments will be exceeded. 

The court recognized that modeling 

techniques would be the principal 

device reiied upon for the projection of 

the impact on air quality emissions from 

a regulated source, but they envisioned 

that monitoring would "impose a certain 

discipline on the use of modeling 

techniques." Moreover, the court 

indicated that the widespread use of 

monitoring would enhance the 

development of sophisticated monitoring 

techniques and the collection of a data 

base for each pollutant. 

EPA agrees that monitored ambient 

data is valuable for such purposes as 

validating and refining models and, in 

some cases, providing a direct measure 

of increment consumption. In 

accordance with the court's opinion. 

EPA plans to place a greater emphasis 

on the development and use of 

monitoring data. 

However, use of monitoring data will 

always be limited to some degree. First 

air quahty impacts of a proposed sourcemust necessarily be based on modeling, 

not monitoring. Second, several actual 

. emission changes that would be 

detected by an ambient monitor are not 

considered to consume increment For 

example, emissions from any source 

commencing construction prior to 

January 6,1975, but completed at some 

later date, do not count against 

increments. Third a state may exempt 

certain emission changes which 

otherwise would be counted against 

increment Potential exemptions include 

federally ordered fuel switches, 

. •---=^5----.,tel|jajkn8> and ne,w sources-. 

tth*lJnited States. Fihally^witfi "•'= 

.section S23 pTohibitt* 

i from receiving credit for the' -

raffed* of a stack&eighi ," 

' i-good engineering 

itlyf if aaSourceV- ;2 •">. 

t counted against increment 

^__ ^ejasBed»^joo]^~^/jv3 

i ptfucaco§- its;aninsioDa HaUtat^j.'-

Vas'though;emilted>fiom:tt7p: 

" '""" " "' '"UiML"^" 

preconstruction notice to the 

Administrator 90 days in advance of 

beginning on-site construction. The 

notice requirement would apply to (1) 

emission changes not qualifying as 

major modifications due to suffient 

emission reductions, and (2) sources not 

qualifying as major stationary sources 

due to application of air pollution 

controls not generally required by the 

applicable SIP or 40 CFR Parts 60 and 

61. The notice must state specifically the 

nature and timing of the applicable 

emission changes and contain a 

demonstration that the proposed 

reductions are sufficient, enforceable, 

and contemporaneous with increases. 

After an owner or operator would 

provide an acceptable notice, no 

construction permit would be required. 

The Administrator is also proposing 

that if a proposed construction project 

either fails to provide the required 

notice or to construct in accordance 

widi information within the notice, it 

would be considered to be in violation 

of the applicable SIP. Sections 52.21 (s) 

and 51.24(s). Merely providing notice 

0 should not be construed as satisfying all 

other applicable responsibilities under 

Uie Act, and a source which improperly 

constructs would do so in violation of 

the SIP. 

Difficulty may arise in determining 

when contemporaneous intrasource . 

emission tradeoffs have occurred or will 

occur. The Administrator, therefore, is . 

also proposing to require written notice 

from source owners intending to take 

future offset credit from soon-to-occur 

shutdowns or cleanup. Such notice 

would be given at die time the emission 

reductions would be accomplished and 

would give details as to what emissions 

are being reduced With this approach.. 

the source owner will add certainty to . 

his ability to claim reductions, and Iqss 

review time wiU be needed by the ^•^ 

reviewing .agra«y:tt'yei^.:tiM;:;p^:-?'*^S'4 

credibility of controversial emission;^': jjv 

reductions. •• -2-r-A.' —p- > •. A \ Aj^iAfS; 

Finally, for nonattainment areaswit]!r^ 

.an approvedr«infbrc8^eSIP,.'tlm^ 

Administrator isconsidering ^eiran^p^H^

 : ^f

* ' 

mechanism to imp jement the fatrasottftif r-s~ Pp^ 

compliance requirementuhdelr -*i!ir •*"""•••'" 

173. Under this ai_ AL'L 

• detenhiningifiH* net increase 

occur at a facility (piant^tiia 

--.wou "" . . J 

. auAorityjthatall eai^ft: 

.

:

. --i>lant^.iff ccnp^l^is^^3i£^^^| 

applicable Sffi Tbdp ' " 

solicits commenrbn 

AVU.-JW U pM"„Jt^|(HS|P«W5jJ^V7:.-.f^Jjf; 

Commentsare sqlicitedjOn. 

-issoeSa'attBB 

•>*rt-it$&*&z.y,.-

• ; . 

Jvrt.*-".-! 

*•--'•.• .J . 

• /*•;• : 

'••'r&y^ALLAry 
P.25 

•"ederai Register / 44. No. I " VV'ednesdav. aSeotember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51945 

•?sues are: (1) The ability of states to 

•.•uomit different but effective PSD 

programs, j2) the flexibility that states 

j.ave to define the baseiine area for PSD. 

and (3) the state monitoring exemption. 

. A. Equivalent State Programs. During 

the past year, states have submitted 

PSD portions of their SIP's that deviate 

considerably from the existing 40 CFR 

51.24 regulations. Under existing 

regulations, the Administrator can only 

approve different PSD requirements 

submitted by states that individually are 

more stringent than the corresponding 

40 CFR Part 51 regulations. As a result, 

few opportunities are left for approval of 

different, but effective, state PSD 

programs. Today the Administrator is 

requesting comment on the "existing 

approach. 

While Part C is quite specific on the 

type of PSD program that would be 

acceptable, portions of the Act may 

• ailow the'states to use equivalent 

methods to meet statutory objectives 

(such as section 110(a)(2)(D)). The 

Administrator believes some flexibility 

in approving state plans should also 

apply to the PSD program. In addition, 

there ere policy reasons for permitting 

equivalent state PSD programs. States 

should be allowed some latitude to 

develop PSD programs more closely 

tailored to their individual gqals and 

needs: Provided. That the state PSD 

program would uphold the objectives of 

Part C. Such programs would 

conceivably identify several potential 

improvements in terms of administrative 

ease and some opportunities for 

additional emissions control. 

The Administrator is today 

specifically seeking comments on what 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.24 allow any 

flexibdityfor innovative .state programs 

and wbetherallowing such flexibility 

wouid undercutibe need for consistent 

nationwide implementation of PSD 

review.* Comment is also solicited on 

how EPA Can-verify whether a proposed 

stale program wili offer an equivalent or 

improved system for implementing PSD. 

To facilitate comment.the. 

Arimmirfrat(*rJa«akingiforresponse on 

an approach which would permit. -

variation in state planaior certain $ 

requirementet/ndefttfaiaappitwch. 

states couid not satisfy :thefollowing . 

requirements of 40 GFRJ5L24 with . . 

alternativeregulations:..-

a. Maximnmallowable increments. 

b. Modeliagtechniques. 

cvClasai&rea protections 

d. Notice to the Administrator or the 

applicabiefederaHandManagertfbr-' 

significaa|«etionsr*:j * JJJ i.i2j. 'yr&iv.-i:. 

bi New^graas roots} majoratatiooary.-

source applicability.':...•,. •: -'P ;.'•• .••• L. 

:. NSPS. N'ESHAPS minimum 

reouirements for BACT determinations. 

States wouid be permitted to meet the 

following requirements of 40 CFR 51.24 

with different but equivalent state 

regulations or implement them with 

considerable discretion: 

a. BACT determinations. 

b. Design and amount of data needed 

for monitoring purposes. 

c. Establishing de minimis levels for 

BACT and air quality review. 

d. Temporary exclusions from 

increment consumption. 

e. Banking of emissions for future 

offsets. 

f. Source information and analysis 

required of the applicant 

g. Public participation after providing 

the opportunity for public hearing. 

In determining if a state program with 

several requirements differing 

substantively from 40 CFR 51^24 satisfy 

those requirements, overati program 

equivalence wouid be based on the 

ability of the state system to capture as 

many emissions as wouid the 40 CFR 

51.24 regulations. 

B. Baseiine Area. A more specific 

issue related to state flexibility in 

developing PSD plans involves the 

definition of the area affected by the 

baseline date. Under the proposed 

amendment the Part 51 regulations, like 

the Part 52 regulations, wouid define 

"area subject to this part" on the basis 

of AQCRs. Under diat definition, the 

baseline date wouid be set for every 

part of an AQCR designated 

unclassifiable or attainment under 

section 107(d)(1) (D) or (E), 42 USC 

7407(d)(1) (D) or (E), when the first 

major stationary source locating in any 

such part of the same AQCR applies for 

a PSD permit (See "BASELINE 

CONCENTRATION"). 

This definition is proposed to 

minimize administrative and technical 

problems and to preserve future growth 

options of the states. As discussed in 

"BASELINE CONCENTRATION," EPAbelieves that a state may in its revised 

SIP define "area" for purposes of 

baseline concentration to be any 

specific AQCR portion that it had 

designated aa attainment or •— 

unclassifiable. Conversely;^ state for 

administrative reasons could define - - ' 

"area" as being the entire State. 

EPA specifically solicits comments on 

its proposed regulatory guidance to 

states for defiling Parea subject to this: 

part" in section 189(4). Comments

 : 

should address the legal, asministrativep' 

and technical effects of other proposals, -

as wett-as effects tm future Jjjrgwth"-^ 

options ef the states.'- - *'<••'-' ": "••• • 

C. StatmhtOnitoring Exemption. In the 

court'ttruiing. it was indicated that EPA 

did not provide the states with adequate 

guidance to determine when less dian 

one calendar year of data may be used 

•o perform a complete and adequate 

analysis of continuous air qualitymonitoring data. Subsection 165(e)(2) 

stipulates that such partial exemptions 

from monitoring shall be applied "in 

accordance with regulations 

promulgated by the Administrator." 

Guidance addressing shorter periods of " 

time was included in the Air Monitoring' 

Guidelines for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (section 2.7. Duration of 

Monitoring). To comply with the court ' 

ruling, EPA proposes to promulgate the 

appropriate material in the PSD 

regulations.-

Under this proposal states would be 

allowed to accept less than one 

calendar of data for PM, SOi, CO, and' ' 

NO, monitoring if the applicant 

demonstrates that data obtained during 

a shorter time period, but no less than 

four months, account for the maximum •' 

air quality levels that can be expected 

In the case of ozone, monitoring 

requirements must account for those \ 

months in which the average daily 

maximum temperatures exceed 20* C " ' 

(68* F) in the area under study, dr for the 

four months of the year wf&'tht*F| *'•'•' 

warmest average maximum temperature 

for areas where there are notaUeaSt'' •' 

four months with ayeragelffla'ximum- \ ' 

temperatures greater than"•ahC.'CBfiP'FJ. * 

It should be noted that this ''..'•'' .:" '' 

amendment applies only to pollutants" 

for which a national ambient air quality, " 

standard exists since section 183(e)(2}" ' 

does not apply to noncriterta polhitdrits. • 

Guidance on the amount, of monitoring., 

data required for noncriterta jpo!liitetfrtir'/s*

J

' 

will be added to thB'AirMonttatring2r'2'' 

Guidelines for Prevention of '.S^jKaaiit V p 

Deterioration at the samenhib. 

guideline is revised to adoMsitli#^f'. 

:••*•- tr; s-f. &m^&X$t 

• * — 1 .ti Afj*.-rt'}fty$i* 

The AdmimBtrator is today-pwp^^igif;'; 

certain regulatory-changes 

required by the'AArfwmo 'nMHg^S^ g 

decision. These changeiii 

corrections consideredLi ___ 

make the PSD regulatidnrajl 

as possible with the nonal 

requirements' tot" NStt:"ihl 

change* proposed fodtiy h 

of the secttenrtii(jyifalfc*; 

innovative contrail 

BACT, (Sinews, 

requirements to modify pxiS. 

'construction perinits;< 

PSD review to modified nt 

or ednterttotul fecastteac^j 

notice required fromjreloral 

sources; and (8)1tppl 

secondary

 i

ernissioiis.>fn 

" 2c>:.-j£-* 

. . . ' *> aVtiial*\W^r 

• X 

"••"4 

•vl 

monitoring criteria.' 

XVm. Additional 
P.26 

,1946 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. Wednesday. Sentember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

jection contains discussions on tne 

economic impact of the proposed 

regulations and how to comment on this 

rulemaking. 

A. Innovative Control Technology. 

Section lllfj) of the Act provides for the 

issuance of waivers to sources which 

propose use of control technology the 

Administrator determines to be 

innovative. Under section lll(j), one or 

more waivers from the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) may be 

issued for a period of up to seven (7) 

years. A waiver may be issued if the 

Administrator determines that: 

(1) The innovative ichnology has not 

been adequately demonstrated: 

(2) The innovative technology has a 

substantial likelihood of meeting the 

NSPS at lower cost in terms of energy, 

economic, or non-air quality 

environmental impacts; 

(3) The source wouid not cause or 

contribute to an unreasonable risk to 

public health, welfare or safety; and 

(4) An excessive number of such 

waivers, as determined by the 

Administrator, have not been granted. 

The waiver is to include conditions 

necessary to assure that the source will 

not prevent attainment and maintenance 

of ambient standards and to assure that 

the authorized system will function 

properly. 

The Act offers no indication as to how 

a source diat obtains a section lll(j) 

waiver should be treated for purposes of 

PSD review. Since a large number of 

NSPS sources are also subject to PSD, 

the Administrator is concerned that 

faUure to accommodate section lll(j) 

sources under PSD would tend to 

discourage the development of newer, 

more effective control technologies. 

In the June 19,1978 Federal Register, 

the Administrator solicited comment on 

making the innovative control waiver 

aplicable to BACT determinations under 

the PSD program. Since no adverse 

comments were received, the. 

Administrator is today-proposing 

specific regulatory language defining 

how the section lllfj) waiver applies to 

BftCT determinations. Today's 

amendments to the PSD regulations 

provide diat BACT for a source with a 

section lllfj) waiver would ba defined 

aalhe innovative control equipment for 

which the waiver has been granted and 

would include an emission limitation • •-

la schedule fpr meeting that- : 

gtfpn. Paragraph (u) as proposed- : -

* i that a section lllfj) source 

may.fatifiafy the air quality analysisqnfrftTiipnt by modeling its projected-

-issibns after the lllfj) controteare, 

stalled Any increased level of 

emissions which might occur during the 

wafver.penod would be treated as* ^ • 

'•jmsorary and as having an 

:r.si2niticant impact on air quality. The 

.Administrator snecificaily solicits 

:'-mments on EPA's authority to allow 

,-mporarv violations of increments, 

especially in Class I areas, due to lllfj) 

waivers while not allowing temporary 

violations of the ambient standards. 

in addition, the Administrator 

proposes to modify 40 CFR 52.21 to 

accommodate PSD sources which 

propose to use innovative control 

technology, but which are not subject to 

NSPS and therefore not eligible for 

section lllfj) waivers. Under the 

proposal, these sources would receive 

the same treatment as sources eligible 

for section lllfj) waivers. Subparagraph 

(u)(2) outlines criteria by which the 

Administrator may determine whether a 

proposed PSD source's control 

technology is "innovative." The criteria 

track the requirements established for 

section lllfj) waivers. 

Once a proposed technology is 

determined to be innovative, the 

Administrator must establish a schedule 

for meeting die BACT emission limit. 

The schedule, which will be specified as 

part of the BACT requirement, should 

take into consideration the design, 

installation, and capital cost of the 

technological system or systems being 

used. In no case may the schedule 

(including any extension) extend beyond 

seven years after PSD permit issuance, 

or lllfj) waiver issuance, or four years 

after the source commences operation, 

whichever is earlier. 

The regulations include a provision 

for bringing into compliance any source 

whose waiver is terminated because it 

has failed to achieve BACT witii the 

innovative system or failed to 

demonstrate diat the system will not 

cause or contribute to an unreasonable 

risk of public health, welfare or safety. 

Such a source will be granted an 

extension for whatever minimum period 

of time the Administrator feels is 

necessary to achieve BACT. The 

extension may not exceed three years. 

B. Modified Permits. The 

Administrator is also proposing to add a 

hew paragraph (t) which would require 

tiiat PSD-permitted sources obtain, -

* under certain circumstances, modified 

or new PSD permits. Similarly, 

subsection H is proposed to be added to 

section II of the offsetruling. The new 

requirements are intended to resolve the 

current uncertainty regarding the;--1 •••.:--

obligations ofa source and a reviewing 

authority when changes are necessary . 

in an approved construction permit " 

Under today's proposal, a permitted -

source would be required to modify its 

permit if it obtained a permit and then, 

prior to commencement of operation,-

altered its design capacity such that 

emissions increased significantly but 

less than the applicable 100/250 tons 

fhrsshoid. Here the term significantly 

refers to that pollutant-specific emission 

rate which wouid equal or exceed tne 

rate identified in Table 1 (see section on 

'Ve Minimis Exemptions"). In addition. 

if design capacity and potential 

emissions were decreased prior to 

commencement of operation, the permit 

should be modified to reflect the change. 

Such information is vital for tracking the 

PSD increment that is available to other 

new sources. 

A source would also be required to 

obtain a modified permit when, prior to 

commencement of operation, it proposed 

changes in the nature of its process 

equipment such that the potential 

emissions from the newly planned 

equipment would not equal or exceed 

the applicable 100/250 tons threshold. 

Finally, a modified permit would be . 

required for a source that obtained a 

permit under the existing regulations 

which limited its hours of operation and 

then later, decided to increase its 

operating hours. 

Proposed sources which increase 

design capacity such that net potential 

emissions would increase by greater 

than 100/250 tons per year and proposed 

sources which plan new process 

equipment, potentially emitting 100/250 

tons per year, must obtain new permits. 

Such sources would likely require a 

more extensive review, possibly 

requiring more than 90 days for 

completion. 

The Administrator wishes to point out 

that during the time of application for a 

modified permit die affected source 

would retain increment rights only for 

those specific points of emissions which 

were permitted originally. For example, 

consider a source that obtains a permit 

to build a 1600 tons/day (dry pulp):lime.: 

kiln and then decides to scale down thefinal construction to 1500 tons/day and -•* 

build a 20 megawatt steam generator as -

welL Assume the potential emissions of' 

each pollutant emitted by the steam.*-

generator would be less than 100 tons-v 

per year. The source would need ai^L222 

modified permit to reflect-the additibB of 

the generator and the decrease in the pv 

size of the lime kiln. -Hie generator. -•- >- J 

emissions would have to-be evaluated^'•*' 

against the available incremeat at IheW-^p 

time of the proposed permit modification p 

after all other complete applications. ->v-. 

filed before this time. The fact diat thej?: :< 

lime kiln's increment usage would be x-i, -

reduced-does not meanthat any -

increment rightsare transferable to thea**^ 

steam generator, because the generate*^ 

would not bean originally peraaltted *• •• 

'•'•'•:.'&J 

•U.M. 

XT' VT jM-Ai'%.)* v*-E! 
P.27 

r

ederal Register A'ednesaav. Sentember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 31947 

• mission point, if the generators 

•missions were over 100 tons per ysar. 

-.2 source wouid require a new permit. 

C. Nonprofit Institutions. Under tne 

-existing regulations, upon written 

request by the Governor of a state, the 

PSD permitting requirements would not 

ippiy to a nonprofit health or 

educational institution to be located in 

that state. The Administrator is 

proposing that thia exemption apply to 

modified nonprofit health or educational 

institutions as well as those newly 

constructed. 

D. Portable Facilities. Under existing 

regulations, previously permitted PSD 

sources which propose to relocate must 

provide a thirty (30) day notice. Based 

on experience in implementing these 

regulations, the Administrator is 

proposing to change the thirty (30) day 

notice to one which reflects a 

reasonable amount of time, to be not 

.JSS than ten (10) days. This wouid 

enable sources with extremely short 

time delays between construction 

projects, such as portable asphalt batch 

plants, to better comply-with the intent 

of the regulations. 

S. Secondary Emissions. The 

Administrator is today incorporating 

into the PSD regulations the definition of 

secondary emissions in the offset ruling 

(44 FR 3274). Under this proposal, 

secondary emissions would mean 

emissions from new or existing sources 

which occur as a result of the 

construction and/or operation of a 

major source or major modification, but 

do not necessarily come from the source 

itself. Secondary emissions would 

include, but would not be limited to: 

[a) Emissions from ships or trains 

coming to or from a source or 

modification, or 

(b) Emissions from off-site support 

sources which would be constructed or 

would otherwise increase emissions as a 

result of the construction of a major 

source. 

Under today's proposal. Secondary 

emissions would not count in 

determining the potential ^o emit of a 

source, in addition; when the.source is 

otherwise subject to PSD review, the 

BACT requirement would not appiy to 

secondary emissions. However, - „ 

secondary emissions, where well-known 

and quantifiable,'would b e taken into 

account in assessing if an dtEarwise 

subject source would cause or ' 

contribute to a violation ofany 

applicable increment or standard 

. ¥. Economic Impact Assessment 

Section 317 of the Act requires an 

economic impact assessment for j 

regulations aiid revisions to regulations 

issued under Pari C Executive Order -

12044 similarly requires animpac t ' 

assessment for significant regulatory 

•ctions. The Agencv nas not yet 

-.onducted either assessment for several 

reasons. First, a preliminary assessment 

suggests that many fewer sources will 

be subject to review under the new 

definition of potential to emit. As many 

as three-quarters of the sources subject 

to review under the existing regulations 

will not require permits under the 

regulations proposed today. Moreover, 

the application of a plant-wide 

definition of source for PSD would allow 

replacements and reconstructions at 

existing units to offer escape review. 

While many fewer sources may be 

subject to review, the impact of certain 

new requirements, such as PSD 

monitoring for other pollutants, remains 

to be assessed. The Administrator 

believes that such additional costs 

under today's proposal wouid. on 

balance, be more than offset by the 

reduced economic impacts associated 

with the issuance of fewer permits. 

Second, the Administrator has 

determined to propose regulations 

without an economic impact assessment 

to replace as quickly as possible the 

regulations struck down by the Alabama 

Power decision. The court stated that 

its purpose in issuing its summary 

opinion was "to enable EPA to proceed 

as soon as possible to commence 

rulemaking or other proceedings 

necessary to promulgate those revisions 

in the PSD regulations required by our 

rulings, and to take other prudent action 

to effectuate congressional policies." 

Slip op. at 7. In view of the court's 

directive and the need, identified both 

by industry and EPA in papers filed with 

the court, to maintain an ongoing PSD 

permit program, it is the judgment of die 

Administrator that this proposed 

rulemaking not be postponed until an 

economic impact assessment is 

prepared. 

Finally, the Agency believes that the 

court's supplemental opinion may clarify, 

which of several options proposed today 

should be adopted Given the limited 

time and resources of the Agency, the 

Administrator believes that better-use 

will be made of the Agency's resources 

if the economic assessment is performed 

after issuance of the court's 

suppiemental:opinion, and further 

clarification of which options the 

Agency will adopt Consequently, the 

Administrator intends to'prepare the 

required economic impact assessment * 

after issuance of the court's — ' 

supplemental opinion. This analysis will 

be madeavadablefor public comment • 

upon completion and such comment will 

be takendnto accountin the •> 

promuigate®uiattons. -

G. Comments. This rulemaking is 

prooosed under authority of section 

•J07(d) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). EPA 

solicits written comments on the 

porposals in this notice. The period for 

comment ends October 5.1979. 

Comments should be sent in triplicate if 

possible, to the Central Docket Section, 

EPA. Room 2903B. Waterside Mall, 401 

.M Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C. 2046a 

Attention: Docket No. A-79-35. EPA 

plans to hold public hearings on the " 

proposals in September 1979 in San 

Francisco. California, and 'Washington, 

D.C. The hearings will be informal and • 

legislative in nature. Transcripts will be • 

taken. EPA Will announce the exact time. 

and place for the hearings in the near 

future. The written comments, 

transcripts of hearings, and other 

relevant documents will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

3:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.; Monday through 

Friday, in the Central Docket Section. ,_ 

(Sees. 101(b)(1), 110.114.160-89. and 301(a) of 

the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 

r-U)l(b)(l), 7410. 7414. 7470-79, and 7601(a).) • 

Dated: August 22.1979. 

Douglas M. Costle, 

Administrator. — v 

Requirements for State PSD Plans -• , .,>., 

1. Title 40; Part 51 of the Code bf

 :

.

; 

Federal Regulations is proposed to ba '•' .'•', 

amended as follows: 

In § 51.24 paragraphs (b)(l)-(8) and '..•',-. 

(11) are revised; (b)(16) is deleted: " 

existing paragraphs (b)(12Hl7) are ., • 

renumbered as (13)-(18): new (b)(I2) and 

(20)-{23) are added: paragraphs' (i)-(kj. 

and (n) are revised; (tj-(v) are added. As

 : 

revised and added those paragraphs. -

read as follows: 

§51.24 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. P V-i; 

• * .. . - ..... . .;.•..•• ••••Mr :^ 

(b) Definitions: For the purposes of;'«-?' 

* this section: • -

;

 ••• -'•:•-\ *.•• .^.•••--v.r-w'*!' 

(1) "Major stationary sduro^inesfns ^ 

(i) Any of the following statk»harj(^S:V'iM:| 

sources of air pollutants"wideii-aiB^to^-^ 

have the potential to emitsi00*WiJpan^ " 

year or more of any poUuta*rf»«gulatti& 

under the Clean Air Act (tfiefl 

Fossil fuel-fired steam electolbtyM&£^ 

more man 250 million BrfaaKl*-Js^

M

*

ri 

units per hour heat input i 

plants (with thermal dryerejd 

mills, portland cement plants ^ 

zinc smelters;.iron &td ste£t-t 

primary aluminum ore i 

primary copper smelters,' i 

incinerators capable ofchif 

than 250 tons of refuse perdi»>>^f$j*f 

hydrofluoi*kav8ulfiiric,-andof ~ 

plants, petroleum refine 

pho'sphateroclrpr 

oven batteries," so 

dMsW-»fc7 
P.28 

U948 Federal Register / VM. J4 N'ri. V. 'A'pflnesdav. Seotember 5. 1973 / Proposed Rules 

.irbon nlack piants |furnace process), 

primary lead smeiters, fuei conversion 

giants, sintering piants. secondary metal 

proauction piants, chemicai process 

:ants. fossii-fuei boilers (or 

..imbination thereof) totaling more than 

ioQ million British thermal units per hour 

heat input, petroleum storage and 

transfer units with a total storage 

capability exceeding 300.000 barrels, 

'aconite ore processing plants, glass 

fiber processing piants, and charcoal 

production plants; 

(ii) Notwithstanding the stationary 

source sizes specified in paragrapn 

fb)(l)(i) of this section, any stationary 

source which emits, or has die potential 

to emit 250 tons per year or more of any 

air pollutant regulated under die Act 

(2)(i) "Major modification" means any 

physical change in or change in the 

method of operation ofa major 

stationary source, or series of 

contemporaneous physical changes in or 

changes in the method of operation of a 

major stationary source, that would 

result in a significant net increase in 

that source's potential to emit the 

pollutant for which the stationary source 

is major (or that would make the 

stationary source major taking into 

account ail accumulated net inceases in 

potential emissions occurring at the 

source, including any initial construction 

since August 7,1977). The term "major 

modification" serves as the definition of 

"modification'' or "modified" when used 

iii the Act in reference to a major 

stationary source. 

(ii) A physical change shall not 

include routine maintenance, repair and 

replacement 

(iii) A change in the method of 

operation, unless previously limited by 

enforceable permit conditions, shall not 

include: 

(a) Use of an alternative fuel or raw 

material by reason of an order under 

sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy -

Supnfy and Environmental Coordination 

Act of 1974 (or any superseding -

legJifetion}, a prohibition under the 

PdWerPiant and Industrial Fuel Use Act 

ofi878 (or any superseding legislation). • 

or tby reason ofa natural gas curtailment 

pt&p«nuant to the .Federal Powar Act -

p{£>} Use of an alternative fuel or raw -

matariafcif prior to January 6,1976. the -

80urc*was capable of accommodating 

suck feel or material: •••• ->..'.. 

! an alternative fuel by 

fan order or rule under section 

12Stif,theAct 

^^jCbange in ownership of the* 

stationary source; or 

[e) Use of refuse derived fuel «^ 

generated from municipal solid waste. . 

- (iv)£hanges are "contemporaneous'' 

only if reductions occur afia-a.notie8.is 

Tiled pursuant to paragraph (vj(4) and 

before operation oi the emission unit or 

units that will result in emission 

increases. Also, to ve 

:;ontemDorannous alt of th8 emission 

reductions musi be completed and 

enforceaole under the state plan before 

operation ot the emission unit or units 

that will result in any emission increase. 

Where the new emission unit is a 

replacement for an emission unit that is 

being shut down in order to provide the 

necessary reductions, die reviewing 

authority may allow up to 180 days for 

shakedown of die new emission unit 

before the existing emission unit is 

required to cease operation. 

(v) For a series of changes in a 

stationary source to satisfy die 

requirement of "no net increase,'' all of 

the following must be satisfied: 

(a) All reductions and all increases 

must be for the same pollutant: 

lb) The sum of all decreases must be 

greater than or equal to the sum of ail 

increases; 

(c) On balance the air quality of the 

affected area must not be adversely 

impacted. 

(vi) In performing the calculation in 

paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section to 

determine whedier the sum of all 

decreases is greater than or equal to the 

sum of all increases) the following rules 

shall apply: 

(a) Subject to the following 

adjustments, the size of an increase or 

decrease is determined by die difference 

between the potential to emit of the 

change of emissions unit before and 

after the change. 

(b) If potential to emit for a changed 

emission unit was initially higher than 

allowable emissions, then no offset 

credit may be taken for decreasing 

potential to emit down to allowable 

emissions. 

(c) The. requirement of 40 CFR Part 51. 

Appendix S, sections IV. C. 2 and 4 shall 

apply involving the amount of credit 

permissible for changing fuels and for 

replacing one hydrocarbon compound 

with another of lesser reactivity. 

(3)^'Potential to emit" means the 

.capability at maximum design capacity. 

to emit a pollutant after the application 

of air pollution control equipment 

Aanual potential shall be based on the 

maximum annualrated'eapacity of the -. 

stationary source assuming continuous . 

year round operations Enforceable -

permit conditions on the type of. 

materials combusted or processed may 

be used in determining the annual 

potential Secondary emissions do not 

count in detent*iumg.wjpnuBl potential. •• 

Fugitive emissions also do not count «.•' • 

except with respect to the fallowing 

stationary sources and then oniy to the 

,-xtent quantifiable: 

ji) Coai cleaning plants 

•:i! Kraft puip miiis 

.iii) Portland cement piants 

(iv) Primary zinc smelters 

(v| Iron and steel mill plants 

(vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction 

piants 

(vii) Primary copper smeiters 

(viii) Municipal incinerators 

fix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric 

acid plants 

(x) Petroleum refineries 

(xi) Lime plants 

(xii) Phosphate rock processing plants 

(xiii) Coke oven batteries 

(xiv) Sulfur recovery plants 

(xv) Carbon black plants 

(xvi) Primary lead smelters 

(xvii) Fuel conversion plants 

(xviii) Sintering plants 

(xix) Secondary metal production 

plants 

!xx) Chemical process plants 

(xxi) Fossti fuel-fired boilers 

(xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer 

units 

(xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants 

(xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants 

(xxv) Charcoal production plants 

(xxvi) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants 

(xxvii) Any other stationary source' 

category which, at the time of the 

applicability determination, is being, 

regulated under section 111 or 112 of the 

Act. 

(4) "Stationary source" means any 

structure, building, facility or 

installation which emits or may emit 

any air pollutant regulated under the 

Act. 

(5) "Structure, building, facility or 

installation" means any grouping of 

pollutant-emitting activities which arelocated on one or more contiguous or -

adjacent properties and which are 

owned or operated by the same person 

(or by persons under common control), c. 

(6) "Emission unit" means any part of . 

a stationary source which emits or.haJs2% 

the potential to emit any pollutant „ . 

regulated under the Act -••-•-;... "... 

* * •* *' > *' .-PJ.-H^:^-/, . . 

(11) "Baseline concentratiant"*ntan*-*«,; 

that ambient concentration level whiclucexists at the time of theapplicable ;.p 7 .J, 

baseline date, minusanj»contritattai£*i* 

from major stationary ssuxoesandnu^orvfe.. 

modifications on whu^canstnictioo^i*-^'-

commenced on or after January* MOTiip"i' 

The baseline concentration BbaUSndfclai~2. 

contributian8'£i*onir.:'.*'j<'r.;-'i^^ 

(i)TEeactuaiemissionsofotherjt : 7 

sources in existence on the apphcabtepj.,•'• 

baseline date,- except that cdnttibWJdn#3> 

from such enstmg sources to the-axt*ntca 

"•-••£ 

•m 

' ,L> • 

••••#4 

:• •: ;' • A$ •-' 

Ar:--m---

/• • . •£!£ • 

-,'-.'•«.-$? 
P.29 

ddiirm Ke«isier VVedr.e.saav. SoDtember 5. 1979 / Prcoosed Rules 31949 

$g$2 

|ft?^p 

©•;:• , 

.*.::.: a plan revision proposing .ess 

-p=trictive requirements affects sucn 

• ources wtis siiiimuteci on or uefore thii 

•'.seiine date and was pending action 

i.v the Administrator on that date shaii 

e determined from the allowable 

^missions under the plan as revised: and 

iii The allowable emissions of major 

-tutionary sources and major 

.Modifications which commenced 

construction before January 6.1975. but 

were not in operation by the applicable 

baseiine date. 

(12) "Baseline date" means, for every 

part of an Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) designated as unclassifiable or 

attainment under section 107(d)(1) (D) or 

i E) of the Act the date of the first 

complete application after August 7, 

1977 for a permit under this section for 

= ny major stationary source or major 

modification in any part of die AQCR. 

# * * • 

:20) '"Secondary emissions'' means 

amissions which occur or wouid occur 

as a result of the construction or 

operation of a major stationary source 

or major modification, but do not 

necessarily come from the major 

stationary source or major modification 

itself. For purposes of this section, 

secondary emissions must be specific 

and well defined must be quantifiable, 

and must impact the same general area 

as the stationary source or modification 

which causes the secondary emissions. 

Secondary emissions may include but 

are not limited to: 

fi) Emissions from ships or trains 

coming to or from the stationary source 

or modification: and 

(ii) Emissions from any offsite support 

source which would be constructed or 

wouid not otherwise increase its 

emissions. 

(21) "Innovative control technology" 

means any system of air pollution 

control that has not been adequately 

demonstrated in practice, but would . -

have a substantial, likelihood of 

achieving greater continuous emission 

reduction than any control aystem in 

current practice or of achieving at least 

comparable reductions at lower cost in 

terms of energy, economics, or nonair 

quahty environmental impacts. 

(22) "Fugitive emissions" mean those 

emissions which do not pass through a . 

stack, chimney, vent or other. .-

^^J j functionally equivalent opening. .• 

"H (23) "Reconstruction": will be -. 

. presumed to have taken place where, the 

- fixed capital cost of the new. 

components exceeds 50 percent-of the •••*.:., 

fixed capital cost of a comparable' 

entirely new stationary source. ..-..; 

Howeven^ny final dedsionas to 

whether reconstruction has occurred -

• iiaii be made in accordance wuh the 

provisions ot 40 CFR 60.15|i](l)-(3). A 

.. ions trucked stationery source wiii bo 

in-iited as a new stationary source ior 

purposes oi ihis section, except tnat use 

:;f an auernative fuei or raw material by 

reason oi an order in effect unaer 

sections 2 fa) and ib) of the Energy 

Supply and Environmental Coordination 

Act of 1974 for any superseding 

legislation), by reason of a natural gas 

curtailment plan in effect pursuant to 

the Federal Power Act, or by reason of 

an order or rule under section 125 of the 

Act. shall not be considered 

reconstruction. In determining best 

available control technology for a 

reconstructed stationary source, the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4) shall be 

taken into account in assessing whedier 

a standard of performance under 40 CFR 

Part 60 is applicable to such stationary 

source. 

(i) Review of Major StationarySources and Major Modifications— 

Source Applicability and General 

Exemptions. 

(1) The plan shall provide that no 

major stationary source or major 

modification shall be constructed 

unless, as a minimum, requirements 

equivalent to those contained in the 

paragraphs (j), (1). (n). (p), (r), (t), (v) of 

this section have been met. 

(2) The plan shall provide as follows: 

(i) The requirements of paragraphs (j) 

through (u) shall apply to any major 

stationary source or major modification 

that: 

[a] Would be constructed in an area 

which is designated under section 107 as 

attainment or unclassifiable for a 

pollutant for which the source or 

modification would be major, or 

[b] Would significandy impact an area 

in another state which is designated 

under section 107 as attainment or 

unclassifiable for a pollutant for which 

die source or modification would be 

major. 

(ii) A major stationary source or major 

modification that is major for violatile 

organid compounds is also major for 

ozone. 

(3) The plan may provide mat 

requirements equivalent to those 

contained in paragraphs (j) through (u) 

of this section do. not apply taany major 

stationary source that would be a 

nonprofit health or education institution 

or toany major modification, that would . 

occur at such an institution. ."..• 

(4)The plan may provide that a .-.- .. .__, 

portable-stationary source which has -...-. 

received a permit under regw$ments ,-.,„. 

equivalent to those contained in -thie-v-i--:". 

subparagraphs.qf paragraph IflJthmrigh.... 

'-..) of this section, as applicable, may 

relocate witnout again being subject to 

-.ose requirements, if— 

ii! Emissions from tne stationarv 

-ource wouid net exceed its allowable 

-missions: 

•'ii) Emissions from the stationary 

source wouid impact no Class I area and 

r.o area where an applicable increment 

is known to be violated: and 

(iii) Reasonable notice, not to be less 

than 10 days, is given to the reviewing -

authority prior to the relocation 

identifying the proposed new location 

and the probable duration of operation 

at the new location. 

(j) Control Technology Review. The 

plan shall provide that— , 

(1) A major stationary source-br major 

modification shall meet each applicable 

emission limitation under the State 

Implementation Plan plus each 

applicable emission standard and 

standard of performance under 40 CFR 

Parts 60 and 61. 

(2) A major stationary source qr major 

modification shall apply best availablecontrol technology for each pollutant • 

regulated under the Act that it would 

emit in a significant amount. 

(3) In the case of a major modification.-.-. -

the requirement for best available • -.•• V -

control technology shall, apply only to.... .•.-. ; 

each new or modified emission uniti ty-A. '•'..', 

(4) For phased con8truction.projects.t^~> 

the determination of best avatiable.-. -p-vi^j.' 

control technology-shall be revdewedpHtrj; 

and modified as appropriatejat the latest*- •'-

reasonable time prior to commencement P.. 

of construction of each independent •• ',' 

phase of construction.. _<',,-,.-,... -.-*-

(k) Exemptions from Impact Analyse*;:**, 

fl) The plan may provide that with • •,. 

respect to a particular pollutant the .; ..• •.-;-,'• 

requirements-of paragraphs (1), (n)and H 

(p) shall not apply to a proposed, majorr t-i'-rl 

stationary source or major modificationpj^, 

:r . .. . . ... ^...^^--a-iito-,. ' if— 

(1) The increase in allowable:-«~^.r 

emissions of that poUutantfrarin the? 

stationary source orinod»fk«atitjuw< 

impact no Class I area andntpjnea^ 

where an applicable increment"*!-* 

to be violated: and .-•* •-V.'^?',*.^ 

(ii) The emiasiona-of th»j 

-of a temporary-nature 

limited to tiiosefroma pUofcptiiBt\^< 

portable facility,",coiutatoti(Hgg(^U-&£ 

exploratioa.Vv;i,>Hi,r,.-^i>>a<ft' 

(2) The plap may pi 

respect to sulfntdii 

matter the requirements. 

(l),(n)and(p>bfthis 

apply to a modification 

stationary source wWdiywriti^Vi 

existence on August-7, 

•.-. (i) Any increase in a ,_ 

emissions of eithar-of 4hqeite>j 

after the application of 

m 

-,.- ••wp'^^sfeS! • 

>j:..'vV.t/!; ' .r> . • 

??mv*y.; 

'• x.?Ai2*/fi 

••;"i ;V'^?% 
P.30 

51950 Federal Register / Vol. 44. \'o. 173 / Wednesday, SeDtember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rule; 

control technology would impact no 

Class I area: 

(ii) Any such increase would cause or 

contribute to no violation of any 

national ambient air quality standard; 

and 

(iii) Any increase in allowable 

emissions of any air pollutant regulated 

under the Act after application of best 

available control technology would be 

less than 50 tons per year. 

(3) The requirements of paragraphs (1), 

(n), and (p) of this section shall not 

apply to a proposed major stationary 

source or major modification with 

respect to a particular pollutant if 

(i) The increase or net increase in 

emissions would impact no Class I area; 

(ii) The increase or net increase in 

emissions is not significant or would 

cause no significant air quality impact; 

and 

(iii) The increase or net increase in 

emissions would be less than 100 tons 

per year for stationary sources listed 

under (b)('l)(i) or 250 tons per year for 

other stationary sources. 

**** * 

(n) Monitoring—(1) Preapplication 

monitoring, (i) The plan shall provide 

that any application for a permit under 

this Section shall contain an analysis of 

ambient air quality in the area the 

proposed stationary source or 

modification would affect for each 

pollutant regulated under the Act which 

the stationary sourca or modification 

would emit in a significant amount 

(ii) The plan shall provide that as 

necessary to determine whether 

emissions from the proposed stationary 

source or modification would cause or 

contribute to a violation of any 

maximum allowable increase or 

national anibient air quality standard in 

any area, the analysis required under 

paragraph (n)(l) of this section shall 

includecontinuous air quahty - r-2'" 

fflonffartftgdata for any pollutant" --• 

emHteH-<y the stationary source nr 

ThodiBosMm-fot which a national >'--'• •"• • •»• *. 

equality standkrdvxists-:'' ••«•' 

netiiane hydrocarbons** - •:-••• 

plan shall provide-that Ae4 ••&,' 

t,«ir-monitofingdats required '•••' 

»#MtKiiybfthissection-i 

. and sfcfcl} haVe bees **•**• '• '-> -

over the year preceding ttfeeli>r 

mmeieRippitoanoii. - H -.. -'--J I, . 

Btandihg^tapiplf*^^. >"•• 

miiif-"M* 

,. .. .. t rownet«<rtrdpem^)Qitt^t •'-•,' 

iw^W^lh^OTeye^oft*datfm^9 o-

"*"" Titjr.tTOititoriii^*t#fci<^ 

.r.oaification demonstrates for total 

suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, 

jarbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide 

:hrough historical data or dispersion 

.-.odeis that the data for such shorter 

?enod of time, but not less than four 

months, will be obtained during a time 

period when maximum air quality levels 

can be expected. 

[b) The data for ozone will be 

obtained for those months in which the 

average daily maximum temperatures 

exceed 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees 

Fahrenheit) in the area under study, or 

for die four months of the year with the 

wannest average maximum 

temperatures for areas where there are 

not at least four months with average 

maxim-i:*- temperatures greater than 20 

degrees ^isius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). 

For can...... ting the daily maximum 

temperatures, a climatic record of at 

least ten var? shall be used except 

where nc • jrd of that length which 

can be corstdered representative of the 

area exists. 

(v) The owner or operator of a 

proposed stationary source or 

mociiiication of volatile organic 

compounds who satisfies all condition 

of 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, section 

IV. A may provide post-construction 

monitoring data for ozone in lieu of 

providing preconstruction data for ozone 

as required under paragraph (n](l)(i) of 

this section. 

(2) Post-construction monitoring. The 

plan shall provide that the owner or 

operator of a proposed stationary source 

or modification shall, after construction 

of die stationary source or modification, 

conduct such ambient monitoring as the 

reviewing authority determines may be 

necessary to determine the effect . 

emissions from the stationary source or 

modification may have, or are having an 

air quality inany area.. v,,.". ,.VJ .'.v , :-

(3) Operation of monitoring'stations. •-/.. 

The plan shall provide that the owner or 

operator shall meet the requirements of 

appendixJB to Part 58 of this chapter y 

duri^t^pperstiOT^ monitoring, i ; — 

stations for purposes of paragraph (n) of 

this section, as follows: 

(i) No later than January 1,- 1980t far v 

exJstingitatkiWiatvi-:.--OjpL»p^^;;;''-i.^;--" 

(ii) For new stations, at Ae time-the-

. strftiim^is pntinto^jperation. J p -a..*.. 

fi) Prior to commencement of 

operation, the owner or operator wouid 

propose a change in design capacity of 

an emission unit or emission units which 

wouid significantly increase net 

potential emissions but not as much as 

100 tons per year for stationary sources 

listed under paragraph (b)(l )(i) of this 

section or 250 tons per year for other 

stationary sources; 

(ii) Prior to commencement of 

operation, the owner or operator would 

propose fundamental changes in the 

nature of the process equipment used 

such that the potential emissions from 

the changed emission unit or emission 

units would be significant butTess than 

100 tons per year for stationary sources 

listed in paragraph (b)(l)(i) of this 

section or less that 250 tons per year for 

other stationary sources; or 

(iii) After obtaining a permit under 

this section which limits the hours of 

operation, the owner or operator 

proposes to increase the hours of 

operation. 

(2) The owner or operator of a major 

stationary source or a major 

modification who obtains a permit under 

this section shall obtain a new permit 

prior to beginning any construction not 

authorized by the existing permit if, 

prior to commencement of operation, the 

owner or operator proposes: 

(i) An increase in design capacity, of 

one or more emission units which would 

increase net potential emissions of the 

stationary source by 100 tons or more 

per year for stationary sources listed in 

paragraph (b)(l)(l) of this section or by 

250 tons or more per year for otherstationary sources; or. . 

(ii) Fundamental changes in the nature 

of the process equipment used such lhat 

the potential emissions from the - A'r. rA' 

changed emission unit or emission unit 

would be 100 tons per yeir or morse l 

stationary sources listed iaMii^awl. -. -, 

(b)(i)(ijdf tMs sWtion pr^tfe^o|Sf ^ 

more per yta^vth^^iS^^fr-^ 

sources. 

:r&ij£&^%&}gigg&£i :•*. 

(3) lieiip^tal^j^iae^l'-^r^^:^^:. 

modifi&tiim skaitfiidm^} ^5$?f» ' . 

(i) Adtoqpihratipn'ait j^" ^

 i"^i v 

requirements of parSj^jiW 

met, and-H'^^r^ ^ 

(ii7 A deiia^ttaftpirft^ 

in allowable emissions p 

prcontribute,|a&y&M 

Am 

qFUttsaection, l£^ 

-v*fejTAei1(Bwner or cm»WSrW*^^r*"': 

jr|apsji§|%tMioi^ 

Pa***.' ' 

\ ft).M^#ft/ij^(t y 

operatorof a major^tftma^-sdirrcelor.;;'-. (4) The-ttLtvi etw^ii' 

a major modification*'i^.'Sbwma:22iLA^ apprdW* " "*"""" 

pennit under Je^^tiOTi'devi^qp^^,,' H tit Wo I . 

inirsuanfMPIi^ia^^ 

modified ^Mt3j^r*o'bieSm*&H; subsfantiauywuivalenVitd 

^ostructitm^y^ttiM^^^^ paragraphs fflSiartfl ^'i 

5nth6tee<Hytfc»ei3S-^ are megm^^^^** 

•2 

M& • I O - v'-* 3

 •.**• • - -. 

—... . . ,„ „ . -. •••'•Cib-f.ii-.-r.j.ii:?-; 

M^^LA^^&L^^^£>AAA2 ,.s,cy~zjg'r ^mm 
P.31 

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5, 1979 / Proposed Rules 51951 

2.'. -

I 

fc^apj-Bv... 

•*•••-.•. : •as* * 

(ii) No demonstration is made by a 

Federal Land Manager of an adverse 

impact on the air quality—related 

values (including visibility) ofa Class I 

area to which he is charged with direct 

responsibility for management, unless 

the construction wouid be approved 

under procedures substantially 

equivalent to paragraph (q)(4), (5), (6), or 

(7) of this section. 

(5) The reviewing authority shall 

approve or deny a complete application 

within 90 days of its receipt. 

(u) Innovative Control Technology. (1) 

The plan may provide diat an owner or 

operator of a proposed major stationary 

source or major modification may 

request of the reviewing authority to 

employ a system of innovative control 

technology. 

(2) The plan may provide that the 

reviewing audiority shall with the 

consent of the Administrator and the 

Governor of other affected state(s) 

determine that a stationary source or 

modification may employ a system of 

innovative control technology, if: 

(i) The proposed control system has 

not been demonstrated and will not 

cause or contribute to an unreasonable 

risk to public healh, welfare, or safety in 

its operation, function, or malfunction; 

(ii) The owner or operator agrees to 

achieve a level of continuous emission 

reduction equivalent to that which 

would have been required under 

paragraph (j)(2) of this section by a date 

specified by die reviewing authority. * 

Such date shall not be greater than 4 

years from the time of startup unless an 

extension under regulations 

substantially equivalent to those of 

paragraph (u)(4) of this section would be 

obtained* 

(iii) The proposed construction would 

meet all requirements under this section 

based on die emission rate that tha -

stationary source employing ithe system 

of innovative control technology would 

meet on the date specified by die -

reviewing authority; and • 

. (iv) The proposed-construction would 

not cause or contribute to the violation ' 

of any applicable national ambient air... 

quality standard before the date . 

specified by thereviewingauthority. 

(3) The plan shall provide th^the. • 

re viewing autho^&abalFdisaUpw any ^ 

approval to tem^iy'a;ay8taJihof x - : J 

innovatrvecontioftechnp)ogy.made 

under requireiOent* equivalent to those... 

ofthieparagraph.ifepp.

 :Ay&:Ars-.:t 

(i) the proposed system fails fay. the • • 

date specified:to achieve^he required - . 

continuous emission reduction rate; or 

(ii) The propos^jsystem fails before 

Uw specified dat&soastojcontributato 

an unreasonableask to public healthwelfare, or safety in its operation, 

function, or malfunction. 

(4) The plan may provide that if a 

stationary source or modification fails to 

meet the required level of continuous 

emission reduction within the specified 

time or the approval is withdrawn in 

accordance with paragraph (u)(3) of this 

section, the reviewing authority may 

grant an extension of the requirements 

equivalent to those of this paragraph for . 

such minimum period as may be 

necessary to comply with the 

requirement in paragraph (j) of this 

section. Such period shall not extend 

beyond die date three years after the 

termination of the time period specified 

in paragraph (u)(2)(ii) or (u)(3), of this 

section, whichever is applicable. 

(v) Preconstruction Notice. The plan 

shall provide diat: 

(1) The owner or operator of a major 

stationary source or major modification 

shall notify the reviewing authority in 

writing of the date on-site construction 

will begin at least 90 days before it 

begins. 

(2) The owner or operator of a 

proposed construction activity, who 

believes that the activity is not subject 

to regulations developed pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.24 shall also so notify the 

reviewing authority, if such construction 

would be considered: 

(i) A major modification but for 

sufficient contemporaneous emission 

reductions; or 

(ii) A major stationary source but for 

reductions in die potential emissions of 

die source through the application of air 

pollution control equipment not 

generally required under the State 

Implementation Plan or any applicable 

standards as set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 

and 61. 

(3) The notice required by paragraph 

(v)(2) of diis section shall contain: 

(i) The name and address of the 

owner or operator ,', ••-..•...•..-. . 

> (II) The nature and location of the 

stationary source or modification; 

(iii) The potential to emit and 

allowable emission rates of any. 

poihttantregulated under the Act for all 

emission unitswithin the new or ^7';«* . 

inodified stationary atrorce; i i? * A--. 

(iv) ALschednle of when each change -> -

in the^emissonof^^ pollutant-^ ^7-: 

regulated .•atti$l&^^ 

.- •. (vl.C«dculatiato<rf*owai^^vp- • •' >-• •• 

contemporaneousenrissiontediictioiis- *tj 

identified partipiitflq.(y)(4)w^ 

adequately offiset any emissk^ 

increases for any poihitantNgulated?^^^ 

undertiieAetr- - .•.K.-i^jj ^ • .••••-. 

(yif-A demonstration uiat each such: p:-

emission reduction identified pursuant {» 

toparagraph-(v){4} would be> -• - i 

enforceable under the State 

Implementation Plan; and 

(vii) Any other information the 

reviewing authority reasonably needs to 

determine whether the requirements 

substantially equivalent to paragraphs 

(j) through (r) of this section would 

apply. 

(4) The owner or operator who would 

accomplish contemporaneous emission.. -. 

reductions shall notify the reviewing;.-.,. . 

authority at the time »"ch reductionsv». v , 

would occur, if credit is to be taken for Iv 

such reductions pursuantto paragraph. ••' 

(v)(2)(i). 

(5) The notice required by paragraph.;:; 

(v)(4) shall contain: . <". 

(i) The name and address of tha -- ;.-p." 

owner or opera ton .,,,~ v •'."'' ,\ 

(ii) The type and amount of each 

contemporaneous emission decrease. > ..•. 

and the affected emission unit - -' 

(iii)A schedule of when each emissionreduction would occur or has occurred: 

and 

(iv) Any other information that tha ' 

reviewing authority reasonably needs todetermine if the proposed emission 

would be acceptable. ,.,•'' '" 

Requirements for Federally Profnulgated<? 

PSD Programs . •• • '• -f '...•;•. 

2(a) Tide 40, Part 52 of tha Code of <;v 

Federal Regulations is proposed** be,"v.'i& 

amended as follows:.'--'"' -•'•" "•• vV'i- "'•••^W 

In { 52.21. paragraphs (b)(IHBJ aml»*ffc 

(11) are revised;-|^b)(17)tta(aettd?•;JH

,

^ 

existing (bKl2Hlo)^W*rtumb«^?a8'^r 

(13H17): new (b)(lZ) and (2CH-*) are*'*'.-

added: (iH-<). (n) and (s)(l) are revised; ~ 

ftHv) are relettered as (xHz); hew (tj-f,!<

; 

(w) are added. Those paragraphs readf'r''*p 

as follows: 'J 

§52^21 Prevention of significant, 

deterioration of air quaitty. >..,.. 

,(b) Definitions. POT tint 

this section: 

(1) "Major statioi 

(i)Anyofthefolll 

sources of air pollul 

have the jpotentitd 

year or moreof any 

under the Clean'Ai* 

Fossil fuekfired-s 

more than'2SOJnillfi 

units pet-Jibur heat 

plants. 

tafflaT 

zinc dm ell 

primary copper 

lncinerattwtf*a]ial 

than ZSO-tbnsdf 

hydrofluoric;si 

• ptantsvpetrdiei 

-phosphdftoven batteries.1

* 

--•• "• •'•r-^Hl 

®*FB0Gr 

4*,*^«^<TV-.. ;' 

•"•+q*t~Z,""w*^1? -yta-. 

A:%$ML 

A-2A:.<,wrr< 

•:. 22 A' .i-"wi'v 

'•••:•> ••dt-ti,.A?>ft 
P.32 

.952 •Hderaj ie-sister / No. 173 / Wednesday. Seotember 5. 1979 / ProDOsed Rules 

bon black plants (furnace process). 

marv lead smeiters. fuel conversion 

•nts. sintering piants. secondary metal 

•duction plants, chemical process 

•nts. fossil fuel boilers (or 

nbination thereof) totaling more than 

j miilion British thermal units per hour 

it input, petroleum storage and 

•nsfer units with a total storage 

pability exceeding 300.000 barrels, 

;onite ore processing plants, glass 

er processing piants, and charcoal 

jduction plants; 

ii) Notwithstanding die stationary 

irce sizes specified in paragraph 

(l)(i) of this section, any stationary 

jrce which emits, or has the potential 

emit 250 tons per year or more of any 

pollutant regulated under die Act 

2)(i) "Major modification" means any 

ysicai change in or change in the 

-hod of operation of a major 

nonary source, or series of 

• ..raporaneous physical changes in or 

jas in the method of operation of a 

i stationary source, that would 

-ut in a significant net increase in 

I source's potential to emit the 

lutant for which the stationary source 

najor (or that would make the 

tionary source major, taking into 

:ount all accumulated net increases in 

'entiai emissions occurring at the 

rce, including any initial 

is miction, since August 7,1977). The 

rn "major modification" serves as the 

Initios of/'modification" or 

odified' when used in the Act in 

srence to a major stationary source. 

ii) A physical change shall not 

lude routine maintenance, repair and 

lacement 

:ii) A change in the method of 

ration, unless previously limited by 

)rceable permit conditions, shall not 

lude: 

7) Use of an alternative fuel or raw 

srial by reason of an order under 

ions 2(aJ and (b) of die Energy 

ply and£oyironmentai Coordination 

of lf&Ctotany superseding 

dation&alprohibition under the ..-. 

er Pfcnftaftd industrial Fuel Use Act 

J78^tj«flf superseding legislation). 

y reaautfjif If natural gas curtailment -

i patMMiWlltb the Federal Power Act; 

lijplteniative fuel or raw ^ 

drto January 8.197&thfl<n 

cejWB*. Doable of accommodating. ,> 

: fufil.frrWBifprinl* • • "'-...T.T--

Uas^jUgplteraative fuel by 

mi^-^-tfider or rule under sections 

:f"1 'J 

„_ jership of the , > 

onary source* or •• pp-p,-•:.. 

. Useof refiisa derived fuel 

rated from municipal solid waste./.. 

1 ChangeSaare "contemporaneous"' 

f reductions occur after a notice ia 

filed pursuant to paragraph (v)(4) and 

before opertion ot the emission unit or 

units that will result in emission 

increases. Also, to be 

"contemporaneous" all of the emission 

reductions must be completed and 

enforceable under die state plan before 

operation of the emission unit or units 

that will result in any emission increase. 

Where the new emission unit is a 

replacement for an emission unit that is 

being shut down in order to provide die 

necessary reductions, die Administrator 

may allow up to 180 days for 

shakedown of the new emission unit 

before the existing emission unit is 

required to cease operation. 

(v) For a series of changes in a 

stationary source to satisfy the 

requirement of "no net increase." all of 

the following must be satisfied: 

(a) All reductions and all increases 

must be for die same pollutant; 

ib) The sum of all decreases must be 

greater than or equal to the sum of aii 

increases, 

(c) On balance, the air quality of the 

affected area must not be adversely 

impacted. 

(vi) In performing the calculation in 

paragraph (b)(2)(v) (to determine 

whether the sum of all decreases is 

greater than or equal to the sum of all 

increases) the following rules shall 

apply: 

{a) Subject to the following 

adjustments, die size of an increase or 

decrease is determined by the difference 

between the potential to emit of the 

changed emissions unit before and after 

the change. 

(b) If potential to emit for a changed 

emission unit was initially higher than 

allowable emissions, then no offset 

credit may be taken for decreasing 

potential to emit down to allowable 

emissions. 

(c) The requirement of 40 CFR Part 51, 

appendix S, sections IV.C2 and 4 shall 

apply, involving the amount of credit 

permissible for changing fuels and for 

replacing one hydrocarbon compound 

with another of lesser reactivity. 

(3) "Potential to emit" means the 

capability at maximum design capacity 

to emit a pollutant-after the application 

of airpolhitianoontrol equipment A 

Annual potential shall be based on the 

maxtmimtannual rated capacity of tha 

stationary^ source assuming continnous ». . 

year rofflidioperation. Enforceable v. : p 

permit oonditians onthe type of '•-:.. 

materials combnfeted or processed may 

be usadiK^ate^Btining tti&annual v J --• r 

potential. Secondary enrissiona'donot 

count to*ktanufrting animal potential. ~ 

Fug^ivaemissieBs also do not count . 

except witii respectto ths following . 

stationary sources and then only to the 

extent quantifiable: 

!i) Coal cleaning plants. 

Hi) Kraft pulp mills. 

iiii) Portland cement plants. 

<:v) Primary zinc smeiters. 

{v) Iron and steei mill plants. 

(vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction 

plants. 

fvii) Primary copper smelters. 

(viii) Municipal incinerators. 

(ix) Hydrofluoric sulfuric, or nitric 

acid plants. 

(x) Petroleum refineries. 

(xi) Lime plants. 

(xii) Phosphate rock processing plants. 

(xiii) Coke oven batteries. 

(xiv) Sulfur recovery plants. 

(xv) Carbon black plants.. 

(xvi) Primary lead smelters. 

(xvii) Fuel conversion plants. 

(xviii) Sintering plants. 

fxix) Secondary metal production 

plants. 

(xx) Chemical process plant 

(xxi) Fossil fuel-fired boilers. 

(xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer 

units. 

(xxiii) Taconite ore processing plants. 

(xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants. 

(xxv) Charcoal production plants. 

(xxvi) Fossd fuel-fired steam electric 

plants. 

(xxvii) Any other stationary source 

category which, at the time of the 

applicability determination, is being 

regulated under section 111 or 112 of the 

Act. 

(4) "Stationary source" means any 

structure, building, facihty or 

installation which emits or may emit 

any air pollutant regulated under the 

Act. 

(5) "Structure, building, facility,- or 

installation" means any grouping of 

pollutant-emitting activities winch are 

located on one or more contiguous or 

adjacent properties and which are 

owned or operated by the samaperson -:•> 

(or by persons under common control).'-

(6) "Emission unit" means any part of •••. 

a stationary source which emits or has • 

the potential to emit any pollutant, • •'.'• 

regulated under the Act-

(11) "Baseline concentration" means-i' ••• 

that ambient concentration level which, 

exists atlhe time of the applicable i> 'vbaseline-date, minus any. confributiohifrom major stationary- sources and inajor'1

" 

modifiMtioMonwbichconstruciioh-^ 'Tcommenced on or after.'jatfnbiy.-4$ iawat'"^*^:

"* 

The baseline concentration shallfiiclude j 

contributions .from:'; L&2^2- *.»:'." s * ^-VB- i>- - - -**. p. 

(i) Theactuaf emissions of otherfe -

 ;LL:L 

sources in extetenoe on theappUcahtle--: 

baseline date, except that contriboti«is~ 

from such existing sources to fta«deBt 

,pi*p-;. 
P.33 

Federal Register 'oi. 44. No. 173 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51953 

*2-r.. 

<?v2r?r 

ihat a plan revision proposing less 

restrictive requirements affects such 

sources was submitted on or before the 

baseiine date and was pending action 

by the Administrator on that date, shall 

be determined from the allowable 

emissions under die plan as revised: and 

(ii) The allowable emissions of major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications which commenced 

construction before January 6,1975, but 

were not in operation by the applicable 

baseline date. 

(12) "Baseline date" means, for every 

part of an Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) designated as unclassifiable or 

attainment under section 107(d)(1) (D) or 

(E) of the Act. die date of die first 

complete application after August 7, 

1977. for a permit under this section for 

any major stationary source or major 

modification in any part of the AQCR. 

... . * 

(20) "Secondary emissions" means 

emissions which occur or would occur 

as a result of the construction or 

operation of a major stationary source 

or major modification, but do not 

necessarily come from the major 

. stationary aource or major, modification 

itself. For purposes of this section, 

secondary emissions must be specific 

and well defined* must be quantifiable, 

and must impact theaame general area 

aa the stationary source or modification 

which causes the secondary emission. 

Secondary emissions may include, but 

are not limited to: 

(i) Emissions from ships or trains 

coming to or from the stationary source 

or modification; and. 

(ii) Emissions from any offsite support 

facility which would be constructed or 

would not otherwise increase its 

emissions. . , $*•;•,-.;c. ••.::-

(21)"Innoyatiga<ientrol technology'--

means any system of air pollution 

control lhat has.oetbeen:adequately...... 

demonstratedinrpracticethutwonki'iP 

have a subt.taatia4iikei*oodelpan p 

achieving greatar<oniinuoaaemis8ioo« 

reduction than any control system in _ 

current practice^s^oftacfaieiting^atleast,, 

comparable reductions atfawerjsostin 

terms of ea&gy. economics, ior nonair -.-. 

quality environmental impocts.rfUi..., 

(22)"Fng^ve.^mitsmylh-inegna>thqse 

emissionswhickdo>not^aae4teotighit 

stadk, chimneySa-waitja utiig^Atip^f'-'.. 

finctioaal^r-equivaienbopMiHig>s." ' t 

(23)"Rec«mrtrB(Sa«!tWil«je^a •-

presumed to have.tafiBn*place^where-the 

fixed capital co^i^iBmkmir>*^'*tx^V-y- X 

componentsexceeds^) peroent*of the. ••-

fixed capital cost efiarotmiparebia^rt y 

entirelynewstattonaryt^onree. zrxi:-'-" 

Hawevetrany finat-rit^iaicn a s to*-V.. ' 

whether reconsfructioB ha s occmred-'

 , 

shall be made in accordance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(l)-(3). A 

reconstructed stationary source will be 

treated as a new stationary source for 

purposes of this section, except that use 

of an alternative fuel or raw material by 

reason of an order in effect under 

sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy 

Supply and Environmental Coordination 

Act of 1974 (or any superseding 

legislation), by reason of a natural gas 

curtailment plan in effect pursuant to 

the Federal Power Act. or by reason of 

an order or rule under section 125 of the 

act, shall not be considered 

reconstruction. In determining best 

available control technology for a 

reconstructed stationary source, the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4) shall be 

taken into account in assessing whether 

a standard of performance undeT 40 CFR 

Part 60 is applicable to such stationary 

source. 

(24) "Complete application" means an 

application submitted to the 

Administrator by the owner or operator 

of a proposed major stationary source or 

major modification which represents a 

reasonable and good faith effort to 

submit all infonnation necessary for 

permit issuance. 

**** * 

(i) Review of Major Stationary 

Sources and Major Modifications— 

Source Applicability and General 

Exemptions. (1) No stationary source or 

modification to which the requirements 

of paragraphs 0) through (uj of this 

section apply shall be constructed 

without a permit which states that the 

stationary source or modification would 

meet those requirements. The 

Administrator has authority to issue any 

such permit' 

(2) Tfie requirements of paragraphs fj) 

through (u) of this section apply to any

 ; 

major stationary, source and any major 

modification with respect to each 

pollutant regulated under the Act dial it 

would tjnifcexcept tre'ihis section • *' ' 

Qtlleril^•^^d#/*^.p;^V::••'••'•'•;•^,;*'••;: 

(3) The requirements o f paragraphs (JJ 

through (u) of tt o section dp not apply 

to any major atatipnars'.^nut^'^rfan^t;, 

major mod^caten to Which ': ; 'ALL 

construction commenced before August' 

7. l^rTheieffJ^^MtmCFj^S^ -i 

which ware in- ti^foiifciib^iiTfA';•., 

1977 shall govern the review-and--<r^:. r 

permittii&ofanylh^sta^^ 

ormodificKtefcs^ ^^^Lf^A^.^ 

(4}The-requH*emehtsd^para^jiMtfl; 

tiirough-luyoftMiifc^OTtWhbWpjMy*-

to any majorstationary-sdiinx*e ar major: 

moojfici&dtftiiiWiTO-SliSJ^^ 

review "requfciehi^tofc^ ' 

52.2IftfKf)1ciir:aWp6^ 

significantdeleriOratidnais^hi effect -

r

 • 

before March 1,1978. if the owner or 

operator— 

(i) Obtained under 40 CFR 52.21 a 

final approval effective before March 1, 

1978: 

(ii) Commenced construction before 

March 19.1979: and 

(iii) Did not discontinue construction 

for a period of 18 months or more and 

completed construction within a 

reasonable time. •-"-• 

(5) The requirements of paragraphs (j) 

through (u) of this section do not apply 

to any major stationary source or major 

modification that was not subject.to 40* 

CFR 52.21 as in effect before March!,' -

1978, if the owner or operator—-•••'' "•"••• •'<" 

(i) Obtained all final fedorat; state-dad 

local preconstruction permits necessary' 

under the applicable State' 

Implementation Plan before March 1, " 

1978: 

(ii) Commenced construction before • 

March 19,1979: and 

(iii) Did not discontinue construction . 

for a period of 18 months'or more and ^ 

completed construction within a ••' ^ . 

reasonable time. .. ; • .yi-" 

(6) The requirements of paragraphs (f)v 

through (u| do not apply-to a major* •-• •••••• p 

stationary source or major modJffatftjkiK 

that was subject to 40CyRr8S:M e«.iir. -

effect before March f,ltW'ifi*vfe*rdf.;.; 

an application for apprpvaMtifthfr*- •»*>•-: 

stationary source oi moadlfitatiafftflf^al^-

40 CFR 52.21 would HaVe.ttiiDp-';\l -*•> ^r' 

completed by March 1,1978; trot tirW ' 

extension of the pubUc crbnunent perioff, . 

pursuant to a request for such an-••."*''."?'" 

extension. In such a case, the ' ] ; , ; 

, application shall continue to; b% : (.L*'L 

processed and granted or dehiedpuhder"' 

40 CFR 5221 a s in effect prior to Ktitt&rA. 

a . I ' . ,', • • ' 1* - 1 . „•'., . •l l aft — *> 

.1,197a.... . . ;•; •• •• "••-• 

(7) The requirements! 

through (u) of this« ' . ^ 

to any major stationary i 

modification meiti 

CFR.52.51.fy| in -$L, 

the owner tit o6di*at' 

rij^t^^Jta 

loc^precdhslrudllc 

under the applicable 

foplpmeothtf"•'"•**-'*' 

- pifomuv'^" 

thefdati 

timei 

i not. i 

w-ftr. 

imsci ffl 

to an^m|q^attnWu|[ 

mootnca non trof t w,-~i JwasSj**-..^ 

[a\ m$0Wk 

wh 
51954 ?

ederai Register AO. '? ' Wednesdav. Seotember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

.ntainmem or unciassiiiabie for a 

pollutant for which the stationary source 

T- moaification would be major; or 

.. •) Wouid sisniiicantiy impact an area 

;:: anotner state which is designated 

under section 107 as attainment or 

unclassifiable for a pollutant for which 

the source or modification wouid be 

ma]or. 

(ii) A major stationary source or major 

modification that is major for volatile 

organic compounds is also major for 

ozone. 

(9) The requirements of paragraphs (j) 

through, (u) of this section do not apply 

to any major stationary source that 

would be a nonprofit health or 

educational institution or to any major 

modification that would occur at such 

an institution, if the Governor of the 

state in which the stationary source or 

modification would be located requests 

that it be exempt from those 

requirements. 

(10) A portable stationary source 

which has received a permit under this 

section mav relocate without again 

being subject to this section, if: 

(i) Emissions from the stationary 

source would not exceed its allowable 

emissions: 

(ii) Emissions from the stationary 

source would impact no Class 1 area and 

no area where an applicable increment 

is known to be violated; and 

(iii) Reasonable notice, not to be less 

than 10 days, is given to the 

Administrator prior to the relocation 

identifying the proposed new location 

and die probable duration of operation 

at the new location. 

(j) Control Technology Review. (1) A 

major stationary source or major 

modification shall meet each appUcable 

emission limitation under the State 

Implementation Plan plus each 

applicable emission standard and 

. standard of performance under 40 CFR 

Paita 60 and 61. 

(2)' A major stationary source or major 

mgdUtoition shall apply beat available 

cdS-raJ-technology for each pollutant 

regdlSfi^i under the Act that it would 

'eTmfin a significant amount The 

requirement that a stationary source or 

modification apply best availablecontrol technology for each pollutant for 

which it would not be major shall apply . 

to no stationary source or modification 

(.application for a permit under 

— _„..i%pn was complete before the 

date that requirement came into effect . 

(3f Inthe case of a modification, the. 

requirement for best available control 

technology shall apply only to each new 

or modified emission unit1 

(4) For phased construction projects, 

the! determination of best available 

control technology shall be reviewed 

.-:r:a modified as ar.propr.ate at the latest 

reasonable time prior io commencement 

of construction of each independent 

phase ot construe!'.on. 

"sl Exemptions irom impact Analyses. 

2) The requirements of paragraphs (I), 

jr.) and (p) of this section snail not appiy 

to a proposed major stationary source or 

major modification with respect to a 

particular pollutant, if: 

(i) The increase in allowable 

emissions of that pollutant from the 

stationary source or modification would 

impact no Class I area and no area 

where no applicable increment is known 

to be violated: and 

(ii) The emissions of the pollutant are 

of a temporary nature including but not 

limited to those from a pilot plant, a 

portable facility, construction, or 

exploration. 

(2) The requirements of (1), (n) and (p) 

of this section shall not appiy with 

respect to sulfur dioxide or particulate 

matter to a modification of a major 

stationary source which was in 

existence on August 7.1977, if: 

(i) Any increase in allowable 

emissions of either of those pollutants 

after the application of best available 

control technology would impact no . 

Class I area; 

(ii) Any such increase would cause or 

contribute to no violation of any 

national ambient air quality standard; 

and 

(iii) Any increase in allowable 

emissions of any air pollutant regulated 

under the Act after the application of 

best available control technology would 

be less than 50 tons per year. 

(3) The requirements of paragraphs (1), 

(n) and (p) shall not apply to a proposed 

major stationary source or major 

modification with respect to a particular 

pollutant, if: 

(i) The increase or net increase in 

emissions would impact no Class I area; 

and 

(ii) The increase or net increase in 

emissions is not significant or would 

cause no significant air quahty impact 

and 

(iii) The increase or net increase in 

emissions would be less than 100 tons 

per year for stationary sources listed 

under paragraph (b)(l)(i) or 250 tons per 

year for other stationary sources. 

(n) Monitoring-~{l) Preapplication 

monitoring, (i) Any application for a 

permit under this section shall contain 

aa analysis of ambient-air quality in the 

area the proposed stationary source or 

modification would affect for each 

pollutant regulated under die Act which 

the stationary source or modification, 

would emit The requirement that a 

stationary source or moairication 

conduct a preconstruction analysis of 

•p.e ambient air quality for each 

pollutant for which it would not be 

maior snail appiy to no stationary 

source or modification whose 

application for a permit under this 

section was complete before the date 

that requirement came into effect. 

(ii) As necessary to determine 

whether emissions from the proposed 

stationary source or modification would 

cause or contribute to a violation of any 

maximum allowable increase or 

national ambient air quality standard in 

any area, die analysis required under 

paragraph (n)(l) shall include 

continuous air quality monitoring data 

for any pollutant emitted by the 

stationary source or modification for 

which a national ambient air quality 

standard exists, except non-metiiane 

hydrocarbons. 

(iii) The continuous air monitoring 

data required under paragraph (n)(l)(ii) 

of this section, shall relate to, and shall 

have been gathered over, the year 

preceding receipt of the complete 

application, unless the Administrator 

determines diat a complete and 

adequate analysis may be accomplished 

in a shorter period. The requirement to 

gather data over the year preceding 

receipt of a complete application for 

each pollutant for which a national 

ambient standard exists but for which • 

the stationary source or modification 

would not be major shall apply to no 

stationary source or modification whose 

application for a permit under-this 

section was complete before the date 

that requirement came into effect. 

Instead such stationary source or 

modification shall gather data over the 

time period from the date that the 

requirement came into effect and the 

date that such stationery source or 

modification would file an otherwise ~ 

complete application under this section. 

(iv) If the owner or operator ofa 

proposed stationary source or 

modification of volatile organic ~ rcompounds who satisfies all conditions -

of 40 CFR Part 51, appendix S, section.^ 

IV.4 may provide post-construction 

monitoring data for ozone in lieu ofxri^-Aproviding preconstruction data-ass-;. .' ;-

required under paragraph (n)(l).: 22 ..p 

(2) Post-construction monitoringiyh&r 

owner or operator of a prqposed^^r H 

stationary source or modification shaH^. 

after con8tractiorti#theatationa^rg«y- o 

source or modification, conductiuefe'-^: - L 

ambient me^ioiing as the-.-' 'rAr^ph^t^yy^L 

AdmimQtm)t>rcaxeimines.maybev-i»^'jp 

necessary to ds tanninethe effect-H-'

:

$&,-:'" 

emissions from the stationary sourceq* - '-'.-. 

modification-pay have-, or are haviii^trirJ!;1 ;" * 

air quality ir ._• •> p-.ea. - '-••'•.•>-k-A::2"2-:' 

.IA • 

^r-yy^-A 

•juft,-« ^ 

'-M 
Federal Register / 44. No. 173 / Wednesday. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 51955 

f-l) Operation of monitoring stations. 

The owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements of appendix B to Part 58 of 

:his chapter during the operation of 

nonitoring stations for purposes of 

paragraph (n) of this section as follows: 

fi) No later than January 1.1980, for 

existing stations, or 

(ii) For new stations, at the time the 

station is put into operation. 

**** * 

fs) Source Obligation. (1) Any owner 

or operator who constructs or operates a 

stationary source or modification not in 

accordance with the application of 

notice submitted pursuant to this section 

or with the terms of any approval to 

construct, or any owner or operator of a 

major stationary-source or major 

modification who begins construction on 

the stationary'source or modification 

without providing preconstruction notice 

or applying for and receiving approval 

hereunder, as applicable, shall be 

considered to be in violation of die 

applicable State Implementation Plan. 

ft) Modified Permits. (1) The owner or 

operator of a major stationary source or 

a major modification who obtains a 

permit under regulations developed 

pursuant to this section shall obtain a 

modified permit prior to beginning 

construction of any emission unit not 

authorized by the existing permit if. 

(i) Prior to commencement of 

operation die owner or operator Would 

propose a change in design capacity of 

an emission unit or emission units which 

would significantly increase net 

potential emissions but not as much as 

100 tons per year for stationary sources 

listed under paragraph (b)(l)(i) or 250 

tons per year.forother stationary 

sources; or A.~L*A 

(ii) Prior tq copjgepcement of 

operation the owng&or operator would 

propose fundamental-changes in the ' 

nature of th&probesspequipment such 

that the potenffiffeftissfons from tlie 

changed emi88ionu8hx>r emission units 

would be signifieS'fBut less than 100 

tons per yearfojcatafomary sources 

Usted under p^^ph(b)(l)(i) or 250 

tons per year for drtherstationary 

sources. . r.^'iSjU^i.'-.••.. •;-.;•••• • y. . 

(iii) After obtainiiiga permit undergo 

CFR 5£21 (1978) Wfifch Intuits the hours 

of operatidn^th^JjfiSijtf-bf operator ; 

proposes to ihcreas^&e hours of 

operation. . l.^H-^lH^*.'••'•' .'L 

(2) The ownerof ojpfiratorof a major 

stationary source ora major J .-.•?•'••••--.. 

modification Who obtains a permit underthis section shall obtains new permit ' 

prior to beginning any construction not: 

audibrized'b^ffie eiist^penhiflf pribf • 

to commencement of operation, the 

owner or operator proposes: 

(i) An increase in design capacity of 

one or more emission units which would 

increase net potential emissions of the 

stationary source by 100 tons or more 

per year for stationary sources listed in 

paragraph (b)(l)(i) or by 250 tons or 

more per year for other stationary 

sources; or 

(ii) Fundamental changes in die nature 

of the process equipment used such that 

the potential emissions from the 

changed emission unit or emission units 

would be 100 tons per year or more for 

stationary sources listed in paragraph 

(b)(l)(i) or 250 tons or more per year for 

other stationary sources. 

(3) The application for permit 

modification shall include: 

(i) A demonstration that the 

requirements of paragraph (j) would be 

met. and 

(ii) A demonstration that the increase 

in allowable emissions would not cause 

or contribute to a violation of any 

maximum allowable concentration or 

maximum allowable increase. 

(4) The Administrator may approve 

the application if: 

(i) He finds tiiat the proposed 

construction will satisfy the 

requirements of paragraphs (j) through . 

(u) are met and 

(ii) No demonstration is made by a 

Federal Land Manager of an adverse 

impact on the afr quality related values 

(including visibility) of a Class I area to 

which he is charged with direct 

responsibility for management, unless 

the construction would be approved 

under procedures substantially 

equivalent to those of paragraph (q)(4), 

(5), (6). or (7). 

(5) The Administrator shall approve or 

deny a complete application within 90 

days of its receipt 

(u) Innovative Control Technology. [1] 

An owner or operator of a proposed 

major stationary source or major 

modification may request of the 

Administrator to employ a system of . 

innovative control technology. 

(2) The Administrator shall with the., 

consentjpf the Governors) of the.",.'.. 

affected state(s) determine that a , 

stationary source may employ a system 

of innovative control technology, if: 

(i) The proposed control system has' 

not been demonstrated aiid will not *: 

cause or contribute to an unreasonable 

risk to public health. Welfare, of safety , j 

in its operation, function, or. malfunction; 

(u) The owner or operator agrees to -

achieves level of continuous emission %^ 

reduction equivalent to that which . ~~ 

would have been required under p.:/ 

paragraph Q){2) by Vdaje specified by / 

the AdMinistra tot Sdich date shall pot,. 

be greater than 4 years from the time of 

startup uniess an extension under 

paragraph (u)(4) wouid be obtained: 

(iii) The proposed construction would 

meet all requirements under this section 

based on the emission rate that the 

stationary source employing the system 

of innovative control technology would . 

meet on the date specified by the 

Administrator; 

(iv) The proposed construction'would 

not cause or contribute to the violation 

of applicable national ambient air ' 

quality standard before the date • '/' 

specified by the Administrator. :' 

(v) All other appUcable requirements 

including those for public participation.. 

have been met ,".".' '.' ; \ 

(3) The Administrator shall disallow '."' 

any approval to employ a system of •' 

innovative control technologj.made 

under this section, if: . 

(i) The proposed system fails by tfte 

specified date to achieve the required;' 

continuous emission reduction rate, er 

(ii) The proposed system fails before 

the specified date so as to contribute to. 

an unreasonable risk to public health, ".' 

welfare, or safety in its operation. v 

function, or malfunction. 

(4) If a stationary source fails to meet 

the required level of continuous-.. ' 

emission reduction within the specified* 

time period or the" approval'1$"'- \ '.' ''";' 

withdrawn in accordance With;"

 :'\^'•'; ^ 

paragraph fu)(3), the Adrnmldtfatorniay ; 

grant ah extension of the. requirements- p 

of this paragraph for such minimum r p : 

period as may be necessary tdi cdmpiyp v . 

with the requirement in paragraph (J). • '' 

Such period shall not extend beyond the ' 

date three years after termination of the 

time period specified in paragraph 

(u)(2)(ii) or (u)(3), whichever is', 

applicable. ,'•..•;'.'.'• 

(v) Preconstruction Notice, (l) The •'. 

owner or operator of a proposed-;^ • %- ?\ 

construction activity subject to 40CFR?*. 

52.21 shall notify the Administrator in) "j 

writing of the-date on

 ;site<autttfoctioa) A->Cv^f 

will begin avle^.ao-daytihBMtt^^^AA^r. 

begins. •:.-.-; • .>''2»&&^tfr^AA:j$' 

(2) Theowner or. -jopem^i^iii'i^.y^^. 

proposed construction iacti^rttjt^Bto^'.k^p 

believes4hat the activity-fa rnillrftjijjjMfti ffi-* 

to 40 CIFRB2i^shaUiaatitf^*d^^J?|| 

Administrator, tt*udfcxqaotl&Hw 

woddbe•con8ideredb••:-..;^'^3T^i^rtb^iJ,>^J''• 

(i) A major modification-^""*

 tM*r

'"B^ ' 

sufficient con tea 

' reducn"»mttt«!^.>y«p-a'^.'s:»fit; 

(ii) AmajbrjBtationary.i 

reductions in the potential < 

the 8oureefthroughithe:e 

poUunonoontrol equ , . _. _ 

generally required under^haiS 

Implementation Plan^u 

8tandards^,fie^-fprd>i 

and 61. •-•rW'^V.^^iKc.i&.iseWSSis 

:•.'-•*,<?• 

• •".!'.'•» •j^A; 

:,-.* .'V, f-'., y'-\ 

J

i*. 

-.!«•-» 
51956 Federal Recister / W Wednesday. September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules 

, pi The notice required bv paraarapn 

p. p,::| shail contain: 

i The name and address of the 

.•wner of operator: 

iii) The nature and location of the 

stationary source or modification; 

(iii) The potential to emit and 

allowable emission rates of any 

poilutant reeuiated under the Act for ail 

emission units within the new or 

modified stationary source; 

(iv) A schedule of when each change 

in the emission of any pollutant 

regulated under the Act would occur; 

(v) Calculations of how any 

contemporaneous emission reductions 

identified pursuant to paragraph (v)(4) 

would adequately offset any emission 

increases for any pollutant regulated 

under the Act; 

(vi) A demonstration tiiat each such 

emission reduction identified pursuant 

to paragraph (v)(4) would be 

enforceable under the State 

Implementation Plan: and 

(vii) Any other information the 

Administrator reasonably needs to 

determine whether die requirements of 

paragraphs (j) through (u) of this section 

would apply. 

(4) The owner or operator who would 

accomplish contemporaneous emission 

reductions shall notify the 

Administrator at the time such 

reductions would occur, if credit is to be 

taken for such reductions pursuant to 

paragraph (v)(2)(i). 

(5) The notice required by paragraph 

(v)(4) shall contain: 

(i) The name and address of the 

owner or operator; 

(ii) The type and amount of each 

contemporaneous emission decrease 

and the affected emission unit. 

...(iii) A schedule of when each emission 

reduction would occur or has occurred; 

"ri'i'^^^lfiv) Any other information that the 

i.'^^Administrator reasonably needs to 

_/~pa'determine if the proposed emission 

H|lliKS rease 8 would be acceptable. 

'•-"•', '^^P-st?} Permit rescission. (1) Any permit 

'-^H.issued under 40 CFR 52.21 (1978), or any 

p -,^..amendment of those regulations, shall 

Hfeplr&miEdn in effect unless and until it

 < 

P-p;-V| p-expireninder paragraph(s) of this 

pj'-.'-'ffTAsection or is rescinded. 

Hi^HI^Th e owner or operator of a . * 

tetionary source issued a permit under J 

";CFR 52:21 (1978) may request that, the 

tting authority rescind the permit -

p (i) The application for rescission is 

/complete within 90 days after this 

paragraph is in effect and 

(ii) The owner or operator believes 

that this section would not apply to the 

stationary source or modification. 

• jj The permitting authority may 

approve a request submitted in 

accordance with paragraph (w)(2) if ho 

• irf'-ermines on tne b.isis of the 

•jpncation that this section would not 

r.ppiy to the stationary source or 

nodification. 

(4) Any authority which rescinds a 

permit under this paragraph shall give 

ihe public adequate notice of the 

rescission. Publication of an 

announcement of a rescission in a 

newspaper of general circulation in the 

affected region within 60 days of the 

rescission shall be considered adequate 

notice. 

2(b). In § 52.60 (AL). § 52.96 (AK), 

§ 52.144 (AZ), § 52.181 (AR), § 52.270 

(CA), § 52.343 (CO), § 52.383 (CT). 

§ 52.432 (DE), § 52.499 (DC), § 52.530 

(FL), § 52.581 (GA), § 52.632 (HI), 

§ 52.683 (ID), § 52.738 (IL), § 52.793 (IN), 

§ 52.833 (IA), § 52.884 (KS), § 52.931 

(KY), § 52.986 (LA), § 52.1029 (ME1. 

§ 52.1116 (MD). § 52.1165 (MA), § 52.1180 

(MI), § 52.1234 (MN). § 52.1280 (MS), 

§ 52.1339 (MO), § 52.1382 (MT), § 52.1436 

(NB). § 52.1485 (NV), § 52.1529 (NH). 

§ 52.1603 (NJ), § 52.1634 (NM). § 52.1689 

(NY), § 52.1778 (NC), § 52.1829 (ND), 

§ 52.1884 (OH), § 52.1929 (OK), § 52.1987 

(OR), § 52.2058 (PA). 52.2083 (RI). 

§ 52.2131 (SC), § 52.2178 (SD), § 52.2233 

(TN), § 52.2303 (TX), § 52.2346 (UT), 

§ 52.2380 (VT), § 52.2451 (VA), § 52.2497 

(WA), § 52.2528 (WV), § 52.2581 (WI), 

§ 52.2630 (WY), § 52.2676 (GU), § 52.2729 

(PR), § 52.2779 (VI), and § 52.2827 

(AmS), paragraph (b) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ ' Significant deterioration of 

air quality. 

**** * 

(b) Regulations for preventing . 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

The provisions of 52.21 (b) through (z) 

are hereby incorporated and made a 

part of the applicable state plan for the 

State of . 

Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling 

3. Section II of the Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling. 40 CFR Part 51. 

Appendix Appendix S, as revised 44 FR 

3283 (January 16,1979), is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

3.a. By revising section 13, subsection 

A, subsections (1) through (9) and (11) 

and by adding a new subsection 13 to 

read as follows: 

IL Initial screening analyserand p ...... . 

determination of applicable reguirements. 

A. Definitions. For purpose* ef this ruling: 

1. "Stationary source'* means any structure, 

building, faciltty or installation which emitsor may emit any air pollutant regulated under 

the Act 

2. '"Structure, building, or facility"' means, 

any grouping of poUtitanfcemitting activities 

which are located on one or more contiguous 

or adjacent properties and which are owned 

or operated by the same person (or by 

persons under common controi). 

o. "Installation" means an identifiable 

piece of process equipment. This definition 

does not apply to 40 CFR 51.24 or 52.21. 

4. "Potential to emit" means the capability 

at maximum design capacity to emit a 

pullutant alter the application of air pollution 

control equipment. Annual potential shall be 

based on the maximum annual rated capacity 

of the stationary source assuming continuous 

year round operation. Enforceable permit 

conditions on the type of materials 

combusted or processed may be used in 

determing the annual potential: Secondary 

emissions do not count in determining annual 

potential. Fugitive emissions also do not 

count, except with respect to the following 

stationary sources and then only to the 

extent quantifiable: 

(i) Coal cleaning plants: 

(ii) Kraft pulp mills; 

(iii) Portland cement plants: 

(iv) Primary zinc smeiters; 

(v) Iron and steel mill plants: 

(vi) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants; 

(vii) Primary copper smelters; 

(viii) Municipal incinerators; 

(ix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid 

plants; 

(x) Petroleum refineries: 

(xi) Lime plants; 

(xii) Phosphate rock processing plants; 

(xiii) Coke oven batteries; 

(xiv) Sulfur recovery plants; 

(xv) Carbon black plants; 

(xvi) Primary lead smelters; 

(xvii) Fuel conversion piants; 

(xviii) Sintering plants; j",'.' 

(xix) Secondary metal production plants; 

(xx) Chemical process plants: 

(xxi) Fossil fuel-fired boilers; 

(xxii) Petroleum storage and transfer units; 

( .xiii) Taconite ore processing plants; •• 

(xxiv) Glass fiber processing plants; 

(.xxv) Charcoal production plantB;... 

(xxvi) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric . 

plants; 

(xxvii) Any other stationary source 

category which, at the Ume of the 

applicability determination, is being , --•-•*-

regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act. .7 

5. "Major stationarysouTce'' meina«^^^ ^ 

stationary source which emits.'or has-lhis<^fijjfe 

potential to emit, 100 tons peryeaiT" ^^-L-

rm:

--

any air pollutant regulated underthep 

6.(i) "Major modification'-' means any^ 

physical change in or change in thai 

operation of a major stationary Muh-elJ 

series of contemporaneous physical*"' 

in or changes in the method of tp '"**" 

major stationary source; that^vo 

a significant net increase in that stati 

source's potential to emit the f 

which tbe itationary srauwisaufo 

would "make the ft\" " 

taking into account.! ^ 

increases in potential emissions it 

the stadooary Sfprcft JBclndingai 

construction, since Dt?«mbef21<1 

term "major mad&Baatim^Mffp** 

definition rfrmedifitatioB^ora? 

when used in the Act in reference;! 

stationary somaM%|^^^^ j 

(fl) A phystnd rtisnge i 

routine maintenance, repair and I 

'41 
P.37 

'dfrs i K»*«••*• t«*r i.i;-ios(i;i\. S'.'Dtcmbrr 5. 1979 / ProDOsed Rules 51957 

4 

35ft?**" 

?"*e*-"-

,.j '. Sr- OT -"-n ij:itrr,n:i^r: :*j.t**. \*,< j- w 

• -. v.".:. . :>•. .-a.json a; nil oruei' in v-ijj r aj:':.-..-i 

-'•••••.Ki:;s d. ,'-,1 tind jbl oi ihe tr.ersv iupj.y 

::u Environmental Coordination Act of itT-t 

>r any superseding legislation j. a prui;'j,-<-.:-

iinder the Power Plant and industrial Fuel 

L'sc Act of 1978 (or any superseding 

U'«islation). or by reason of a natural eas 

curtailment plan pursuant to the Federai 

Power Act: 

\b) Use of an alternative fuel or raw 

material, if prior to December 21.1976. the 

source was capable of accommodating such 

fuel or material: 

[c\ Use of an alternative fuel by reason of 

an order nr rule under section 125 of the Act: 

[d] Change in ownership of the stationary 

source: or 

[rA Use of refuse derived fuel generated 

from municipal solid waste. 

!iv| Chanyes are "contemporaneous" onlv 

J reductions occur after a notice is filed 

".irsuam to paragraph 1.4. and before 

j-'eration of the emission unit or units that 

•.viii result in emission increases. Also, to be 

"contemporaneous" all of the emission 

rt'ductions must be completed and 

-'ntorceabie under the state plan before 

operation of the emission unit or units that 

will result in any emission increase. Where 

;he new emission unit is a replacement for an 

emission unrt that is being shut down in order 

to provide the necessary reductions, the 

reviewing authority may allow up to 180 days 

for shakedown of the new emission unit 

before the emission unit is required to cease 

operation. 

(v) For a series of changes in a stationary 

source to satisfy the requirement of "no net 

increase."' all of the following must be 

satisfied: 

(a) All reductions and all increases must be 

for the same poilutant: 

(£) The sum of all decreases must be 

greater than or equal to the sum of ail 

increases: and 

Ic) On balance the air quality of the 

affected area must not be adversely 

impacted. 

(vi) In performing the calculation in 

paragraph (v) (to determine whether the sum 

of all decreases is greater than or equal to the 

sum of all increases) the following rules shall 

appiy: 

(a) Subject to the following adjustments. 

the size of an increase or decrease is 

determined by the difference between die 

potential to emit of the changed emission unit 

before and after the change. 

(b) If potential to emit for a changed 

emission unit was initially higher thai* 

allowable emissions, then no offset credit 

may be taken for decreasing potential to emit 

down to allowable emissions. 

(c) The requirements of sections IV.C.2 and 

4 of this ruling shall apply involving the 

amount of credit permissible for changing 

fuels and for replacing one hydrocarbon 

compound with another of leser reactivity. 

7. "Lowest achievable emission rate" 

means, for any source, that rate of emissions 

based on the following, whichever is more 

stringent 

-••;". ?!"inaep.t Rr:::!a.ai.7J :,:'i;.._.n 

::j:::i'C :C. che irnp-iT-jc :;•..<••.• 

. -••:,;L*-ri'r s'.ii'i'.'.'1,1'S nr • .;<"•:•'" •- •• 

• •*- •..:*..:;- source. cnic-ss :."c oivr.nr I'T 

••.i.n:'---.-j. r -i:*.: -j-.-.i'ocsi-J stationar y st•••.•-{..• 

- .-..J. 7.:ol.",:'..;S -J.;;: -.Ui:." iliTillbUC'-.o aiC UUt 

•"jr. :.:*•-: i-.:r.**ii'.r.: t.-.y.ission limitation 

•A '•.-.r.n .3 cii~n:sved in prucl.ee by such class or 

.•:.:tecorv of staiionnry source. 

Tnis term, appiied to a modification, means 

the iowest achievable emission rate lor the 

new or modified emission units within the 

stationary source, in no event shall the 

application of this term permit a proposed 

new or modified stationary source to emit 

any pollutant in excess of the amount 

allowable under applicable new source 

standards of performance. 

8. "Emission unit" means any part of a 

stationary source, which emits or has the 

potential to emu any pollutant regulated 

under the Act. 

9. "Reconstruction'' will be presumed to 

have taken place where the fixed capital cost 

of the new components exceeds 50 percent of 

the fixed capital of a comparaole entirely 

new stationary source. However, any final 

decision as to whether reconstruction has 

occurred shall be made in accordance with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(lH3). A 

reconstructed stationary source will be 

treated as a new stationary source for 

purposes of this ruling, except that use of an 

alternative fuel or raw material by reason of 

an order in effect under section 2(a) and (b) 

of the Energy Supply and Environmental 

Coordination Act of 1974 (or any superseding 

legislation), by reason of a natural gas 

curtailment plan in effect pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act. or by reason of an order 

or rule under section 125 of the Act. shall not 

be considered reconstruction. 

In determining lowest achievable emission 

rate for a reconstructed stationary source, the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4) shall be taken 

into account in assessing whether a new 

source performance standard is applicable to 

such stationary source. 

11. "Secondary emissions'" means 

emissions which occur or would occur as a 

result of die construction or operation of a 

major stationary source or major 

modification, but do not necessarily come 

from the major stationary source or major 

modification itself. For purposes of this 

ruling, secondary emissions must be specific 

and well defined, must be quantifiable, and 

must impact the same general nonattainment 

area as the stationary source or modification 

which causes the secondary emission. 

Secondary emissions may include, but not 

limited to: 

(i) Emissions irom ships or trains coming to 

or from die. stationary source or 

modifications: and 

(ii) Emissions from any off-site support 

source which would be constructed or would 

not otherwise increase its emissions. 

13. "Fugitive emissions" mean those which 

do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or 

other, functionally equivalent opening. 

3.b. By amending section II. subsection 

C by deleting footnote 2 and the second 

paragraph, and revising the first 

paragraph to read as follows: 

-*,-view nf Specified Sources for Ama 

:<:-jvtit-.-r. or Air Quality Impact. In 

.u:::uti. ,•••». reviewing authority must 

".PI mint* wnetner the maior stationary 

•i ••..;•(.(.• or mainr modihration would either (i) 

. c tionstiucted in an <irea designated in 40 

CrR 8!.300-81.356 as nonattainment for a 

pollutant lor which the stationary source or 

•modification is maior. or (ii) cause or 

contribute in any area to a violation of a 

NAAQS for a pollutant for which the 

stationary source or modification is major. A 

major stationary source or major 

modification that is major for volatile organic 

compounds is also major for ozone. 

3.c. By adding to section II. a new 

subsection H as follows: 

H. Modified Permits. (1) The owner or 

operator of a major stationary source or a 

major modification who obtains a permit 

under this ruling shall obtain a modified 

permit prior to beginning construction of any 

emission unit not authorized by the existing 

fiermit if; 

li) Prior to commencement of operation, the 

owner or operator proposes a change in 

design capacity of an emission unit or 

f mission units which wouid significantly 

increase net potential emissions but not as 

much as 100 tons per year or , 

(ii) After obtaining a permit under 40 CFR 

52.21 (1978) which limits the hours of 

operation, the owner or operator proposes to 

increase the hours of operation. 

(2) The owner or operator of a major 

stationary source or a major modification 

who obtains a permit under this ruling shall 

obtain a new permit prior to beginning any 

construction not authorized by the existing 

permit if, prior to commencement of 

operation, the owner or operator proposes. 

(i) An increase in design capacity of one or 

more emission units which would increase 

net potential emissions of the stationary 

source by 100 tons or more per year: or 

(ii) Fundamental changes in the nature of 

the process equipment used such that the 

potential emissions from die changed 

emission unit or emission units would be 100 

tons or more per year. 

(3) The application for permit modification 

shall include: 

(i) A demonstration tiiat the requirements 

of conditions 1 of section IV would be met, 

and 

(ii) A demonstration that the Increase in 

allowable emissions wouid not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in 

any air Quality Control Region. 

(4) The reviewing authority shall approve 

or deny the application within 80 days after 

requirements substantively equivalent to • 

paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of 40 CFR 51.11 

and section V of this ruling, have been met. 

3.e. By adding to section II, a new. 

subsection I as follows: .. 

1. Preconstruction Notice. 1. The owner or 

operator of a proposed construction activity 

subject to this ruling shall notify the 

reviewing authority in writing of the date onsite construction will begin at least BO day-r 

before it begins. • -

2. The owner or operator of a proposed 

construction activity, who believes that the 

activity is not subject to this ruling.shall also... 

notify the reviewing authority.- if such 

construction would be considered: -

p.ry. 
1958 r

ederat Register 44. No. "3 / Wednesuav. i-eotember 5. 1979 / Proposed Rules" 

• A maior modification but for suificient 

TunmDoraneous emission reuuctions: or 

.'; A muior stationarv source Out tor 

•uuctions in the ootentml emissions ot the 

jurce inrouen the application of air poliution 

.-ntroi eauipment not seneraily reauired 

:naer tne State Implementation Plan or any 

ppucaoie standaras as set forth in 40 CFR 

Parts 60 ana 61. 

P. The notice required by paragraph 1.2. 

shall contain: 

'*'*) The name and address of the owner or 

operator; 

(ii) The nature and location of the 

stationary source or modification: 

(iii) The potential to emit and allowable 

emission rates of any applicable pollutant for 

all emission units within the new or modified 

stationary source: 

(iv) A schedule of when each change in the 

emission rate of any applicable pollutant 

would occur: 

iv) Calculations of how any 

contemporaneous emission reductions 

identified pursuant to paragraph 1.4 would 

adequately offset anv emission increases for 

any poilutant reeuiated under the Act: 

[vi) A demonstration that each such 

-•mission reduction identified pursuant to 

paragraph 1.4 would be enforceable under the 

State implementation Plan: and 

(vii) Any oiner information the reviewing 

authority reasonably needs to determine 

whedier the requirements of this ruling wouid 

apply. 

4. The owner or operator who would 

accomplish contemporaneous emission 

reductions shall notify the reviewing 

authority at the time such reductions wouid 

. occur if credit is to be taken for such 

reductions pursuant to paragraph 1.2. 

' 5: The notice required by paragraph 1.4 

shall contain: (i)The name and address of the 

-wner or operator 

;i:) the type and amount of each 

-ontemporaneous emission decrease and the 

affected emission unit; 

(iii) A schedule of when each emission 

reduction wouid occur or has occurred: and 

(iv) Any other infonnaUon that the 

reviewing authority reasonably needs to 

determine u die proposed emission reduction 

would be.acceptable.. 

^&&By revising the first paragraph of 

section IVA to read as follows: 

A. Conditions for Approval. If the 

i alleging authority finds that the major 

stationary source or major modification 

wouiiffcither (i) be constructed in an area 

designated in 40 CFR 81.300-81.356 as 

nonattainment for a pollutant for which the 

stationary source or modification is major or 

(iftWotrid cause or contribute in any area to a 

violation of a NAAQS for a pollutant for 

wirfdrthe stationary sonic* or modification -

ia major, approval may be granted only if the 

fe^g^faCondiUons are met 

• 3.g, By deleting tha second sentence of 

of sectioB'ILC-p. 

State-Plans for Nonattainmaot Areas. 

4 40 CFR 51.18 Is proposed to Be 

amended by adding the following 

subsection (J):. " ' 

- 51.18 Review of new stationarv sources 

:na modifications. 

State ImDietnentation Plan 

revisions satisfying sections 172! bill'I 

.iv.a 173 of the Act must meet tne 

fallowing conditions: 

(1) Definitions. All such pians shall 

use the following definitions. Deviations 

from the following wording will be 

approved only if the state specifically 

demonstrates tiiat the submitted 

definition is more stringent or at least 

as stringent, in all respects as the 

corresponding definition below: 

(i) "Stationary source"—the definition 

set forth in section 1I.A.1. of appendix S 

to this part (the Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling). 

(ii)(a) Plans that show attainment by 

the deadline under section 172, and 

reasonable further progress in the 

interim, based exclusively on currently 

adopted, approved, and enforceable 

requirements, wiil be referrea to as 

"complete." None of the following plans 

qualify as complete: any plan where 

approval under Part D of Title I of die 

Act is conditioned on submission of 

additional material by the state; any 

plan containing state-adopted schedules 

for submission of additional material 

required under Part 0: and any pian 

where additional submissions are 

needed by July 1,1982. as required by 

section 129(c) of the 1977 amendments to 

the Act (note under 42 USC 7502). 

Complete plans must use either the 

definition of "building, structure, facility 

or installation" set forth in section 

51.24(b)(5), or (at the option of the state) 

the more stringent definitions required 

in subsection (ii)(6) for plans that are 

not complete. 

[b] Plans that are not complete must 

use the definitions of "building, 

structure, or facility," and of 

"installation." sat forth in sections 

11A.2 and 3. respectively, of appendix S 

to this point. 

(iii) "Potential to emit"—the definition 

set forth in section ILA4.-of appendix S 

to this part 

(iv) "Major stationary source"—the 

definition set forth in section ILA.5. of 

appendix S to this part. 

(v) "Modification- or "modified,"

 w 

when referring to a major stationary 

source—the definition set forth in 

section JL^^^^^adixS- W this part. 

[vi) "ft. :«uid"Exed 

•viii) "Fugitive emissions"—the 

,.

:

bfinition set forth in section 1I.A.13. of 

• ppendix S to this part. 

pxi Emission unit"—the definition 

-HI forth in section II.A.8. of aopendix S 

:n this part. 

ix) "Allowable emissions'—the 

definition set forth in section II.A.6. of 

appendix S to this part. 

(2) Preconstuction Notice. The plan 

shall provide that: 

(i) The owner or operator of a major 

stationary source or major modification 

shall notify the reviewing authority in 

writing of the date on-site construction 

will begin at least 90 days before it 

begins. 

(ii) The owner or operator of a 

proposed construction activity, who 

believes that the activity is not subject 

to regulations developed pursuant to. 

sections 172(b)(8) and 173 of the Act and 

this section 51.18(j) shall also so notify 

the reviewing authority, if such 

construction would be considered: 

[a) A major modification but for 

sufficient contemporaneous emission, 

reductions: or 

[b)A major stationary source but for- . 

reductions in the potential emissions of 

the source through the application of air -

pollution control equipment not 

generally required under the StatedImplementation Plan or any applicable 

standards £8 set forth in 40 CFR Parts W • 

and 81. 

(iii) The notice required by paragraph 7 

(j).2)(ii) shall contain: 

(a) The name and address of the 

owner or operator 

(o) The nature and location of the 

source or modification; 

[c) The potential of the new or 

modified stationary source and 

allowable emission rates of the 

applicable pollutant for all emission 

units within die stationary source: 

[d) A schedule of when each change 

in the emissions of the nonattainment..-

pollutant would occur:. 2-.2i-L*k 

[e) Calculations of how any.

 ; ; .r'-iiLL. 

contemporaneous amission reductions--—p: 

identified pursuant to paragraph > p - ^ 

(j)(2)(iv) would adetrrtatelyoffsettey'r--

emission increases forth* •.-' .".'.".• ••:--**.?<:>•.--' . ;.pj; 

, nonattainment poltetant:*: •'-•"'•v5*

ft*-',^;

"f •-•••;• ?*r^i 

(/) A demonstratioBthateachsut** ' "'-"MA-Si 

emission redaeHatfldfetifMd1?**^ 

to paragr^flpfwy ^ P^isg 

enforraabfofinaiS-teBtate.^^^ 

Implemimiin^^ ' ''

 iJ 5 

Wherev 

capital tx»t''--th»jdefinitioe» set forth in whether tlto;is^twa*:rtf, 

•PffnllRi'if f '"a^LLBB-^A^fe^V, W r ^fev •va^VA^a^VT^^" %a v^%- -i**1- - _^.*_*___ - *tf a ^r*^a-T*iM MBV ^* •****•• v sectioirff, A. ft*and tOof appendix S to 

thispart-^^^iiw *"'p-:; 

(vif) "Secondary emissions"—tha 

definition sat forth in section HA.11. of 

appendix 3 to this part ,i:.. 

• [Py)'iiie,own«r( -^.-^-^-r--.. 

accomplish-oantonporBneaaaeiiBi^^ 

reductionaahall notify tha'nvaHnv^g^*^^^' 

authorifrjaitotiawagcfcraduE^ 

Pt'-" 

:

:-£$£tf% 

t- •••'•'s:v*« 

•••i'aJ'fWS 
P.39 

'ederai Register "3 / Wednesday, September 5. 1979 / Proposed Rule9 51959 

§?*•< 

W*2.-. 

.vouia occur. :: creait :<• to be lateen tor 

i.ic.ri reductions pursuant to paraaraprt 

'.:*2){2i\ri). 

•••'j The notice requirea by paragraph 

;:i(2)(iv) snail contain: 

,a":j The name and address of the 

owner or operator; 

;ip) The type and amount of each 

.ontemporaneous emission decrease 

i n a the affected emission unit: 

*c) A schedule of when each emission 

reduction would occur or has occurred; 

and 

[d) Any other infonnation that the 

reviewing authority reasonably needs to 

determine if the proposed emission 

decreases would be acceptable. 

[3) A preconstruction review program, 

adopted to satisfy the requirements of 

sections 172(b)(6) and 173 for any area 

designated'as nonattainment for any 

national ambient air quality standard 

ar.der 40 CFR 81.30O-81.356. shall appiy 

to any new or modified major stationary 

source that is major for the poilutant for 

which the area is designated 

nonattainment. if die stationary source 

or modification would either (i) locate in 

the designated nonattainment area; or 

; ii) cause or contribute to a violation of 

the ambient standard within the 

designated nonattainment area. A new 

or modified major stationary source that 

is major for volatile organic compounds 

is also major for ozone. 

Restrictions on Construction for 

Nonattainment Areas 

5. It is proposed tiiat 40 CFR 52.24(e), 

which wa s proposed at 44 FR 38585 (July 

2.1979), be added to read as set forth in 

the earlier proposal, except that the first 

sentence would read as follows: 

§ 52.24 Statutory restriction on new 

stationary sources. 

**** * 

(e) For any area designated as - • 

nonattainment for any national ambient 

air quality standard, the restrictions in' 

paragraphs (a) and (b) shall apply to any 

fg-^new or modified major stationary source 

""" that is major for the pollutant for which 

the area is designated nonattainment, il 

--the stationary source or modification, : 

would either (1) be constructed in the — 

;

 designated nonattainment area; or (2) 

cause or contribute to a violation of the c 

' ambient standard within the designated" 

nonattainment area. A ne w or modified 

ajor stationary source that is major for 

"Volatile organic compounds is also .... 

major for ozone. H 

6. It is proposed diet 40 CFR 52.24.as . 

added at 44 FR 38473 (July 2.1879), be 

..^amended byaddingnewparagraphs (f). 

and (g) to read a s follows: 

it] The following definitions shall 

•.opiy under this snction: 

! I "Stationary source '—'he definition 

.set forth in section II.A.l of 40 CFR Part 

31, appendix S (the "offset ruling). 

!2) "Building, structure, or facility," 

and "installation"—<he definitions set 

forth in sections II.A.2 and 3. 

respectively, of the offset ruling. 

(3) "Potential to emit"—the definition 

set forth in section II.A.4 of the offset 

ruling. 

(4) "Major stationary source"—(he 

definition set forth in section II.A.5 of 

the offset ruling. 

(5) "Modification" or "modified", as 

used in this section with reference to a 

major stationary source, means any 

physical change in or change in the 

method of operation of a major 

stationary source that would result in a 

significant increase in that stationary 

source's potential to emit the poilutant 

for which the stationary source is major, 

without regard to any other changes in 

or changes in the method of operation of 

the major stationary source (or that 

wouid make the stationary source 

major, taking into account all 

accumulated net increases in potential 

emissions occurring at the stationary 

source, including any initial 

construction, since December 21,1976). 

The additional conditions set forth in 

sections II.A.6(ii) and (iii) of the offset 

ruling shall apply under this definition. 

(6) "Reconstruction" and "fixed 

capital cost"—the definitions set forth in 

sections II.A.9 and 10 of the offset ruling. 

(7) "Fugitive emissions"—the 

definition set forth in section II.A.13 of 

the offset ruling. 

(8) "Emission unit"—the definition set 

forth in section D.A.8 of the offset ruling. 

(9) "Allowable emissions"—the 

. definition set forth in section II.A.6 of 

the offset ruling. 

(g) Preconstruction Notice. (1) The 

owner or operator of a proposed 

construction activity, who believes that 

the activity is not subject to paragraphs 

(a) or (b) of this section, shall notify the 

Administrator, if such construction 

would be considered: 

(i) A major stationary source but for 

reductions in the potential, emissions of 

the.source through the application of air 

pollution control equipment not 

generally required under the £tat e -

Implementation Plan or any applicable 

standards as set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 

.and61. • • . . / ' 'rAiy-

(2) The notice required by paragraph __;' 

(g)(1) shall contain: 

(ij The name and address of die 

owne r on operator; • 

(ii) The nature and location of die 

stationary source or modification; 

: di) The potential to emit and 

allowable emission rates of the 

nonattainment pollutant(s) for all 

omission units within the new or 

modified stationary source: 

(iv) A schedule of when such change 

in the emission of the nonattainment 

pollutant(s) would occur; 

(v) Any other information the 

Administrator reasonably needs to 

determine whether the restrictions of- -

paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section 

would apply. 

[FR Doc 79-27180 Filed 9-4-78: 8:45 «m| 

aituNo CODE eseo-oi-M 

' "•'•'•'•K'^.';*g» 

• • - .".i*y«\(*.''• 05 3 

v.-. • •py'v eSijyu.'ii/a&S^ti 

.• : •. . • V.aP.i*<!aa^J 

> v..:..;,'"- •'-.•.--s.-fe-V}; 

HHH-« ^