p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 210 ) ll-J- 3

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

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

•*- ) \~L



## II-J- 3

NOTE : Part s o f thi s ite mar e no t legible

.



# IWI'GT E 0 V , 1 .'jr —



## ' ::! 

## . i | JU N I 2 199

1 IH J 

## j

:P A A: R DOC. 4P. 3'*,'.

- t

. -"-a " a-i ' •-•-if^ a

-".?.',*. r r ^ . •.'•Jy-j ; * T.iSji'fliaSta 4 '* ^

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

### 1 . 3 

## Wednesda

y Septembe r5 , 1979

XZ 

# XiMLL-f"

Par t I V 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y i s 

# I

^•ajL.a ? 

## Requirements fo r Preparation , Adoption , an d Submitta l o f Stat e Implementatio n Plans ; Approva l an d Promulgation , o f Stat e implementatio n Plan s

:'-• • • .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:l

l Zf*i\£?;-&ij0&$ .r/AA^AAv&M&l

1

. . -.V,^.

- ••fJlVV A 1 • " * - v^.r-;Bi^ilW**BSHK S ...•^...-...•-,iy^|g^^ | 

## :LA^L'

y 

## -";:LLV^^^M

•••••• • • .;• ' - • w^M^ rP. 4

5192 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 . No . 17 3 /

Wednesday . Sentembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y •CF R Part s 5 1 an d 52 ]

--: L 1300-6 ) Requirement s fo r Preparation

. Adoption , an d Submitta l o f SIP's ; Approva l an d Promulgatio n o f Stat e Implementatio n Plan s AOENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . ACTION : Propose d Rules . SUMMARY

: EP A propose s t o amen d it s regulations fo r th e preventio n o f significan tdeterioratio n 4 0 CF R51.24 , 523 1 (1978 ) i n respons e t o a cour t decisio n tha toverturne d thos e regulation s i n majo r respects . EP A als o propose s change s t o it s regulation s

. affectin g ne w sourc e revie w i n nonattainmen tareas , includin g restrictions o n furthe r majo r sourc e §i? . growth an d requirement s unde r EPA' s

- Emissio n Offse tInterpretativ e Ruling , 4 0 I--ICP RPar t5 1 App . S , an d sectio n 17 3 o f Tth e Ac tt o confor m thos e rule s t o th e jQOUr tdecision . (.T0ATE8 : Th e deadlin e fo r submittin g (^writte n comment s i s Octobe r 5.1979 .

: Comments. Comment s I b e sen t(i n triplicat e i f possible ) ntra l Docke tSectio n (A-130) , [ton. D.C . Atten : Docke tNo . A - ;et I n accordanc e wit h sectio n fd ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . 4 2 U.S.C . d) , EP A ha s establishe d a docke t li s rulemaking . Itbear s Docke tNo . i . Th e docke ti s a n organize d an d t e fil e o f al l significan t atio n submitte d t o o r otherwis e lere d b y EP

A durin g thi s ,

. Th e content s o f

th e docke t jerv c a s th e recor d :- tth e cas e o f revie w unde r sectio n 307(b ) o f 42-U.S.C . 7607(b) . Th e docke ti s hi e fo r publi c inspectio n and betwee n 8 a.m . an d 4 p.m. , through Friday , a tEPA' s Docke tSection , Roo m 2903B . A ibl e fe e ma y b e charge d fo r

MHOS : EP A intend s t o hol d Baring s o n th e proposal s i n thi s i Septembe r i n Sa n Francisco , 'a , an d Washington , D.C . Th e . r a an d place s wil l b e ' (fndu e Course . I INFORMATIO

N CONTACT: Lttna . Standard s ^,,. , itio h Branc h (MD-15) , Offic e it y Plannin g an d Standards . - . - (^Triangl e Park , N.C . 27711,919/- - 3UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Outlin e I . Background : A . Preventio

n o f Significan

tDeterioration . B . Requirement

s Relatin g t o Nonattainmen

t

' II . Highlights . III . Transition : A . PS D Par t5 2 Regulations . B. Nonattainmen

tRegulations . C . PS D an d Nonattainmen

tSI P Revisions . IV . Potentia l T o Emit . V . Fifty-To n Exemption . VI . Fugitiv e Emissions . VII . Fugitiv e Dus tExemption. VIII . Source/Facility/Installation : A . Definition o

f Source . B . Source s Subjec

tt o PS D Requirements . C. Source s Subjec

tt o Nonattainmen

t Requirements . D . Summary

. IX . Modification : A . N o Ne tIncrease . B . Restrictions o

n Construction . C . Accumulation . X . "D e Minimis " Exemptions . XI . Geographic Applicability : A . Designate d Nonattainmen tAreas . B . Designate d Clea

n Areas . C. VO C Sources . D . Interstat

e Pollution . XII . Pollutan tApplicability . XIII . Baselin e Concentration : XIV . BestAvailabl e Contro

l Technology . XV . Ambien tMonitoring. XVI . Notification . XVII . PS D SI P Revisions : A . Equivalen

tStat e Programs. B . Baselin e Area . C . State Monitorin

g Exemption . XVH L AddiUona

i Issues : A . Innovative Contro

l Technology . B. Modifie d Permits . C . Non-profi

tInstitutions . D . Portable Facilities . E . Secondar

y Emissions . F . Economic impac

tAssessment . G . Comments . I . Backgroun d A . Prevention of

Significant Deterioration. I n 1974 , EP A promulgate d regulation s t o preven temission s o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO* ) an d particulat e matte r (PM ) from significantl y deterioratin g ai r qualit y i n area s wher e concentration s o f

thos e pollutant s wer e lowe r tha n th e applicabl e nationa l ambien tai r qualit y standard s (NAAQS) . 3 9 F R4251 0 (codifie d a t4 0 CF R523 1 (1977J) . EP A mad e thos e regulation s par t o f th e Stat e Implementatio n Pla n (SIP) . Th e preventio n o f

significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) regulation s — • r -prohibite d th e constructio n o f an y ne w s sourc e o r modificatio n i n certain categories , unles s EP A o r a delegat e - stat e ha d issue d a permi tevidencing : . thatth e sourc e o r modificatio n woul d 2 appl y "bes tavailabl e contro l " technology " (BACT ) fo r SO * an d PM ; . an d tha temission s o f

thos e pollutants",- ; fro m th e sourc e o r modificatio n woul d H no tcaus e significan tdeterioratio n o f ai r quaiit y i n an y area . O n Augus t7.1977 . th e Presiden t signe d th e Clea n Ai r Ac tAmendment s o f 1977 (197 7 Amendments ! int o law . Pub . L . No . 9595 . 9 1 Stat . 685 . Thos e amendment s establishe d a ne w se to f PS D requirement s a s PartC o f Titl e I o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t(Act) . See Section s 160-169 . 4 2 U.S.C . 7470-79 . Th e ne w requirement s follo w th e outlin e o f th e ol d regulations , bu tar e mor e elaborat e an d i n man y way s mor e stringent . Th e 197 7 Amendment s als o directe d tha t eac h SI P wa s t o contai n th e ne w requirements . See Section s 161 . 110(a)(2)(D ) an d (J) . 4 2 U.S.C . 7471 , 7410(a)(2)(D ) an d (J) . I n respons e t o tha tmandate . EP A promulgate d tw o set s o f PS D regulation s o n Jun e 19,1978 . On e se tspecifie d th e minimu m requirement s tha ta PS D SI P revisio n woul d hav e t o contai n i n orde r t o warran tEP

A approval . 4 3 F

R2638 0 [codifie d a t4 0 CF

R51.2 4 (1978) ) (hereinafter , th e "Par

t5 1 regulations") . Th e othe r se tcomprehensivel y amende d th e ol d PS D regulation s an d incorporate d int o the m th e ne w PS D requirements . 4 3 F

R2638 8 (codifie d a t4 0 CF R52.2 1 (1978 ) (hereinafter , th e "Par t 5 2 regulations")) . EPA intende d tha t unti l i tha d approve d a PS D SIP . revision ' fo r a state , th e permittin g o f ne w source s an d modification s t o b e constructe d i n it s clea n area s woul d continu e unde r th e ne w Par t5 2 regulations . The-Unite d State s Cour to f

Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a Circui tsubsequentl y affirme d tha tapproach . Citizens To Save SpencerCounty v . EPA. 1 2 ER C 196 1 (Marc h 27.1979) . Man y industria l an d environmenta l group s petitione d th e sam e cour tfo r revie w o f

th e substantiv e provision s o f bot h th e Par t5 1 an d Par t5 2 regulations . O n Jun e 18,1979 , th e cour tissuecr a decisio n tha tuphel d som e o f thos e provision s an d overturne d others . Alabama PowerCompany v . Costle, 1 3 ' ER C 1225 . I n it s opinio n th e cour tmerel y summarize d it s rulings , bu tpromise d - •." ; supplemental , comprehensiv e opinion s - • i n du e course , probabl y b y '.'the en d o f _'•'"• thi s summer. " Id: a t122 7 n.7 . Th e 'court- : J als o invite d th e partie s t o file petMons. ; - : fo r reconsideration , severa l o f which •-'.A"_ ' Were filed but-hav e no tye tbee n actei4fj. ; . upon . I n a n orde r tha t^crcompanl^a^he^ r %

- summar y opinion , th e court3tajfea*^fi^^; ^ effec to f it s decisio n unti l i tha d issued^,.'" ! . - >i £ th e supplementa l opinions . TTie : |>uijlii(i ^ o f thi s procedure , tte.coiirtl^fed^f^iS^^'^% ^ .wasJ , [ta;eiubIeERfYt.^prt-^ ^ a s possibl e t o commenc e rulemakin g or i othe r proceeding s necessar y to* ' HS^iij , H promulgat e thos e revision s i n th4?POT^S|^; S regulation s require d b y (th e eourt's£-p#^^j^ia* ^ §

•-, • -a ' i'.jg W

- - "'''3'rajj |

a " -^ ^ —"a^jJajrtS S ';*-s£$j£§ S 

# .H^fl- fP. 5

federa l Registe r / 44

. 173 / Wednesday . Septembe r 5 , 107 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 5192 5 t i -:iings , an d t o tak e otho r pruden tact;o n i o effectuat

e congressiona

l policies. " Id.

.. i 1227. 3 v this notice , EP

A i s beginnin

g th e proces s th

e cour tha d i n mind. I tis her e proposin g variou s amendment

s t o th e PS D regulations . Som

e o f thos e amendment

s woul d replace th

e provision s rejecte d by the court ; other s would ad d entirely new provision s t o supplemen

tth e replacementprovisions . Eac h o f the proposal s i s discusse d i n detail in materia

l which follow s thi s backgroun

d section . B . Requirements Relating to Nonattainment

Areas. Th

e onl y regulations befor

e the cour tin Alabama Powerar e EPA' s PS

D regulations . The

y ar e therefor e the onl y regulations directly affected b

y the court' s decision . However , several statutor y definition s an d other'concept

s addresse d i

n Alabama Powerar

e als o relevan

tt o th e statutor y requirement

s fo r area s where pollution exceed s the nationa l ambien t ai r Qualit y standard s (nonattainmen t areas) . B y thi s notice , EP

A i s proposing change s t o its regulations fo

r nonattainmen

tareas , t o confor m the regulations t

o the decision s i n Alabama Power. Ther e ar e thre e separat e set s o f nonattainmen

trequirement

s affecting the revie w o f

ne w o r modified majo

r stationar y sources , eac h applicabl e unde r a differen

tse tof circumstances . Firs tbefor

e Jul y 1,1970 , EPA' s Emissio n Offse tInterpretative Rulin

g (offset ruling ) governe d ne w constructio n tha t woul d caus e o r contribut

e t o a violatio n o f a standard . Th e offsetrulin g wil l stil l b e effectiv e i n th e futur

e bu tonl y i n a few . limited instances . The current , revise d offse

trulin g wa s publishe d b y EP A o n Januar

y 16.1978.4 4 F

R3274 . Second , afte

r Jun e 30,1979 . state plan s whic h s&tisf y th e requirements-o

f Par tD , Titl e I , o f th e Ac t(4 2 yS C 750 1 an d . following ) are t o Wi n effec tfor airea s . designate d a s nonattahimentarea s - unde r sectio n 107(d) o f

th e ac t4 2 U.S.C . 7407(d).H»Ahaspoblishedsavera l ~ notice s aboutwha tconstitute s e n acceptabl e Par

tD plan revision. £e e 4 8 :•' . • F R2167 3 (Ma y 19,1978) , 4

4 F R8311 - (Februar y 9,1979) . 4 4 F

R20372 (Apri

l 4 , 1979) . 4 4 F

R2524 3 (April 80,19 % 4 4 F

R 3858 3 (Jul y 2.1979) . I

n situation s Wher

e a Par tD pla n waa no tdueby-Jolyil^3ft79, v th e offsetrulingjConttoae ttoeppfy(«.j-v

. where a violation-Of

an 'uabim^if-r2--}A r standar d i a dfecoveraiMn a designated * . attainmentarea , o r Whereihedaadline ^ fo r a Par tD pla n for *tecoodaty^>' v standar d i s po»tponri-bnde r sectto n 110(b)o f th e Ac t^OACr4l0fbJ) . Finally , for area s wher e Par tD plan s ar e du e bu tWhCT

e th e pjatt«itft«f

doe»- > no tsatisf y PartDori s no tcarrie d ou tin- ' .-.ccordanc e wit h Par tD . th e Ac ti n .•i.e.ions 110(a)(2)(I

) an d 173(4 ) provides rb r rastrictions o

n maior ne w source •instruction . 4

2 U.S.C . 7410(a),2){I

) an d ."503(4) . O n Jul y 2,1979 . EP

A issue a a rulin g implementing thi s restriction , an a invited commen

to n additiona

l language t o clarif y ho w th e statutor y restriction wil l apply . 4

4 F R38471 . 38583 . (Jul

y 2 . 1979) , 4 4 F R42195 , 4224

8 (Jul y 19.1979) . Th e ke y aspec to

f thes e nonattainmen

trequirement

s tha ti s affected b y Alabama Powerinvolve s the definition o

f th e ne w and modified stationar y source s tha

tare subjectt

o stringen tpreconstructio n permittin g conditions . I

n th e Januar y 16.197 9 revisio n t o the offsetruling, EP

A adopted virtually the sam e definitions o f "majo r source " an

d "majo r modification " a s wer e adopte d in th e PS D regulation s and were overturne d in Alabama Power. EP

A state d i n the preamble t

o th e offsetrulin

g tha tthos e definitions were als o applicabl e t o stat e permittin g program

s require d unde r Par t D. EP A als o ruled tha

tth e definition s appl y t o th e prohibition o

n constructio n unde r sectio n 110(a)(2)(I

) (excep ttha

t the cut-off

s t o limitrevie w o

f source s wit h lo w allowabl e emission s d o not appl y t o sectio n 110(a)(2)(I)) . 4

4 F Ra t 327 6 (col . 1) . Althoug h th e definition s wer e adopte d a s fina l actio n i n the offsetruling , EP

A invite d additional commen t Th e statutor y languag e o n which the "majo r source " and "majo

r modification " definition s wer e base d i s ver y similar fo

r the nonattainment program s a s fo r PSD , and th e reasonin g i n th e Jun e IB Alabama Powerdecisio n generall y appears t

o b e applicabl e t

o both . Th e comment

s o n the nonattainmentdefinition s invite d i n th e Januar y 1 6 notic e hav e therefor

e bee n rendere a infcievant-b y th e cour t decision , an d EP

A is'no w proposin g ne w definitions . • Thos e section s o f

thi s preambl e which relate t o th e definition s o f ''majo r source " an d "majo

r modification " therefor e discus s nonattainment• . requirement

s a a wel l a s th e PS D regulations. Wher

e th e concept s an d geai s o f nonattainmen tan d 4-SD differ , . w e are proposin g sn d see k commento n alternativ e approache s consisten twit h - • • th e distinctiv e goal s o f

each , tn addition . • th e discussio n otr^Geographi c -..~.s.v . aAppU(ibili ^ addresse s the ' - - •-..• • nonattainmentrequirements; Th e cour t di d no tdirectl y addres s the - >:.-.-" • nonattainmentrequirement* aeEP A offer s her e tw o altemativ e approache s ••.-•• • fo r comment. . Becaus e of

th e importance of resolvin g thes e question s expeditiously . ' - today' s proposa

l doe s no thav e a n •accompanyin g economi c impac

t evaluation . Suc

h a n evaluatio n will b e performe d an d b e mad e availabl e fo

r publi c commen tprio r t o promulgation. Th e discussio n whic

h follow s tirs

t highlight s th e proposed PS

D an d nonattainmen

tchange s an

d the n focuse s i n detail o n each o f them. II . Highlight

s A . Proposed

Regulations Affecting - New Source Review in Both Nonattainment

and PSD Areas: 1 . Potential

to Emit Th e regulation s proposed toda

y would.agai n mak

e majo r constructio n project

s subjectt

o new source revie w (NSR

) o n the basi s of increase d potential t

o emi tUnder th e proposa l th e annua l emissio n potentia

l o f a source woul d b e determined afte r th e applicatio n o

f ai r pollutio n control s rathe r tha n befor e a s wa s generall y . don e unde r the existin g regulations . I n calculatin g annua

l potential emission s o f a source , maximu

m "tvnift l rated capacity , year-roun

d hour a o f operation , an d an y enforceabl e permi

tconditions . o n th e typ e o f material s combuste d o

r processe d wil l b e used. . 2 . Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive , emissions , a s proposed , mean s thos e - emission s released direcd y int o th e - atmosphere withoutpassin g throug h a -- . stack , chimney , ven to r othe r - ' ' . ' functionally equivalen topening . Fugitive' : emission s are propose d no tt o b e considere d whe n determining th e annual'"' - emission s potentia

l of a stationary source excep twhe n such »H*..*.mM-t * . . com e fro m specifie d industr

y types . 3 . Source: Source means.an y building;. . structure , facility , o r installatio n whic h V emits o r ma

y emitan y regulate d , . . pollutant. "Building

, structiua , facilit

y dr. . installation " mean s plan tJinPS D areas - .'•.

. an d i n nonattainmentareaf«3tcaptv; Y .,\j \ • wher e di e growt

h prohibition s wyul d /; . Lapply o r wheren o adeqi«i|«SW^|(Hf^r *

emissio n uni twithi n the«i!^t£pc4hfSiij0-c ; nonattainmen trevie w aitwatf y i|iari?lutf i manner i n whic h source i $C """" place s a vita l rolein . NSRwoul d apply.- ; Wten i define d i change s atmajo

r i woul d b e iwbje(-taa«nM)ogr i (se e betow^<2,i^.?a».tfr" ' 4. MajorMpdifi woul d sub^rtchange»faV ( operatibnofa-io-tj i t o NSRIohl

y if^IJ^- I increas e in-tiw i pollutantfo r wftkhr*the

i woul d occur , o r (2 ) < increase s ta th e po t pollutantregulated iwdO

T tM&St.

j '.Vf

'>V* SP. 6

5192 6 Federa l Registe r / 14

. No

. .'ednesdav

. Sentembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s

at th e same sourc e afte

r th e .-,ppiic:-b-: e NS Rti ' •'. o f concern tha

t mtotal woui d P\ce.. ' ..'i e applicabl e 100/250-to n •hresi

. .id

. Th e proposal , unkke tn e existin g regulations , woul d allo w certai n emissio n reduction s occurrin g at th e sam e sourc e t

o offse t any increase s du e t o propose d constructio n an d avoi d review

. I f asourc e ha s th e potential to emit more than i

t i s legall y allowe d t

o emit , no offse tcreditcoul d b e taken b y a sourc e fo r reducin g its potentia

l emission s down t

o th e allowe d level . . 5. No Tiered

Review: Unde

r th e existin g regulations , only thos e source s an d modifications whic

h have larg

e uncontrolled emissio n potentia l an d als o increase d allowabl e emission s equa l t o -;ate r tha n 5 0 ton s pe r yea r woul d r :eiv e a detaile d review . All majo r sources an

d majo r modification s ar

e now full y covere d a s discusse d elsewhere . 6

. Preconstruction Notice: Unde r the propose d regulations , a

n owne r o r operato r o f certain source s woul d b e required-t o give written preconstructio n notice t o the applicabl e reviewin g authorit y i n lieu o f getting a permit

. Thi s requiremen

twoul d apply t

o (1 ) construction notqualifying a s majo r modifications du

e t o sufficientoffsettin g •I'emissio n reductions , (2 ) emissio n ^"reduction s t

o b e use d fo

r futur e offse t AA credi ti n (1) , and (3

) constructio n not ^qualifying a s majo

r stationar

y source s sfedu e t o applicatio n o

f ai r pollutio n f& P Control s notgenerally require

d b y th e 0: SIP o r 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 and 81 . The ' H notice woul d contai n a schedul e o f th e iA applicable emission s change s and a ^.demonstratio n thatthe propose d reductions ar

e o r woul d b e sufficient rA an d enforceable . ArB . Proposed

Changes Specific to •2 ', Nonattainment

Requirements. -1 . MajorModification: The sam e basi c ^definitiona l structur

e fo r '-major ' |'Jstationar

y source " and "majo

r ; ^•modification " i s bein g propose d fo r bot h Ipijbpattainmentrequirement s an d PS D |vt^fKtements . Th

e principa l differenc e i s j£jtpeextea tt o which emissio n decrease s Y^-nia y b e use d t

o offse tincrease s a tth e gKim e major stationary sourc e to - - - ^determin e whethe r thesource.isj- - ;|<2^Bodified " and needaapennit- . 2S§ ^ Emissions Baseline-for^~>- - ' • ~. "*""" " tificatiomThe propose d regulations ddgenerally-subjec ta changea ta " ia^ajdrsoiirc e t o rtroe w ca^if*'-. . • ^significan

tne tincreas e intheFpotentia l tgnr ta nonattalnnw-ntpoHotBn tfo r • c h tb e sourc e isniajoifrAtBexceptian patha i n- J creditmay-be-takenlo r •., . flriedncin g thos e potentia l emission* ^ - -^whic h are greate r tha n allowabl e '* " " domrJ

n nonattainmentaiea* * - i th e offse truling o r Par

tD NS R -

. otm i cicoiy

. the applicabl e S! P woui d •:'."*.ernii v aci'in e tn e allowabl e emission s •.'.'.i-pi'.n e to r reductio n credit , b

. 2*.:bbie" Exemotior.: Th e us e o

f offset s u.sicie th e sam e sourc e i s calle d th e bubble. " EP

A propose s us e o

f the definitio n o

f "source " (se e above ) t

o limit th e us e o f th e bubbl e unae r nonattainmen t

requirement s i

n th e followin g respects : i

. Par t D SIP s tha tinclud e al l requirement

s neede d t

o assure reasonabl e furthe

r progres s and attainmen t

by th e deadlin e unde

r sectio n 17 2 an d tha tar e bein g carrie

d ou t nee d notrestric t

th e us e o f a plantwid e bubble , th e sam e a s unde r th e PS D proposal

. ii

. Part D SIP s tha t

d o no t mee t th e requirement s specifie d mus t limi t us e o f th e bubble by includin g a definitio n o f "installation " a s a n identifiabl e piec e o f proces s equipment

. Ne w o r modifie d major-sourc e installation s woul d requir e NS Rpermit s regardles s o

f an y offsettin g emissio n reduction s elsewher e in th e facility

. A change o

r a serie s o

f change s tha tdo notresulti n a significan t ne t increas e in th

e installation' s potentia

l t o emit , an d do notconstitut

e a reconstructio n o

f th e installation , wil l notb e subjectt

o NS Rpermittin

g requirements . iii . Th e offsetrulin

g i s proposed t

o als o includ e a definitio n o f "installation " wit h the effec

tdescribe d in paragrap

h ii . iv . The restrictio n o n constructio n fo r inadequat e Par tD SIP s (or failure-t

o carr y ou tdi e same ) unde

r sectio n 110(a)(2)(l ) i s propose d t

o includ e a definitio n o

f "installation" . However , unlike the situatio n describe d in paragrap h ii , n o bubble wil l apply , and an y significantincreas e in the nonattainmentpollutantfo r whic h the source i s majo

r woul d b e subject . 2

. Regulatory Transition: EP A intend s t o promulgat

e regulation s withi n 90 day s after issuanc e o

f th e final Alabama Poweropinio n b y th e U.S . Cour to f Appeals . Suc

h changes , woul d generall y appl y t o an y futur e permittin

g situation s afte r promulgation , bu

tsource s •

' ~ compelle d t

o mee tmor

e restrictive requirements under th e ol d regulations ma y appl y t d th e applicabl e permitting authorit y t o reevaluate such requirements . A-chang e i n e-permi t which woul d mak

e th e SI P n o longe r adequate t o demonstrat

e attainment woul d requir

e a n accompanyin g $IP .;. . revisio n t o ensur e attainmentwoul d no t b e jeopardized . Th e propose d change s als o affecthow; ' stat e adopte d NSRprogram s ma y b e approve d fo r designate d nonattainmen t areas . EP A generall y propose s to -^ approv e any stat e planihVwotd d mee t th e existin g SI

P approva

l eri*tej-ia ^ th e . .-.riteriapropose d today

. Restriction s o n

j.-owt h woul d b e implemente d usin g th e .•\istin g definition s affectin g sourc e applicabilit

y unti l today' s regulation s -•r e promulgated

. :!

. Geographic Applicability: Th e propose d regulation s woui d appl y th e Applicable nonattainmen t

NS R requirement s throughou t

th e are a designate d a s nonattainment

. Th e existin g regulation s no w allo w a sourc e withi n a designate d nonattainmentarea t o demonstrat

e tha ti twoul d construct i n aclea n portio n an d affect significantl y no dirt

y portion o

f th e nonattainmen t

area . Growt

h prohibitions

. Par

tD. o r the offse t rulin g woul d als o appl

y whe n a proposed majo r source o r majo r modificatio n i

n a clean area woul d significantl y impac ta nonattainmen

tarea . C

. Proposed

Changes Specific to PSD Requirements. 1

. Baseline Concentration: Th e ter m "baselin e concentration " i s use d i n a n abstrac t sens e t o establis h th

e starting point fo r definin g significant deterioration occurrin

g fro m area and minor source s o

f P M and SO* . Unde

r the existin g regulations , a unifor m August7

, 1977 baselin e dat

e wa s establishe d fo

r al l PS D area s o f the country . Today' s proposa l woul d establis h th e baselin e dat e a s th e tim

e afte r Augus t7,197 7 tha

t th e firs tpermi tapplicatio n by a proposed majo

r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n (subjectt

o the regulation s a s promulgate

d i s filed fo

r a clea n are a designate d under sectio n 107(d)(1)(D ) o r (E) . Th e baselin e dat e onc e establishe d fo r an y designate d clea n portion o f a n Air Qualit

y Contro l Regio n (AQCR

) woul d apply t

o al l clea n part

s o f th e AQC Rdesignate d under sectio n 107(d)(1)(D) o

r (E ) fo r P M and SO * 2 . Best Available Control

Technology (BACT): The regulation s today propos e tha tth e BAC T requirement

s appl y t o al l pollutant s regulate d unde r di e Ac tfo r whic h th e majo

r constructio n woul d : creat e significan tne temissio n increases . Th e existin g requirement s . requir e BAC T onl y for . thos e pollutants , fo r whic h th e propose d constructio n , . woul d b e major. •..•_•.:: - 3 . Ambient. Monitoring: The propose d p regulations generall y wil l cal l for more p extensiv e ambientmonitoring bot h . - - . - befor e an d afte r construction . Th e J proposa l woul d exten d th e •••., : A22c?. , ^reconstructio n requirement-fora n - ^ , , analysi s <afthe-ai

r quality existin g atthe••.-•

. - area * affecte d b y 4h e propose d ,- \:A*yyy^- constnictiontctaUpoUntantsregulatra^-. - underth e Ac tandno t

jua tari&$i&&.^ y *>>

. pollutants a s th e existin g PS D ?'• • 2? H-.;.: regulatione require. . Th e ne w nramtoting, . requiremetataappl-y--to;aa-r<pollntantakiaV;a, ^ ; regulate d unde r th e Ac twithou tregand^; • ';- : £. '

••• £SM.- 5

7 Jt--" ^



### A*ML

Lm2P. 7

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . N'i . 17 3 /

Wednesiav . Seotembe r 5 , 197 9 / ProDOse d Rule s 5192 7



### 1 )02$AL2 .*:* whethe r suc h noiiutan temission s

individuall y qualify th e propose d constructio n a s bein g maior . Unde r today' s proposal . P M an d SO j dat a a s require d woul d b e use d t o improv e modelin g prediction s o f incremen t availabilit y t o futur e sources . Regulation s governin g th e adoptio n o f acceptabl e PS D SIP s ar e als o propose d t o b e revise d t o indicat e whe n stat e authoritie s ca n accep tles s ma n on e year' s continuou s ai r qualit y dat a fo r a criteri a pollutant . 4

. "De Minimis"

Cutoffs: Th e regulation s propose d toda y woul d exemp to n a pollutan tspecifi c basi s majo r modification s fro m al l permi t requirement s an d ne w majo r source s ti n a pollutan tspecifi c basi s fro m al l requirement s whe n emission s o f th e particula r pollutan tar e belo w a specifie d de minimis o r significan t emissio n rate . De minimis ai r qualit y level s ar e als o propose d a s guidanc e fo r j.xemptin g fro m PS D monitorin g requirement s o n a pollutan tspecifi c basi s a majo r ne w sourc e o r majo r modificatio n wit h ne temissio n increase s tha tcaus e ai r quaht y impact s belo w th e specifie d values . 5

. Major Modification: I n determinin g whethe r a "n o ne tincrease " i n emission s woul d occu r fo r purpose s o f PSD , th e regulation s a s propose d woul d n o longe r credi temissio n reduction s o n di e basis.o f

ho w th e emission s bein g reduce d woul d affec tth e availabl e PS D incremen tToday' s PS D regulation s woul d paralle l nonattainmen tNS Ri n tha tth e emission s baselin e fo r determinin g a n o ne tincreas e woul d b e th e lesse r o f

potentia l emission s o r allowabl e emissions . Us e o f a plan twid e "bubble " i s permitte d unde r PS D i n determinin g i f a significan tincreas e woul d Occu r i n th e potentia l t c emi ta pollutan tfo r whic h th e sourc e i s major . '•"••"'.'•'; • Q.RegriaforyTransition: fa i discusse d abovei n th e cas e o f . nonattainmen tpermitfeviepws . th e propose d change s Woul d generall y b e prospectiv e wiS'tttgardtojfiitur e PS D " pennits , EP

A eitlpett a ihhf.whenlh e ':'-' ' regulation s ^ pjoposedbecom e final, source s tha t*^Ha^^ySDr : MM^^L2^' unde r th e existl^PSDr^jdlafloiis 'A^ i woul d hav e 90HdalJ*ttfhaTe^^-^:';^*- ! pennit s reevaluated unde r the'ntfl* ^ rules.-. . _y::p*y^^m^i0^0fpvrt; -

^ J '^''-" L '^s''at^^l^ f how- ' The r PS D SIP s may propose s t o woul d mee tthi* . regulation»-o . propose d toda ; revis e regulationsr a defimtion a i»iun^ : *itafy^jn»^*- '•.instructio n wil l b e retroactive fo r purpose s o f

incremen tconsumption . ''. Geographic Applicability: Th e propose d regulation s woui d sonerall v r.ppi y tn e requirement s o f PS D revie w t o ai l area s designate d unde r sectio n 107(d)(1)(D ) o r (E) . However , eve n wher e a n are a i s designate d a s nonattainmen tunde r sectio n 107 . PS D revie w woul d appl y whe n a propose d sourc e woul d hav e a significan timpac t o n a clea n are a i n anothe r state . EP A ha s petitione d th e cour tt o restor e th e existin g PS D requirements whic h protecte d clea n area s fro m ne w sourc e emission s regardless o f th e locatio n o f th e source . III . Transitio n A

. PSD Part

52 Regulations. A s describe d abov e i n th e backgroun d informatio n o f

thi s preamble , th e cour t i n Alabama Power

Company v . Costle communicate d it s decision s o n th e PS D regulation s i n th e for

m o f a summar y opinion . Simultaneously , i tstaye d th e effec to f thos e decision s unti l i tha d considere d an y petitio n fo r reconsideratio n an d issue d supplementa l opinion s explainin g th e decision s an d disposin g o f an y petitions . • Th e cour tadopte d thi s unusua l procedur e parti y t o allo w EP A t o begi n a s soo n a s possibl e t o overhau l th e regulations . Th e procedure , however , ha s raise d man y question s abou twha t rule s shoul d gover n PS D preconstructio n revie w an d fo r ho w long . Wha tfollow s ar e EPA' s answer s t o thos e questions . First , EP A i s proposin g a se to f amendment s whic h woul d replace , o r delet e entirely , eac h o f

di e provision s th e cour tha s declare d invali d EP A intend s t o promulgat e th e amendment s i n final form as-soo n a s possibl e afte r - th e issuanc e o f

th e supplementa l opinions . EP

A ma y b e abi e t o promulgat e som e amendments , soone r tha n others , sinc e th e supptenienta l opinion s o f

th e cour tma y wel l leav e ; . littl e p r no . rppj n fo r discretio n o n certai n issues , Aia ' exampl e o f

suc h a n issu e is . whethe r jCbrigr^as. intende d th e key... : phrt^^otetitia l t o emit " i n th e ' sttftHtoiy^fimtMn ^ facfljfll^ftfhsfer'^tn'ronti^t^emiaaiona.- ' Onsomejsa^e* , ttou ^ hav e riioferooin for diixxi^io^tm' . example , th e cour tLhatrule d tha tEP A : ha s broa d discretio n todefine the . terra- .

. 'EP*JE»jgetittaBt*fowHafe^mayi^ratto- i ~ 7 o f it i (fct-UJo

n oi l jep^phio"»ppTk^ill^Iij<iu«ti- - • ' petttiAna

n ham petltltraei

d aat b th e dedtlo n m the ' defiidtktta^ateDiAtoatt^'^^^'ng^HtdB^afi^^ ' ; pollutant* other tha

n mtfu r dioxid e an d parttculat

s : mattia*.tuxipptb a modeling of (tackh«i^btvWha n 4 rel^mtfli^'ae«Afa-ii «r e described blate r •'p , sacoonfof'Hu8***-ea]Bbift,-''> *'- ' —-"•-*-•

- -'- - :.

3 ER C a t1229 . Sinc e suc h rulemakin g :na y resul ti n extensiv e publi c comment , i tma y tak e EP A longe r t o promulgat e a definitio n o f

"facility " tha n a ne w definitio n o f

"potentia l t o emit. " Next , t o avoi d an y moratoriu m o n permitting , th e Agenc y i s treatin g th e existin g regulation s a s bein g i n effec t now . i ti s therefor e continuin g t o proces s application s fo r permit s unde r them . - EP A intend s t o continu e operatin g under. , th e existin g regulation s fo r s o lon g as, ' an d t o di e exten ttha tthey-remain.i * .*--':. * • unchanged . T o mak e thi s possible , i tha s move d th e cour tfo r a furthe r sta y o f th e - effec to f it s decisions . I f

granted , th e v . --'" : sta y woul d las tunti l EP A complete s thi * J rulemakin g o r unti l 9 0 day a afte r th e • , •-> . issuanc e o f

th e supplementa l opinions , . whicheve r come s firs ti f EP A requires . mor e Uia n th e extr a 9 0 day s o n som e r issues , i twil l mov e di e cour tfo r additiona l time . EP A intend s t o pu tth e replacemen t provision s governin g PS D applicabilit y w int o effec timmediately.upon-,i ; •„,. , ••..- , . promulgation . Eac h wouldthe n appl y to : '• - anypropose d sourc e o r modificatio n - -• • whic h ha d no tfiled a complet e PSD . pp. ' .•: • • • applicatio n b y tfie.timetof,the y ••• • • :•*•.• • • promulgatio n o f

th e prqvisiooj^Makihg,; . th e regul a tion s .immediateiv.effectiva.;K:;,'. " woul d eliminat e the;de|^^dlaxppija«»i 4 o f th e permittin g prooeaa^of^qanfiin wkfr coveredby.tberegulatij^gxqiiiflJe e th e provision s tha tEP A .utijgdj tto roajtat^t effectiv e immediatel y jipopj o y,,. - • •^A-iiify' promulgatio n ar e thadafiiyjtkiniirf-rjh , *2: •<-. "potentia l t o emit " "statiqaa>&flQuree," ^ "facility, " an d "modification/V ; *',.;•- • • ».;•.- • Man y PS D permit s wil l have-been . . , issue d b y th e time-EP A complete s it a --- . overhau l o f

th e regulauom<vEPA is , . : : , • 1 proposin g her e tha tsuch-non ^ woul d ^j ; remai n i n effec tbut.-^oiddjwjwti-cindad^/i a upo n a showin g tha t*qrimm^frnflk moclifi<atian.wou!.5iifltanQ^^.r~ m '*'' i

- J > unde r th e newregula t S 52^(w) . A penni t 9 0 day a bom the.timej complet e ;tn.malce : th i way.-prbjecii ' wihSb; i intended:to . wuierg a 1 obtai n reaMfrdniilieiS PS D pennit^atgi j woul d h4^ftw « decision s pin'a

p record s itralghJ

&'•'& km •whetvTOiO T good , fait h •SBH- i fo r pemttianiaa i coMldM«tam>Uc^ipo. - parpoaesafovoidi* ) reqtdremwit»:<?i?,tiiti: ragulfltlQin^] wo«ldadodaJii»At|j(Ul| - appUcattow* , EPA»atttjfc T | ; ' EPA'wOT&no

f r , ' r, k *i*^»<»vi* ' - • £fi3fcf

.P. 8

5192 3 Federa l Registe r ; Vol

. 44

. No

. '.Vednesdav

. SeDtembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s i f asourc e o

r modificatio n wer e late r foun d t o b e causin g o r

contributin g t

o an increment violation , additiona l control s migh t b e necessary . See 4

0 CF R 51.24(a)(3 ) (19781

. " The propose d definitio n o f "major modification " excep t

wher e th e growt

h sanction s woui d appl y define s tha t ter m a s any significant

ne t increas e in potentia l emission s a t

amajor stationar y source . In contrast , th e existin g definitio n define s i t a s an y gros s increas e i n potential (uncontrolled ) emission s abov e 10 0 o r • 25 0 ton s pe r

year , dependin g o n sourc e type

. 40 CF

R52.21(b)(2) (1978)

. Th e propose d definitio n ma y swee p int o PS D K revie w som e modification s dia t th e existin g definitio n woul d not

. Tha t woul d occur

i f aparticular

gros s increas e a t

th e sit e o f an existin g major stationar y sourc e woul d b e unde r th e 100/250-to n threshold,,bu t woul d no t

b e offse t b y sufficien t contemporaneou s emissio n reduction s a t

di e sam e site

. I

n addition , unde r

th e existin g regulation s th e potentia l t o emit

calculatio n ca n accoun t fo r limite d hour s o

f operatio n wherea s i t

canno t unde r today' s proposal

. EP

A believe s tha t

suc h modification s an d source s wit h limite d operatin g hour s can b e grandfathere d fromal l futur

e permittin g requirements

. y Iti atherefor e proposin g a n amendmen t LtdiS221{i) whic h woul d provid e tha t p preconstructio n revie w doe s no t appl y M M an y ne w o r

modifie d sourc e obtainin g ipi^all necessar y approval s unde r th e SIP fp i before th e dat e th e propose d definition s V 'o t "riiajo r modification " an d "potential

. -t o emit " com e int o effect

an d o n whic h physical constructio n woul d commenc e withi n 1 8 month s o

f thi s dat e (o r

an y earlie r tim e require d unde r

th e SIP) if

i t ..woul d no t

hav e bee n amajor modificatio n o r

majo r stationar y sourc e

. underth e existin g regulations

. Se e e d 5 S2.a(i)(7)

. ejajrp mth e ne w provision s whic h oye mPS D applicability , EP A i s 'provision s which-woul d

. [ne w substantiv e requirements. < i th e provision s whic h i an y majo r

stationar y •-,.. . for mai r quality , analysi s ' eJJACTfo r

an y regulated-. _• . i t i t emit s insignificant

. - ' ~ i e propose d paragraphs

. P ' ^fj)(2 ) o f 5 52.21

. EP

A intend s . L provision s effectiv e upo n gatio n an d to

. appl y .them ; ,. , 8{ruction project s wbose7-..

. . i;fo r ap?rmi t wer e no t p. ; • t thi s time^lnadditiqn,- p p > rujgsappj y darin g th e A pth e newregulation aw ( *

. th e pollutan t

specifi c p j D £continuou s monitonngjdjaj a

^sWp£ ? when i ; woui d no t hav e bee n require d unde r th e existin g regulations

. Th e Administrato r

generall y wil l requir e les s than avear' s wort

h o f dat aon a prorate d basis

. A

n affecte d sourc e woul d b e require d t

o gathe r dat aover the tim e perio d fro

mth e effectiv e dat e o f th e ne w regulation s unti l th e dat e tha t the sourc e woul d file a

n otherwis e complet e PS D application

. Finally , in som e case s th e propose d definition s woul d redefin e th e baselin e date , whic h mark s th e tim e tha t are a an d mino r sourc e growt

h woul d consum e th e availabl e PS D increment

. Consequentl y emission s fro msom e source s whic h consume d incremen t unde r th e existin g regulation s woul d no w b e counte d a s baselin e emissions

. (Se e discussio n o n "Baselin e ' Concentration.")

. Th e existin g regulation s contai n variou s rule s fo

r th e grandfatherin g o

f major stationar y source s an d majo r modifications

. I

n essence , the y generall y provid e tha t

th e existin g regulation s d o . no t aopl y t o asourc e o r

modificatio n whic h receive d certai n permit s b y Marc h 1.1978

. an d commence d constructio n b y Marc h 19.1979

. See 4 0 CF R52.21(i) (2)-{4) (1978)

. Th e proposal s in thi s notic e woul d no t

affec t th e substanc e o

f thos e grandfathe r provisions

. Also , i t

shoul d b e note d tha t EP A propose d i n arecen t

Federal Register notic e t o amen d th e deadline s fo r "commencing " construction i n thos e provisions

. See 44 F

R42722 (July 16 , 1979). ' EP A Wil l probabl y promulgat e th e propose d amendmen t

before i t complete s thi s rulemaking

. T o th e existin g grandfathe r provisions , EP

A i s proposin g t o ad d tw o ne w provision s t o make explici t principle s tha t

ar e merel y implici t

now . Or..

- v/oul d stat e tha t

asourc e o r modificatio n t o whic h th e regulation s appl y mus t

hav e aPS D permi t

befor e constructio n o n i t

ma y begin

. Se e propose d §52.21(1 ) (1 ) an d (2)

. Th e othe r woul d stat e tha t

th e existin g preconstructio n requirements d o no t appl y t o an y sourc e o r

modificatio n o n whic h constructio n commence d before Augus t 7,1977 , th e dat e o f

enactmen t

o f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t Amendment s o f

1977

. Thi s provisio n woul d merel y pu t int o the : regulations wha t

eectid h 168(b}ofth e VV

- f "Act alread y provides

- See 4 2 U-.S.C 2A, y A 745B{b}.

. - -A2 : . -flVAA'r' a. Nonattainment

NSR Regulations, ' p

. Fo r implementatio n of

ihe offsetmlin g ; an d th e restrictions o n ne w source s r.' •"' " : undersection s 110(a)(2)(I ) and!73{4|o f

.

' : statesto^quiregenera%the8ajDBfi-i7*V 7 transitiqnprincipleaasforPSD^Pjjaiv p -Provision s of

th e final regulation s whic h • will b e mor e stitogen t

tha n eadating ^ ,,- , requirement s woul d appl y to al l

application s no t

complet e by th e tim e 1 th e fina l regulation s appea r

in th e Federal Register

. Provision s o f th e fina l regulation s whic h wil l b e les s stringen t tha n existin g requirement s coul d appl y (unles s th e stat e ha s i n th e attainmen t ? demonstratio n relied upo n mor e • • stringen t requirements ) t o al l source s j an d modification s whic h ha d no t 1 receive d apermi t

before th e fina

l i regulation s ar e promulgated

. | Unlike th e cas e o

f PSD , th e | Administrato r

doe s no t believ e tha t

EP A , | shoul d b e directl y involve d in an y ' '• ? effort s b y individua l source s t o overturn 5 certai n mor e restrictiv e aspect s of permit s issue d unde r

th e existin g requirements

. First , ai r

qualit y level s wors e tha n thos e judge d adequat e t o safeguar d publi c healt h an d welfar e ar e involved

. Rescindin g o

f permit s i n suc h area s might

jeopardiz e th e applicabl e attainment

strateg y approve d i n th e pla n o r a t leas t consum e i n par t

th e growth allowanc e identifie d i n th e attainmen t demonstration

. Therefore , an y actio n take n t o rescin d apermi t

mus t b e accompanie d b y aforma

l revisio n t o th e SIP s o a s to adjus t

th e attainmen t demonstration

. Next , th e pla n ca n us e variou s contro l method s an d strategie s i n demonstratin g attainmen t b y th e prescribe d date

. This , a t

th e state' s option , ca n includ e amor e restrictive. *- • '•.-£ , NS Rpolic y i n orde r

t o compl y wit h th e /••'-

- attainmen t

mandate

. Finally , state s hav e ' A] generall y issue d th e permits , no t EPA

. ,

% Permitte d source s tha t

wan t relie f fro mi th e condition s o

f permi t issue d unde r

.'p | th e existin g regulations should , r therefore , appl y t o th e applicabl e stat e . ' | reviewin g authorit y fo

r areevaluation

. Suc h source s shoul d remember-tha t for severa l reason s th e stat e ma y no t b e abl e to rescin d a'permi t C

. PSD and

Nonattainment

SIP'

. .'

. Revisions. A s discusse d above , the'..

- revie w c f permi t application s will be 21A ' governe d b y th e existiugregulation s ». - „ unti l th e regulation s areamended

. >; y~2-^y However , amor e flexibl e approac h 'ikiiLr- - : neede d for

review and,approva l o f

SI P 5,

- revisions

. In-brief,EPA^propose s ifX^LL,:- no w t o approv e aSI P revisio n i f it ' \A&$?-r*>s

• satisfie s eithe r

the«xi8li ^ i^A v ^ Tegulatioii s o r

th e regulationa-propoBse^f^r i n tWanotice^^&s ^ I t i s essentia l that-t3*tate*«dop t ano^^p ; p

P * A2fAi$ EPA

. approv e iwwaoOTti*$(^«v^r ^ 

### progrtun am^m^f2'^^^^* iamK 

### ^^-' -•**•» lf l deadlinacreateap * nonattainmen i EPApohcyicalMbf

.

;**:*',•. ; •

_adoptio n o f

Pa^pbn»flB*wt^Alda%f j stat e ptaiisalreadppreparedhavB^ ^ designedrtosatisfy;EPA*existiiig7^:^^ti

. regidattons«i5Eo^vo»d i ai*i^ytt f 

## |P?s$£*^2 ^

'•-a./ia.^**

-

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

. •:>/•-*

-. - '•• • r-r 1 : * V 7 -'.

- Yf^'L

- - ---W-'«>-«t ^

- ,-•' " •, \ "LLA •-- '•'•i , -'-.H L'-*'^-^--Ou sP. 9

-"ederai Registe r Wednesaav . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / ProDOse d Rule s 5192 9

itat e pian s suomitte d an d approve;- . EPA propose s to accep tfo r th e tim e 'ein g an y pia n tha tsatisfie s EPA' s existin g regulations , eve n if th e pia n doe s no tsatisf

y al l requirement s a s interprete d i n Alabama Power. Thi s approach i s legall y acceptabl e becaus e ih e court' s mandat e i s staye d an d sectio n 406(d ) o f

th e 197 7 Amendment s establishe s tha tstate s hav e tim e t o com e int o complianc e afte r EPA regulation s ar e altered . Plan s develope d t o satisf y existin g regulation s wil l i n som e respect s b e mor e stringen ttha n th e cour tha s rule d ar e require d b y law . T o encourag e promp tsubmitta l an d approva l o f plan s tha thav e alread y bee n developed , EP A wil l tak e a realistic approac h towar d subsequen trelaxatio n o f suc h plans . EP A propose s t o approv e an y state submitte d relaxatio n s o lon g a s th e revise d SI

P meet s al l requirement s propose d i n this rulemaking . Thi s proposa l approva l woul d appl y t o onl y plan s tha twoul d mee ta s a minimum , th e propose d regulation s an d no tth e mor e lenien talternativ e approache s discusse d i n th e preamble . Th e Administrato r doe s reserv e th e optio n t o approv e SIP s wher e th e decisio n ma y depen d upo n th e final cour topinio n wit h th e understandin g Uia tth e stat e wil l hav e t o revis e it s pla n t o compl y wit h EPA' s final regulations . I f EPA' s final regulation s ar e i n an y respec tles s stringen ttha n th e propose d regulations , EP A wil l the n permi tfurthe r relaxatio n i f a stat e s o wishes . I n som e respect s EPA' s final regulation s implementin g Alabama Powerwil l b e mor e stringen ttha n th e existin g regulations , an d ma y b e mor e stringen ttha n th e regulation s no w bein g proposed . State s wil l hav e additiona l tim e afte r EP

A promulgate s final regulation s t o submi trevisions makin g th e SIP s a tleas ta s stringen ta s th e EP A regulation s the n required.. : • • Eve n durin g th e interi m period , - however , a pla n wil l no tb e acceptabl e i f i tmeet s a combinatio n o f ol d an d ne w requirements i n suc h a wa y tha ti ti s les s stringen ttha n woul d b e allowe d unde r eithe r th e ol d o r ne w se to f r r requirements. Fo r example , i n determinin g wha tmodification s nse d permits ; th e propos ^ ne w requirementsar e mor e stringen tth^4h#ol d one s i n settin g th e leve l o f

emission s {significan t ne tincrease) , but-are-more , lenien ti n allowin g contemporaneousreduction s to b e considere d (th e "bubble7)ittjP. , determinin g whethe r th a tlisye l o f v j ."•' . emission s i s surpassed . I twoul d ho tb e ••• • acceptabl e fo r aplantoanplyth e old . - . generall y more4eni«ntemissit » leve l in : .•.j-iiuin.iiio n wu h th e ne w mor e lenien t

'•tii-Die . Wer ih e pas tseveral-months . EPA ' ..Jv S invite d commen to n th e propose d c.-jprova i o f individua l SI

P revision s •Pesigne d to satisf

y requirement s fo r PS D o r nonattainment . o r both . Additiona l proposal s wil l b e publishe d i n th e perio d befor e final regulation s ar e publishe d implementin g Alabama Power. EP A intend s t o tak e fina l actio n o n individua l SI P submittal s prio r t o th e tim e i tca n complet e it s revie w o f

comment s solicite d b y this notice . Therefore , thi s notic e ma y b e considere d a par to f th e notice , o f propose d rulemakin g applicabl e t o eac h individua l SI P submittal . T o th e exten tissue s dicusse d her e ar e releven tt o whethe r a particula r pla n submitta l shoul d b e approved , commenter s ma y addres s thos e issue s i n comment s o n th e particula r pia n submittal . Comment s o n a particula r pla n ma y b e submitte d t o th e appropriat e EP

A Regiona l Offic e durin g th e commen tperio d establishe d i n th e propose d rulemakin g o n th e particula r pla n submittal . I

f th e discussio n publishe d toda y require s alteratio n o f an y comment s o n a pla n fo r whic h th e commen tperio d ha s alread y ended , th e commente r shoul d contac tth e appropriat e EP

A Regiona l Offic e immediatel y s o tiiatth e issu e ca n b e appropriatel y deal twith . In summary , EP

A propose s t o find SIP s no w approvabl e i f the y mee tth e minimu m requirement s o f eithe r existin g EP A regulations , o r di e regulation s no w bein g proposed . EP

A strongl y urge s diat , wher e a stat e ha s prepare d a pla n tha t satisfie s existin g requirement s bu tha s no tye tsubmitte d i tt o EPA fo r approval , th e stat e shoul d submi ti twithou tdelay . Ther e wil l b e opportunit y late r t o revise th e pla n i n accordanc e witi i Alabama Power. IV . Potentia l T o Emi t Th e preconstructio n revie w requirement s o f

sectio n 16 5 o f

th e Ac t appl y t o an y "majo r emittin g facility. " 4 2 U.S.C . 7475 . Unde r sectio n 169(1) , tha t ter m mean s an y stationar y sourc e whic h emit s o r ha s "th e potentia l t o emit " 10 0 ton s pe r yea r o r mor e o f an y pollutan t an d come s withi n an y o f 2 8 specifie d . categories . Itals o include s an y othe r sourc e wit h "th e potentia l to . emit " 250. . ton s pe r yea r o r mor e o f an y pollutan t 4 2 U.S.C.7479(1).. : Th e scop e o f

th e categor y "majo r . _ emittin g facility" - obviousl y depend s largel y o n th e meanin g o f th e phrase - "potentia l t o emit" ; Man y mor e sources woul d fal l int o th e categor y i f th e phras e referre d t o the-amoun to f pollutio n tha t. a sourcewouk f

emi twithou tpollutio n .ontrol s tha n i f i treferre d t o th e amoun t H sourc e woui d emi twit h suc h controls . I n th e PS D regulation s promulgate d o n Jan e 19.197B . EP

A define d "potentia l t o i.-r.it " in genera l a s "th e capabilit y at maximu m capacit y t

o emi ta pollutan tin ihe absence o

f ai r pollutio n contro l equipment. " 4 0 CF

R51.24(b)(3) . 52.21(b)(3 ) (1978 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e cour ti n Alabama PowerCompany v . Costle rejecte d EPA' s interpretation . I n it s vie w Congres s intende d "potential , t o emit " t o refe r t o controlle d emissions : W e thin k th e fairl y discernibl e meaning o

f th e statut e * * ' i s tha

ta n emitting facility i s V "major" within th

e meanin g o f sectio n 169(1) , onl y i f i teither (1 ) actuall y emit

s th e specifie d >

. • annua l tonnag e o f an y air pollutan tor (2

) ha s • - th e potential , whe

n operating atful

l desig n ' capacity , t

o emitthe statutor

y amoun t* * *. I n ou r vie w th e desig n capacit

y o f th e facilit

y take s int o accoun tnotonly its maximu

m productio n capacit y (whic h EP A uses ) but

als o the design control s o

n emissions . (1 3 ER C a t1228.) I n respons e t o th e court' s decision , EP A i s proposin g t o amen d th e definition s o f

"potentia l t o emit " i n th e existin g PS D regulations . A s propose d th e ne w definition s woul d provide , tha t th e term mean s "th e capabilit y a t maximu m capacit y t o emi ta pollutan t afterthe application o f ai r pollutio n • contro l equipment " See propose d • § § 51.24(b)(3 ) an d 52.21(b)(3 J (amphasis^.v?i g added) . Thus , whethe r a sourc e i s , j'.AASi "major " woul d depen d primaril y upo n • " A wha tcontro l equipmen tha s bee n . " • \ incorporate d int o it s design. , . . ''• ' Th e existin g defintio n o f "potentia l t o emit " als o states : • • -•**• Annua l potentia l shal l b e base d o n the . • • . :. X maximu m annua l rate d capacit y o f ttte - • l •'I

c source , unles s th e source is subject to enforceable permit

conditions- which limit the •• "',' annual hours of operation. (4 0 CF

R' 51.24(h)(3) , 52.21(b)(3 ) (1978 ) (emptyui s j added). ) -'.•'•".'.'$. '

••;•.- . >V : .'.-*,.-.>.:L- ? ---'- ' Unde r dia tsentence , a soutw-oiBP,-'-' ^ escap e PS D reviews, i f the ^ proposin g th e sourc e binds ! stat e NS Rpermi tto limi tOT hour s o f operation , tha tti&y les s tha n ful l desig n capacit y Alabama Power, tWconrt.p l though ttha tth e calcula t "potentia l t o emit " sh e it s full desig n ca p EPA therefore.!^pro p "unless" : clause,-It i possibilit y nita.source;. . revie w merel y be e limitatio n o n hour s < actio n als o makespH i minimiz e stres s plai

n increment s b y »0*ii*ces« operatio n wit h Ibwvhtiinitti H emissions.:EP A would, * generaUy-pretrameiha t

y*.ryy2^2'Ai?i^.miP.1 0

5193 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 , No . 17 3 /

Wednesday , Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s

W-> implemente d fo r thos e program s i n th e sam e wa y a s fo r PSD . EP A ha s traditionall y distinguishe d fo r th e purpose s o f

NR S revie w betwee n :he direc temission s o f

a sourc e an d it s "secondar y emissions. " (Se e discussio n o n "Additiona l Issues." ) I n revisin g th e offse trulin g i n Januar y 1979 . th e Agenc y adde d a definitio n o f

"secondar y emissions " an d a provisio n describin g fo r wha tpurpose s an d unde r wha t circumstance s thos e emission s ar e t o be . take n int o account . See F R3281 . 3283 . 3283-8 4 (Januar y 16.1979) . EP A i s proposin g t o ad d a definitio n o f tha t ter m t o th e PS D regulation s an d t o th e propose d nonattainmen tprovision s relatin g t o SI P revisions an d restrictions o n construction . Th e Agenc y i s als o proposin g t o ad d t o eac h th e definition s o f "potentia l t o emit " i n thos e set s o f provision s a statemen ttha t"secondar y emissions " ar e t o b e exclude d i n determinin g whethe r a sourc e o r modificatio n i s "major. " Ho w th e Agenc y woul d trea tthos e emission s fo r othe r purposes , includin g PS D ai r qualit y impac tanalysis , i s describe d below . V . 50-To n Exemptio n I n th e existin g PS D regulations , EPA i n genera l exempt s from ful l PS D revie w an y majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n whic h woul d hav e allowabl e emission s fo r eac h o f it s pollutant a o f

les s tha n 5 0 ton s pe r year , 1.00 0 pound s pe r day , o r 10 0 pound s pe r hour , whicheve r i a mor e restrictiv e (hereinafter , a "50-to n source") . Specifically , a n applican tfo r a permi t fo r a 50-to n sourc e doe s no thav e eithe r t o sho w tha tth e sourc e woul d hav e BAC T o r t o provid e a n ambien timpac t. assessmen tSee 4 0 CF

R51.24(j)(2) , (k) , 52.21(j')(2) , (jc

) (1978) . Th e exemptio n doe s no tappl y i n certai n narro w circumstances . Id. I n Alabama Power, th e cour tthough t tha tit s rulin g o n "potentia l t o emit " mad e a rulin g o n th e 50-to n exemptio n p "academic,* * sinc e h o 50-to n sourc e woul d eve r b e "major " i f "potentia l to - ' emitr-l-eferre d to controlle d emissions . 13 mC&YiSZBirisi . Nevertheless,i t 

## rdfedi^te ^ - forrteqi-WtMtffiioia' and'ndtedthatthe' : " aAgeJatt-^hd ewjeededlt s authority : i n eat^ffi^iM&em&tin. Id~hi - ^ resp^ftP^A is^^proposin g t p delet e tile * ^ ^ provi^ ^ -.'* : £ L ^ t'ti^sfiftelkm^saafliiliil^^a' ' paralle l p^*crvJs?iaWf a theoi-f W afcB8(*!tf11irAtfc!EWW ^ .•:.>:.;« ; t .s!5.*--, * ' ifll^NiioaeN^^^^N- '

jmasi V bf"pitenn ^ tofemlP (ha ti ti s - physicall y operat e 2 4 hour s pe r day , 36 5 day s pe r year . Th e Administrato r ask s fo r commen to n th e nee d t o adjus tthis assumptio n t o th e exten ttha tne w source s woui d hav e limite d hour s o f operatio n du e to physica l incapabilit y o f operatin g 2 4 hour s a da y yea r round . Suc h a n exemptio n woul d follo w th e Administrator' s proposa l t o discoun tth e amoun to f

credi ttha tca n b e claime d fo r reduction s a texistin g source s becaus e i r o f physica l incapability , o n th e par to f .;?• £ th e affecte d emissio n unit(s ) (se e

- < discussio n i n "Modification") . yy the existin g definitio n recognize s no t f ooly.iimitation s o n hour s o f operation , H bu tals o limitation s o n th e amoun to f 2; "iP4t«"-" l t o b e combuste d o r processed : r""'• • Enforceabl

e permi tcbnditiort

a o n the typ e or •yrfotmt of materia l combusted or processe d

-« < be used in determining the potential .amnion rate of

a source* (40 -CF

R51.24(b)(3) , ?&2 1 (b)(9 ) (1978

) (emphasi s added): ) Fo r th e sam e reasons tha tEPA i s J . proposin g t o delet e th e claus e relatin g t o S hour s o f

operation ; i ti s proposin g t o •jfedeiBt e th e word s "o r amount " i n th e ..^sentenc e quote d above . 'WL : .S i calculatin g a source' s "potentia l t o f S.'emit " unde r th e propose d definitio n j /jnan y othe r variable s woul d hav e t o b e ^Qosktered-Amongihe m ar e th e

r.ofcth e propose d contro l a tth e sulfu r conten to f an y tt o b e burne d a tth e source , an d th e iabOif y offugitiv e emissions . First . Lwit h the*t»urt' s opinion , EP A wil l

• tha tth e ^airpoUotio n contro l a tincorporate d int o th e desig n ^th e facilit y wil l functio n t o contro l emission s i n the mannerreasonably ^tgntfcipiited

whe n th e calculatio n i s - lljttiade. " 1 3 ER C a t122 8 (emphasi s i^wtded) ; Second , wit h respec tt o th e - n sulfu r conten to f

any . coa l t o b e burned , nerafl y intend s t o us e a long r omina i average . Fo r determinin g

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



## '"'""' ' "mmm^

4 inif-M'- : -*> : ti^'f^oi i ofthis ; I^pbft^a l 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) . Essentiall y a sourc e qualifyin g fo r th e exemptio n woul d fac e a limite d di r qualit y revie w fo r SO * an d PM . includin g insulatio n fro m th e monitorin g requirement . Us e o f

th e exemptio n woul d b e restricte d t o thos e 5 0 ton s o r les s modification s o f

SO to r P M afte r applicatio n o f

BAC T whic h woui d impac tn o Clas s I are a an d woul d no t interfer e wit h th e attainmen to f I' M an d SO , standards . I n addition , th e exemption , a s proposed , woul d b e applicabl e t o th e cumulativ e total o f ne t emissio n increase s occurrin g sinc e Augus t7,1977 , a ta plan texistin g o n tha tdate . VI . Fugitiv e Emission s In determinin g unde r th e existin g PS D an d nonattainmen tNS Rregulation s whethe r a stationar y sourc e o r - modificatio n ha s th e potentia l t o emi t 10 0 o r 25 0 ton s pe r yea r o f a pollutan t EP A commonl y take s int o accoun tal l o f th e emission s o f

tha tpollutant , a tleas t to th e exten ttha tthe y ar e reasonabl y quantifiable . Whether-orno tthe " emission s woul d b e "fugitive " ha s s o fa r bee n immateria l i n requirin g permits . Fo r example , EPA ha s generall y regarde d stri p mine s a s candidate s fo r PS D review, sinc e i f

woul d includ e th e dus tfrom the*hau l roads, - storag e piles , an d othe r surface s a tsuc h a min e h r determinin g whethe r i ti s "major . "See ' 4 3 F R2839 5 (Jun e 19.-1978) . In Alabama Power, ihe cour thel d tha t "fugitiv e emissions " ar e t o b e include d i n determinin g Whedie r a saurc e or- ; modificatio n i s "major " "onl y r f an d whe n EP A issues-a n appropriat e ~ legislativ e rule. ? 1 3 ER C 1231 . Thecour t did . state , however ; tha tonc e th e permittin g requirements-otherwise•••' applied , the n fugitiv e emission s and ; nonfugjtiv e emission s a tth e sam e • -.•- . sourc e wer e tobe^nsidered/tnj ; .. . performin g tbe.peRiQtanaiynsv-tejsa--^j ! . holding , th e court,todipate d tha tEg# . >:,•;;. . ha d no tye tgon e thixnigh.thetreqiriaito^: . - ndemaki^Withresj ^ o f the . ter m "fugitiv e emissions, " jEe;^^ . cour tri-cogiiuzed.ha tih e Actnowfi^r'w definesit I d

at'ii^j^'NeMir^ i " " * i tdiscerne d tha tCpngress^in^a c "fugitiv e emissid^Vjtn^ii^KOaipl^ . emission s whic h ema^te^mdili^|*^ ; tha n a point'HUCKH H A qTqrJt : nr^tffnny. - ItL a t1230h . i c j^pp P "^^ ^ court^i^^t^lsteill ^ ^omptsfoad^tfoptf^ 4 ^ meanings^o^CTpj^ m t%^Mejj > trtdititinayif^^tT^f tf^riH l bures EPAHi f 

# . 3

'-ppsS j



## •'-•^ 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>r s ^••v ^ -jgy^rzkfij-,. .-, ^FasSeKt-'-'a' ' '.-aa'-sSr-^J...

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

## LL

*-'^ 7 * lii^'W*^ - ''"• i *'~i%7.T"'. -2' : *J2J^Pt^g^

- -•« . yS r,'P?;>'' ; ri^r-sMP.1 1

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . -A.

. 3 / Wednesday , Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 51931 nciuded i n determinin

g whethe r a jource o f modification i s "major. " Th e action s describe d belo w appi y t o regulations bot

h PS D and nonattainmen

t NSR . First . EP A i s proposin

g t o define "fugitiv e emissions " a s thos e emission s which do no tpas s throug

h a n opening whic h th e owne r o r operator use s fo

r ventilation , suc

h a s a stack , chimney , roo f ven to r roo f monitor . See propose d § § 51.24(b)(20

) an d 52.21(b)(20) . EP

A woul d als o delet e th

e existin g definition o f "fugitiv e dust " a t4 0 CF R51.24(b)(6

) and 52.21(b)(6

) (1978) . Second . EP

A i s proposin

g t o incorporat

e into the existin g regulations the principle tha

trulemakin

g mus t preced e th

e inclusio n o

f "fugitiv e emissions " i n a

n applicabilit

y determination b

y addin g th e followin g line t o th e definitions o

f "potentia l t o omit" : "Fugitiv

e emission s shal l notb e included in determinin

g potential , excep twit

h respectt

o th e followin g stationar y sources : * * *. " Finally , th

e Agenc y i s proposing t

o lis t th e followin g stationar

y source s whos e fugitiv e emission s are t

o b e taken int

o account : (1 ) Coa

l cleanin g plants . (2) kraf tpul p mills , (3 ) portlan d cement plants , (4 ) primar

y zin c smelters , (5 ) iron and stee l mill plants . (6) primar y aluminu m or e reduction plants , (7

) primar y copper smelters , (8 ) municipa l incinerators , (9) hydrofluoticTsulfuric, o r nitri c aci d plants . (10

) petroleu m refineries , (11 ) lime plants , (12) phosphat e roc k processin g plants , (13 ) coke ove n batteries , (14

) sulfu r recovery plants , (15) carbon black plants . (18 ) primar y lea d smelters , (17) fuel conversio n plants , (18

) sintering plants , (19 ) secondar

y meta l production plants , (20 ) chemica l proces s plants , (21 ) fossi l fuel-fire d boilers , (22) petrolsur

o storag e and transfer units , (23 ) taconite or e processin g plants . (24 ) glas s fiber j processin g planted(25 ) chanJoa l . . production plants , {28 ) fossil fuel-fired stea m electri c plants , an d an y othe r stationar y sourcecategor y whidi , a tth e tim e o f the applicabilit

y determination , i s being regulate d under section-Il l o r .11 2 O f th e ACtiT-fep^p

- a-Wgi: £ j^i.:^--. . ' EP A beKeves^tthiOTisiwriMsd n j ' whyasoureeofatparticuimpollatan t regulated under : th e Ac tshouldjBscap e ; . revie w becaus e tt^fmiwi^jynf^ ^ th e sam e poUuta ^ ha s teg^^|«^ti f th e emission s arej^fiigitt^lanho & cases . titB-amtijffia.^^ 

### NS RUis(^iin^^ai»^y^'kathe

, othaft-EF$»-fi*ii«gfc^ ^ experiencein-^uantifS^^s'tftigitiv e c-iriissions " fro m suc h source s is . i

n perioral , greate r ma n it s experienc e i

n I'-uantifyin a suc h emission s fro

m othe r sources . See. e.e.. U.S . EPA . Compilation oiAirPollutant

Emission Factors (AP 42 ) (3 d ed „ August1977) . Th

e Administrato r ove r the nextseveral month s wil l conside r the nee d fo r additiona l sourc e type s t o b e added t

o th e lis tbeyon d thos e whic

h woui d b e newl y regulate d unde

r 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 and 61 , including-strip mines . VII. Fugitive DustExemption Th e existin g PS

D regulations provide tha tan y "fugitiv e dust " fro

m a majo r stationar y source o

r majo r modificatio n i s t o b e ignore

d in determinin

g wha tth e effec to f the source o

r modificatio n o

n air qualit y woul d be . 4

0 CF R51.24(k)(5) . 52.21(k)(5) (1978) . Becaus e o f its decisio n o n "fugitiv e emissions " an

d apparentl

y becaus e i tthough tEP A ha d n o authorit y t o establis h th

e exemption , th

e cour t remande d i tt o th e Agenc y fo r furthe r consideration . 1

3 ER C a t1231 . I n response , EP

A i s proposing t

o delet e the provision s whic

h embod y th e exemption . Th

e Agency i s als o proposing t

o delete a parallel provisio n in th e offsetruling, 4

4 F R3274 . Vm . Source/Facilit

y Installatio n A . Definition of

"Source". I

n its existin g PS

D regulation s an d th e offse t ruling, EP A ha s define d "stationar

y source " a s "an

y structure , building , facility , equipment, installation , o r operatio n (or combinatio n thereof ) whic h i s locate d o n on e o r mor e contiguou s o r adjacentpropertie s an d whic h i s owne d o r operate d b y th e sam e perso n (or by person s unde r commo n control). " EP

A als o define d '.'facility " a s a n "identifiabl e piec e o

f proces s equipment " 4 0 CF

R51.24(b)(4) , (5) , 52.21(b)C4) . (5) ; 4 0 CF

RPar t51 , Appendi x s , section s II.A. l an d 2 , a s amende d 4 4 FR3282 . I n Alabama Powerth e cour tsai d tha t th e definitio n of

"stationar

y source " i n sectio n 111(a)(3 ) govern s PSD review . Sli p op . at11 . Sectio n 111(a)(3 ) define s "stationar y source " a s "an

y building , structure , facility , o r installatio n whic h emitaturma

y emitanyairpollutant"4 2 • U.S. C 7411(ap).Tn>w)ur i state d that "EP A ma y no tad d itemitothi s lis tSli p op . a tlt^t a conforman twith th e - courts-opinionEPA^jm-pasing.t o > . ; delet e th e ternw.r^pn^toetrt?, ' >AA "operation " an d *«j!ibtoaat* a thereof * . from di e definitio n of

stationar y sourc e - . i n botl tth e PS D an d nonattainmen t regulations. Th e courtals o found that. . - EP A exceede d it s statutory authorit y to-, th e wa y i n whic h i ttrie d t o appl y preconstructio n review t o both'--a single* •.' , building^structure , facilit y o r Installation , whic h i s permitte

d b y sectio n 111(a)(3) , an

d a combination o

f -uc h units . Sli

p op . a t12 . EP A therefor

e propose s t

o delete th

e ter m "combinatio

n thereo f fro m th e definitio n o

f stationar y source . Th e cour tdid . however , state tha

t EP A ha s substantia

l discretio n t o defin e th e term s i n the definition o

f source — tha tis , building , structure, facility , o r installation—t

o include a wid e rang

e of , '•. . pollution-emitting sources . Sli p op . atlli~>. . Th e component

s o f "source".could be\ . define d differentl

y fo r PS D purpose s • - - tha n fo r di e purpose s o

f othe r provisioft

B o f the Act" . Slip op . at12 , note!3.Th e :-., ^ • ke y constrainto

n EPA' s discretio n i s tha t"th e definition s applicabl e t o eac h ..•.*• " se to f provision s mus

tb e reasonably appropriat

e fo r th e purpose s o

f thos e • • sections. " Id. The same courtha s earlie r • • state d that

, i n defining th e components o f source , "EP

A i s guided b y a reasonedapplicatio n o

f th e term s o f the statute.i ta

. i s charged t

o enforce , notbyra

n abstrac t 'dictionary ' definition. " ASARCO, IHo. V. , EPA. 578F.2d319,324noteJ7(D.C.Cir. ' . 1978) . Thes e tw o cour

topinions-instruct ' the Agency t o analyz e th&fMdutm y purpose s o

f th e various$SDftn d v nonattainmenlJiS^woryiiiion s an d ., . defin e tiieueiaiai^bulldiiigw'rstnicture.''. "faciUtytfaii*.Sfi^ ^ . « bes tth e statu^inten tof Uie t" , '. :".':;. ^ prorvistonai->;p)./v v ;;. . ••:•..•.. . j x . • ..•..•Hv^ ^ B . Sources Subject

to PSD •-•

' *~: : Requirementa*-Gate ot

the fundamental. ' purpose s ofTPSDi

s t o maintai n airp-' i . quaht y better, tha

n th e ambient*••'

• - " standards . Thi s purpos e ca n bes tb e • serve d i f NS Rapplie s t o th e larges t- • industria l groupin g that , a s a practical* : matter, industr

y an d th e reviewing'.:!-," , authoritie s ca n reasonably dealitfth'-aa a singl e unit ; EP

A believe s the - 'pi^-V

. • p. k appropriat

e groupingI s aU'^hdt^rngi^- ^ activitiest m ooiiitiguauBo ? " """" " propert y end'ltndarcdia-^ ^ typicall y a n industrial ForPSD.JEPA^elieve

i , industria l gapin g Is'twj | uni tfo r review o f

bpth i ne w plantsandhey f piece s o f process ' plants. ' " ' " " group : procesaequ f

. revieWaOfiM, unit-^y^init

i review, standards-arid ; plantacoiBd ] a s a coll""'" " ;•• ' •::• -

-i'<*

»V;'-'..ttT,V*-K

s

S25ytaK-Va>J "

unitSveacbhelO ' threshold , an d thejrc1->

; dtogeJhafc- K *ijftpsr<j(Xc

. }.;'•,,•?' ' } T>i-

. rv t - • ^%/ft'jk* , ^<W v '

- were i .:j-i * ••:•>•• >.rufl>W

•yi ••••:WJtf2M -.!•-•* '

?*w:«*t-' * -» : '..- a . '•••>t». ,a*'V'J-J. l i.jS^ l 

## ,Limm $

### 5193 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 44 , No

. 17 3 /

Wednesday , Septembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s review , increment

s an d eve n standard s could easil y b e violated . Whil e increase d protection o

f ai r qualit y migh tbe achieve d b y reviewin g grouping s eve n bigge

r tha n a plant , revie w o f large r grouping

s i s infeasible . Ne w unit s noto n adjacentpropert

y o r unde r commo n control woul d b e an

awkwar d groupin g t o evaluate and regulate . Therefore , PSD revie w wil l appl y t o grouping

s o f ne w constructio n n o larger tha

n a plan t Plant-wid e revie w als o serve s th e basi c purpose s of

PS D whe n piece s o

f equipmen tare being builto

r modified a t existin g plants . Wit

h plant-wid e review, industr y ca n constructne w an d modified equipmen

twithouta permi tb y reducing emission s enoug h thatne t emission s a tth e plantd o no tincrease . (Allowin g us e o

f offsettin g emissio n reductions withi n the source t o avoi d NS Ri s calle d the "bubble " approach . Fo r discussio n of

th e bubble , se e "Modification") . The purpose s o f PSD are served , becaus e assurin g tha tther e wd l b e n o ne tincreas e in emission s from th e plan

tals o assure s thatth e constructio n wil l notinterfer e wit h maintaining goo d air quality . Permittin g offsets'onl y withi n individua l proces s unit

s woul d g q beyon d maintaining tb e statu s quo . WhiT e additional emissio n reduction s §p,?neyon d existin g levelsair e neede d t o J -attelnstandards-i n nonattainmentareas - ^fse e discussio n I

n th e nex tsecaonVsuc h

- redactions ar e ordinarily unnecessar y to. 22meetthe'*puxpov»ot4hePSDprogram.

. I n additio a th e review itsel f woul d no t; mak e sens e relative to RS D goals , if ne w unit s atsource s with offsettin g plant wid e decrease s wer e force d t o underg o review. Source s migh

tb e required to mode l an d monito r inaemen t~ consumptio n whe n al e quality i s •• • ^expecte d to improve or

. sta y th e same . I n p-£dditica..«pp!icationottliebubbl«!on a .

<; o f eqmppicot - an d growt

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

### ' btein ^ pf&te'iofl« n less , , fM$l(&a,tfme-amj^^



### tW% industria l plant . T o accomplish this . EP A propose s t

o define "building, structure , facility , o

r installation " t

o mea n a groupin

g .-. r activitie s o

n contiguous o

r aaiacen tproperties an

d unde r commo n control . Th

e ter m "grouping " i s intende d t

o includ e a plant consistin g ofa singl e isolate d activity , a s wel l a s a plantconsistin g o f man y activities . C

. Sources Subject

to Nonattainment Requirements. 1

. Purpose to be Served

by Nonattainment

NSR'Definitions. Unlike th e PSD provisions , th e nonattainment provision s ar e primaril

y intende d no t merely t o preventexcessiv e increase s i n emissions , bu

tt o reduce emissions . Thi s fundamenta

l difference i n purpos e requires a differen

tapproac h to defining th e source s tha

twil l b e subjectt

o NSR . T o assur e adequat

e review , EP

A believe s tha

tbot h entir e plant s and individua l piece s of

equipmen

tmustb e subjectto NSR

. Th e on e exceptio n unde r EPA' s proposa

l i s fo r area s subjectt o ' full y complete SIP

s satisfyin g Par

tD requirements . I

n thes e area a wher e attainmenti s assured . NS Rnee d apply onl y t o entire plants .

. T o assur e adequat

e review o

f ne w plants , a larg e groupin

g mus tb e subject t o nonattainmentNS

Rfo r th e reason s discusse d abov e fo

r PSD . T o d o otherwis e woul d allo w a ne w plan tthat i s divide d into separate proces s units , eac h belo w th e potential emissio n threshold , to escap e review . Ne w emission s coul d thus b e adde d t o th e existin g violation , withoutreview , makin g attainmentvirtually impossible . Therefore , EP

A believe s tha

t nonattainmentprograms , like PS D programs , mus tapply NS

Rto entire plants . EP A believe s tha

tpiece s o f

proces s equipmen twithi n plants shoul d als o b e subjec tto NSRunde r nonattainment programs . Thi s woul d preven tus e o f '•* • plant-wid e of&et

o f<i e itereasie e fro

m - construct!o n ciriiwtlfflcatioetrftiiajo r ••• * < piece s c^pro<^equli»ae ^ th e plant* - • nonattiii\me^^m^eiia^ian''farPS D "' pi-bgram * b*s*s«^ ^ 6%l

y holds'•$"•.»;..•

. enrission * ramstalteNBBaMaiflateMt' * 

### "muatfofci-ti-*^ ^

- - - tftacrttaMfff^ • 'coiiMfttttiktti^ ^ 

### ftit^nilrrrrrea.^ ^

.i&i^sprequail y larg e increase s fro

m ne w construction , then other , les s cost effectiv e way s t

o reduc e emission s mus

t be foun d t o achiev e attainment. Therefore , t

o ensure tha

tconstructio n withi n existin g plants doe s notmake attainmento

f th e standard s mor

e difficul tnonattainmen tprogram s must provid e for NS Rne w and modifie d piece s o f equipmen tTh e NS R. requirement

s wil l assur e tha

tth e mos t stringentcontrol s ar e applie d t o new . and modifie d equipmen tan d tha tmor e .. . tha n offsettin g reduction s i n existin g emission s ar

e obtaine d t o assure . - . adequate continue d progres s toward . attainmentTh e nonattainmen t- requirement

s als o ensur e thatother.7 source s i n th e state , owne d o r operate d 

### b y the sam e owner , are in compliance , with SI P requirement

s neede d for - attainmen t Thi s polic y argumen

ti s strongly : supporte d b y th e legislativ e history , Eve n wher e demolitio n o

f obsolete - - equipmen treduce s emissions . Congres s indicate d tha

tconstructio n o

f replacementequipmentshoul d b e subjectt o NS

Runder nonattainment program s withou tregard to th e offsettin g reductions: Thus , [unde r th e offse trulin g an d Par tD NS Rrequirements; ) a ne

w sourc e i s »ttH' ' - p subjec tt o suc h requirement*

* as^towwt-^ 7

- achievaW e emissio n raie"*8veirt

f i t1s tA -.••''".-' rnniiliiirtm tn s n rrplsncimnn

tfu r n u nlilw i t facilit y resultin g i n a ne treductio n ficoai - -• • previou s emissio n leveisa * (Statemeaiwf/ - , Senato r Mualde , 12 3 Cong.Rec.a

i Sl37fl2xoL . 2 (dail y ediUos . Augus t4.1977)) . ..... . 2 . Proposed

Definitions. T o implemen t thi s specifi c expressio n o f Congressionai inten tai r wal l as-th e genera l puipgaea-o f toenonattatnBieat'piovisionBadiaoaneda above , EP

A fitproposing , t o deflate d -p c "souroeV' to includ e JW I 0nlyttfflin*wHder; ' groupnigyofat^fyities^ijutalsdr^^^ - "BiuUdingr.rtftil$ltfl ^ b e defoed e """"' activities^* ! woul d t^defimta^to ^ pitt a m^rttttMbtftiffMi&nteffiA^* Th&e * o f plant-wide^bubbleio r eqiujMi&ufci^f

H eno^^i*'''' , '""' " majtJ T stati c 2fiM

7 ^ ennssio i

*±VM. 

## W^m^^Lr/ : 

## -yy $f!m!!$'2-2--y-: . . - ^.-..aa-.^i.^^-V,-^.' • • - r-'2$iA?iyi22L2" :

- 

### ^MS^^i^r^^y-Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 . No . 17

3 / Wednesday , Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 3193 3 reuuction s a tth e plan ts o tha tther e i s n o ne tincreas e i

n emission s a

tthe plant. Furthermore

, i n accordance wit

h th e Pcnaressiona

i inten tnoted above , a replacemen

to f a n olde r piec e o

f equipmen twoul d b e treated a s a ne w installation , regardless o

f an y reductions fro m previous emissio n levels . A "reconstruction " woui d b e treated i n th e sam e wa y a s a replacement, whe n the capita l cos to f th e ne w improvement

s exceed s 50 % o f acomparabl e replacement. Th e proposed definition s tend t o limit applications o

f th e bubble , b y defining certain large kind s o

f source s an

d certain small kind s o

f sources , and recognizing tiiatsom e smal l source s ar e included withi n the boundarie s o f larg e sources . Thi s approac

h i s consisten t wit h bot h th e language o

f th e Actan

d ih e interpretation i n Alabama Power. Congress , in defining "source " a s any "itructure . building , facility , o r installation " mus

thav e contemplate d tha tsom e o tthes e components coul d b e define d t o b e smalle r tha

n others and tha tth e small component

s coul d b e foun d withi n the larg

e components . Definin g som e source s a s small enoug h t o be withi n th e boundarie s o f larger defined source s i s als o consisten twit h the court' s instruction no tt o defin e source a s a "combination " o f facilities , installations , o r other singl e sourc e units . Th e propose d regulations defin e "facility " no ta s a combinatio n o f narrowly-defined sources , bu trather a s a n independently-define d enitity . Thi s singl e entit

y i s compose d o

f agroupin g o f emitting activitie s (which individuall y ma y o r ma y no tb e sources)'meetin g requirement

s of commo n control and adjacency . Thi s plantdefinitio n i s exactl y ths sorto

f "commo n sens e industria l grouping " tha

tth e cour tsai d i s a prope r subjec tfo r NSR

. Sli p op . a t 12 . • The cour tstate d tha

tth e sam e definition s o f

facility , building , structure ,

- an d installation , mus tgovern tile determinatio n o f

no tonl y whethe r ther

e i s a ne w majo

r stationar

y sourc e subject t o NSR , bu tals o whethe r ther e I

s a modified major 8tationar£&eurce subjectt o NSR . Slip op . a t21 . EPA' s • definition s adhere strictl y t b this , P principle . Major

, facilitie s an d major - . installation s constitute Jj- ^ th e ne w \ source s and th e modifie d Sources . . 'Fo r example , • coa l pil e t i nM«.p)eb e o f proe m equipmentandfe . timi*ttM9*vet 'anJlwaflatfim*- *-•• ' under th e propaaad-ddSidlionferlsvMWfVattiBaii'a. . en*ittin $ activity , an d caaiturtferob * partor * . , "facility " unde

r th e proposed definition* . Tlie , Agenc y recognize * tba

tth e emission * from tli e coal pil e would b e fugiUmariiMMMMto^ietfe- ' regulation S tdtocnSas£tS!lfeeSGfifl8tMw- M P1q£lfvs-- ' Emitiiona."..- • • '.'^-r'.-. v ' ' v-•••.&••,-•• : Jj!;ii;:•'•:' • subjec tt o NSR . Unde r thes e definitions , construction tha

ti s neithe r a ne w no

r a modifie d majo r facilit y ma y be a ne w o r modifie d installation , an

d vic e versa . Congress , i

n definin g "source " t

o include several items in the alternative , provided fo

r suc h a resultwher

e necessary t

o achiev e th e purposes o

f the Act. Th e followin g illustrate s ho w the nonattainmen

tNS Rdefinition s woul d work . Suppos e a firm proposed t o construc tthre e piece s o f proces s equipmen to n a singl e plantsite . Eac

h piec e o f equipmen

twoul d b e a

n "installation, " an

d th e entir

e plan t woul d b e a "facility" . Eac h installatio n woui d b e a "source " and the entire facilit y woui d b e a "source. " I

f th e installation s woul d hav e annua l potentia l emission s o

f 40.190 . an

d 15 0 ton s pe r year , respectively, th e facilit y woul d hav e potentia

l emission s o

f 38 0 tons pe r yea n Installatio n (A)—4 0 ton s pe ryea r Imino r source) . Installatio n (B)—19 0 ton s pe ryea r (majo r sourc e | . Installatio n (C)—15 0 ton s pe ryea r (majo r source) . Facilit y (A)—38 0 ton s pe ryea r (majo r source) . Permit s woul d b e neede d fo

r th e thre e majo r sources : installatio n (B) , Installatio n (C) , an d Facilit y (A) . Sinc e th e permi tfo r Facilit y (A ) would , a s a practica l matter, cove r al l thre

e installations , onl y a singl e permi t applicatio n woul d b e needed . Suppos e nex ttha

tth e firm propose d t o modif y Installatio n (C

) t o increas e emission s by 7

0 tons , an d decreas e contemporaneously th e emission s o f Installatio n (B ) by th e sam e amoun t Ther e woui d b e n o modificatio n o f Facilit y (A) , whos e tota

l emission s wou d remain the same , bu

tther e woul d b e a modificatio n of

Installatio n (C) . whos e emission s woul d increas e by 7 0 tons . A permi twoul d b e neede d tor th e modificatio n of

Installatio n (C) . I f installatio n (B) ware-then modifie d t o increas e it s emission s b y 6 0 tons , bu t ther e wer e contemptjraneous reduction s of th e sam e amoun

ta tth e sam e Installatio n (B) , n o ne tincreas e i n emission s woul d occu r a teithe r Installatio n (B ) o r a tFacilit y (A ) , . (technically , there , woul d b e n o "modification") , an d n o permitwoul d b e needed-ttiher e wer e a 20-to n increas e a I Installatio n (A ) an d a ' > contemporaneou s 2S-ton decrease d InstaUationjQ . there woul d b e a modificattone i minor installatio n (A) , whos e ne temission s increase d bu tn o modificatio n of

majo r Facilit

y (A) , whos e ne temission s decreased , an d n o permi twoul d b e needed . 3 . Nonattainment Programs to Which •he Proposed

Definitions Apply. Th

e definitions describe d abov e ar e t o appl y l o source s subjec

tt o th e offsetrulin

g an d t o restrictions o

n constructio n unaer section s H0(a)(2)(l ) an

d 173(4) o f th e Act. EP A als o propose s tha

tthes e definitions appl

y t o "incomplete " state plan s unde

r Par tD o f the Act . Incomplet e plan s ar e thos e tha

td o not yetsho w reasonabl e furthe r progres s and attainmen

to f the ambient standards , base d exclusivel y o n currentl y adopted , approved , and enforceabl e requirements . Incomplet e plan s therefor

e includ e an

y pla n wher e approva l unde r par tD i s conditione d o

n submissio n of

additional materia

l b y th e state , an y plan s containin g state adopted schedule s fo

r submissio n of additiona l material. 7 and any plan s wher e additiona

l submission s ar

e neede d b y Jul

y 1,1982 , a s require

d b y sectio n 129(c

) o f th e 197 7 Amendment

s [not e unde r 4 2 U.S.C . 7502) . Sinc e incomplet e plan s d o notye tinclud e al l requirement

s neede d fo

r attainmen t EP A believe s tha

tth e definition s describe d above , includin g th e definitio n o f "installation, " ar

e neede d for th e reason s discusse d above . However , EP

A believe s tiiatcomplete Par tD SIPs , whic h contai n adsptedkand ' - enforceabl e requirement

s sufficientt o assur e attainmen tma

y appl y the - - approac h propose d abov e for PSO . with ' plant-wid e review bu

tn o review o f individua l piece s o f equipmen tUs e o

f onl y a plant-wid e definitio n o f sourc e wil l permi

tplant-wid e offset s fo

r avoidin g NS

Rof ne w o r modifie d piece s o f equipmen tHowever , thi s i s onl y appropriat

e onc e a SI

P i s adopte d that< wil l assur e th e reductions in existin g - . emission s necessar y for attainmen tSe e - - 4 4 F R327 6 co! . 3 (Januar

y IB . 1979) . i f th e leve l of

emission s allowe d indi e SIP. ' i s lo w enoug

h to assur e reaaonabl * y -«•*•- ' furthe r progres s an d attainmentnow^ - . constructio n o r modification s w^k.% ^ -.'a'. - enough offse tcredi tto prevent;*!^ : AJ~ •':'• ' emissio n increas e shoul d no tjMMMfiLsa' ^ • . attainment . .Protectio

n oi-atiai^tpqasiLjAy •':

• •;>'•& unde r th e SIPisalao jui^&jy^^^ ••• « permitting offse tcredi tfo r s^spjsifi ^ j,».^ , A -. reduction s required by ; th»aiipm^ -tottk'£'S* & (se e "Modification"). " •"* . '^'^gl^^itoVaS ' -.•'£

£

'" " "WaefciaV*- 1 ' J ;'-y£it%

no. offset s shoul d b e vaaSSiB^SS^^ri^ Htftiuti O 'Fo r a dfecuMta

n o f c schedule* , M*«nt20OT(A**ifra tnmsfi N 

### _j858s(jutr-ttgntk-"- ; 

### -* ; 

### ,-*>- • '•?••;" • •^WSftt*.- . . - * Reeonstracta

d najo r tnetaHatbaa.ri^/mmikttiisf- t whethe r tbe*-

- a m MMado-a

d ,1i»odUkja<JBwSom>->

j under therettrlctiv a rirftafflnnof majat ^ mocfflcatloit^n'ne w m»)o r tosre m aatyodf

u . restriction * a

n contraction.' < • j-S/'-i-MWSi'- j I ,

However , for rou^ssubji restrictions o n cqhatruct : 110(aJ(2](I

l .WltXfimftFedera l Registe r / Voi . 44 . No . 17 3 /

Wednesday , Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule 9 P.1 4

*irh propose s t o accomplis h thi s throug h th e definitio n o f

"majo r modification, " rathe r ma n th e definitio n o f th e component s o f

"source. " Thi s i s discusse d i n th e sectio n o n "Modification" . EP A i s considerin g on e othe r approach fo r nonattainmen tareas . Unde r this approach , al l component s o f "source " woul d b e define d a s piece s o f proces s equipment , an d non e woul d b e define d a s plants . NS Rwoui d appl y t o ne w piece s o f

equipment , regardles s o f offset s elsewher e i n di e plant . Fo r modification s o f

existin g piece s o f equipmen toffsettin g reduction s withi n th e sam e piec e o f

equipmen tcoul d b e considere d i n determinin g whethe r ther e i s a significan tne tincreas e i n emissions . However , unde r thi s alternativ e approach , ne w o r modifie d mino r installation s woui d neve r b e subjec tt o review , regardles s o f

whethe r the y ar e parto f a majo r plant . Sinc e numerou s individua l piece s o f proces s equipmen ttypicall y hav e les s tha n 10 0 ton s pe r yea r potential , an d woul d escap e preconstructio n revie w eve n thoug h the y ar e par to f a singl e plan twit h ove r 10 0 ton s potentia l emissions , thi s approac h woul d allo w muc h ne w constructio n t o tak e plac e withou tpreconstructio n review . Thi s proble m coul d b e counteracte d somewha tb y requiring tha tstat e plan s provid e fo r clos e trackin g o f ne w mino r sourc e construction . However , a s

• I 'discusse d above , EP A believe s tha t s failin g t o revie w entir e ne w plant s woul d creat e enoug h risk o f massiv e ne w emission s tha tthi s approac h i s undesirable . D . Summary. In summary , EPA i s proposin g tw o differen tway s t o defin e sourc e fo r differen tkind s o f NS R programs : .:•' (IJ'For.PS D an d complet e Par tD SIPs , i";'7W*yie w woul d appl y onl y t o plants , wit h —' " a n unrestricte d plant-wid e bubble , |2jtro r th e offse truling , restrictions o n .tion , an d incomplet e Par tD revie w woul d appl y t o bot h plant s Individua l piece s o f

proces s men tcausin g th e plant-wid e >no tt o appl y fo r ne w an d majo r piece s o f

equipmen t -^^<lttaddition , fo r th e restriction s o n pCotiiterctiotv^P A i s proposin g to defin e p^J?^ ^ modification' ' s o a s t o prohibi t "ip^fgg|p-J e entirely . Finally,a n M Jillf&uifro discusse d bu tno tfavore d i s '" . toJxaye v only piece s o f proces s . ptfquinmeh treviewed , resultin g i n no-. , - ^plant-wid e bubblean d allowin g jnino r "Hpitce a o f

equipmen tto escap e NS R\2" ..regardles s o f

whethe r the y ar e withi n a . ntajo r plan t. . .. L.*A2:'L.u*--*z- . ZP A invite s commen tgenerall y o n wha tapproac h shoul d b e use d fo r eac h typ e o f program . •X . Modificatio n A . No Net

Increase. Unde r curren t EP A regulations , a modificatio n i s "major' ' i f potentia l emissio n increase s fro m th e modificatio n woul d equa l o r excee d th e applicabl e 100/250-to n threshold . Th e cour ti n Alabama Power rejecte d thi s approach . Ithel d tha ta chang e i n a majo r stationar y sourc e i s subjec tt o PS D revie w i f i tresult s i n a ne tincreas e i n th e source' s potentia l t o emit . Th e cour tals o hel d tha tan y emissio n increas e whic h i s entirel y offse tb y contemporaneou s emissio n reduction s a tth e sourc e woul d no tb e considere d a modification . Sli p op . 20 - 22 . Thes e ruling s ar e incorporate d int o th e propose d regulation s fo r bot h PS D an d nonattainmen tNS Rprovisions . Th e on e exceptio n i s constructio n restriction s unde r section s 110(a)(2)(I ) an d 173(4) , fo r whic h EP A propose s no t t o conside r offsettin g reduction s i n determinin g whedie r ther e i s a modification . Whil e th e cour taddresse d th e amount o f increas e tha ttrigger s review , i tdi d no taddres s which pollutant s mus tb e increase d t o trigge r review . Th e cour t thus , di d no tobjec tt o EPA' s curren t approac h o f

requirin g preconstructio n revie w onl y i f

th e increas e i n potentia l emission s i s fo r a pollutan tfo r whic h th e sourc e i s a majo r source . No r di d th e cour tobjec tt o EPA's'curren tapproac h o f aggregatin g smal l increase s i n emission s occurrin g afte r th e tim e o f progra m concer n (e.g. , Augus t7,197 7 fo r PSD ) t o determin e whethe r the y ad d u p t o enoug h i n tota l t o mak e th e sourc e a majo r sourc e subjec tt o preconstructio n review . Therefore , thes e tw o aspect s o f existin g regulation s ar e bein g retained . Th e fac ttha trevie w i s necessar y onl y i f ther e i s a n increas e fo r a pollutan tfo r whic h th e sourc e i s a majo r sourc e i s no t ir.crr-.. inten twit h th e Act' s instruction s tha tl'2*D requirement s appl y t o al l pollutant s emitte d If

an y on e pollutan t * initiate s PS D review , the n review i s require d fo r al l pollutant s emitte d i n greate r tha n de mimmis amount s bu ti f no<on e pollutan ttrigger s review, the n revie w i s not-require d fo r an y pollutant- 4 * emitted . y. * Tli e court' s rulin g requires additiona l > guidanc e o n ho w th e ne w definitio n o f " ' modificatio n wil l b e implemented , wha t- "contemporaneous " chang e means , wha temissio n offset s ar e creditable , an d ho w "ne tincrease " i s calculated . I t shoul d b e note d tha i th e topi c o f ne t .emissio n increase s i s distinc tfrom th e mor e genera l topic o f

emissio n offse t- banking , althoug h thayarecipsal y related . Bankin g i s discusse d i n th e Federa l Registe r notic e regardin g EPA' s offse truling . 4 4 F

R327 4 (January 16 , 19791 . 1 . Implementation. Th e regulation s propose d toda y woul d requir e tha tan y emissio n increase s a ta stationar y sourc e whic h woul d qualif y a s a majo r modification , wer e i tno tfo r sufficien t contemporaneou s emissio n reduction s occurin g withi n th e source , mus tb e reporte d t o th e Administrato r o r reviewin g authorit y (th e stat e govenuner-i l bod y responsibl e fo r issuin g permit s i s calle d th e reviewin g o r permittin g authority) . In addition , a sourc e mus trepor temissio n decrease s whic h i twishe s t o us e a s futur e offse t credit . EPA intend s th e reporting requiremen tt o fill a nee d fo r preconstructio n notic e an d no tt o ac ta s a time-consumin g substitut e fo r a permittin g program . Fo r mor e discussio n o f th e preconstructio n notic e requirements , se e th e sectio n o f thi s preambl e entitle d "Notification. " 2 . Contemporaneous Reductions. Unde r th e cour tdecision , a modificatio n i s a change , o r serie s o f contemporaneou s changes , tha tresult s i n a ne tincreas e i n potentia l t o emit . Th e ter m "change " derive s fro m th e definitio n o f

"modification " unde r sectio n 111(a)(4) , an d mean s "an y physica l chang e in , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n of

, a stationar y source. " Onl y a n actua l physica l chang e in , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio n of , a majo r stationar y sourc e ma y b e considere d i n calculatin g contemporaneou s decreases . I n addition , becaus e a source' s potentia l t o emi ti s calculate d base d o n ful l desig n capacit y assumin g year-round . 24-hour a-da y operation , onl y a n actua l chang e tha treduce s desig n capacit y ca n b e credite d a s e n offse ti n calculatin g whethe r a ne tincreas e ha s occurre d Fp r example , impositio n o f a lega l obligatio n t o reduce operatin g hour s o r operatin g iJ

- load s wil l no tb y itself , qualif y a s ah : actua l chang e decreasin g potentia l to emi tI n contrast , a n actua l chang e tha t permanentl y reduces th e source' s maximu m productio n capacity , suc h a s ' disconnectin g a n entir e process.woul d ' qualifyfdrcredi t''".".•"'" •:'•'• '"•";' 2J 2 , Th e proposa l woul d exemp ta n • ; ? p emission s increas e from PS D revie w tfp .. p equa l reductions i n emission s ^cctirf tfepp " th e sam e soun » contemporaneousl y H wit h th e emission s increase , i n the.r- - Ay court' s view , thi s exemptio n ha s tfae ^ y? - p advantag e o f

deferrin g oravoidinguW*'- ^ . cos to f review whU e providin g an-:•£••: - AA. ' incentiv e t o industr y toupjgrade air--" ; ' 22 pollutio n contro l equipment . --.-• • •;,:-: ' A namn v interpret s tioirotthe tere^r*-* •- : "contemponmeou8 , *w6uldrestrici iV

. Fi >^' - *--vm

•&%•* af-Si * -P-'afP' S

•Ja^- S

•'rPCa-l r 

### *LMP.1 5

Federa l Registe r Vol . '<"?, I \V.?rlnesdav . Sentembe r 5 : 197 9 / ProDose d Rule s 

### 5193 5 ..-editabl e emissio n reductions t

o ;ho; e recurrin g a tth e same tim

e as th e jniissio n increase s bein

a offset. This , however , woui d undercu

tth e incentiv e , . i upgrad e controls , sinc e i

ti s no t jiway s possibl e fo

r a source owner t

o i'ifec tth e necessar y reduction s a

t exactl y the righ

ttime . Althoug

h th e ter m "contemporaneous " appears t o preclud e r i formal, open-ende d bankin g system fo r previously-achieve d emissio n reductions a

tth e sam e source , i

ti s no t s o limited a s t

o requir e simultaneou s offsetting . Requirin

g source s t

o continue operatio n o

f obsolet e equipment

, simply t o preserv e offse tcredit , make s littl e economi c o

r air qualit

y sense . T o provide some latitud e fo r crediting emissio n reductions , EP

A i s proposing t

o credi tan y reporte d reduction tha

twoul d occu r after th e effectiv e dat e o

f th e promulgated'regulations bu tbefor e the propose d emissio n increase s ar

e scheduled t

o occur . Fo

r shutdown s an

d jurtaiiment

s occurrin g befor e thes e regulations ar

e promulgated,.offse

t credi tma y b e retained i

f th e source file s a notic e withi n 90 day s afte r promulgatio

n recording the previou s shutdown o

r curtailmen tA follow-up notic e woul d als o b e required t o documen tth e constructio n schedul e for the increas e t o b e offse tan d t o ensure tha tthe applicabl e offset s ar e enforceabl e unde

r th e SIP . Failur e t o identify 1 such a timetable o r t o compl y wit h i twil l preventus e o

f th e earlie r emissio n reduction s t

o offse ttha

t increase . This , i n turn, ma y require the affecte d owne r o

r operato r t

o obtai n a NS Rpermi t• 3 . Emission Offset

Baseline. - Additional guidance i s necessar y o n ho w t o determine i

f propose d emissio n reductions ata stationar

y source ar

e sufficien ti n typ e an d amoun

tt o offse t prospectiv e emissio n increase s a tth e sam e source

/ assumin g th e change s ar

e contemporaneous . Th e basi c rul e containe d i n th e regulations i s tha ta ne w increas e i n a source' s potantial.to.-.. -

. emitoccursvwhenever th e sum o f : p, „ ..-. • increase s minus the-su

m of th a decrease s i

a greate * tha n zero . Th e siz e of the increased^decraseiore,.;•;••;,•>p - •,"•- . particular emission

> unitJsgenerally : determine d b y th e differenc e betwee n . th e unit s potaiijdalta emi tieforeanj l 7 ^ • after di e chang e p tserie s of changes.. . A s mentione d i n VPptentia l T o Emit'', ' • th e Administrato r believe s thatpqtentia i emission s of

ah existin g sourc e ca n be; , n o greate r than.its flCtoale-^'aa'Q^pn <-. n $ capacity . I

f a 80-Jure-tfJa»longe

r :L-'.'.".-A.:_ physicallyabl e to.ppei^tfe4tt.ittt>^.?i"= maximu m desig n capacity , it s potentia l .. . t o emi ti s limite d acnnrrijngly.Eoraav : ,; p sourc e physically<»iutraine d from J •ji.Tatin s a tmaximu m capacity , offse

t jj.'di tvvii l be base d o

n it s potentia l -..missions , takin

g int o accoun tphysica l •constraint s o n ODeratio

n a tmaximu m •-.sipacitv . Fo r example , a

n obsolete uni

t whic h ha s been shu

tdow n fo r severa l year s du e t o sever e operationa

l difficulties woul d notoffe r an y offse t credi tt o new construction . I

f potentia l emissio n calculation s di d no taccount fo r physica l incapabilitie s inheren

ti n th e operation o

f existin g sources , a source coui d offsetne w usabl e productio n capacit y wit h ol d unusabl e productio n capacit y and thereb y avoi d preconstruction review . A commo n resul tWoul d b e significantan

d unreviewe d increase s in actua l emissions . I

f thi s were permitted , increment s an d standard s coui d be severel y impacted o

r eve n exceeded . Thi s polic y continue s a philosophy whic h wa s implicitin several requirement

s o f th e existin g PS

D regulations an

d offsetruling. Fo

r example , unde

r existin g regulations an

d today' s proposal , a source' s operatio n ove r a one - t

o two-yea r period i s considere d i n calculatin g th e siz e o f a n emissio n reduction . I

f a source has not been operating a

tful l capacit y fo r a significantpar

to f th e one - t

o two-yea r period , i ti s considere d t

o b e physicall y incapabl e o

f operating a

tful l capacit y and it s emissio n reductio n credi twil l b e calculate d base d o

n it s operatio n fo

r the one - t o two-yea r perio d A source owne r o r operato r ma

y overcom e th e presumption o

f physical incapabilit

y i f h e show s tha

ti twa s notphysica l incapabilit

y tha tcause d the lo w production rates . Physica l incapabilit

y include s situation s wher e on e par

to f a n existin g source cannotb e use d a

tits ful l capacit y becaus e it s capacity i s larger relativ e to th e res to

f Ui e associate d units , an d therefor

e it s outputi s limite d b y the capacity o f

th e othe r units . I

n addition , i f a plan i s unsaf

e for a certai n , leve l of operatio n o r ha s obsolet e o r worn-ou tcomponent

s whic h canno tb e - routinely replaced,- it s potential t o emit woul d b e limite d b y thes e conditions . •• • Unde r th a proposal , emissio n J ' reduction s mus tb e reporte d to th e permittin g authority-t

o receive futur

e - • offse tcredi t{se e "Notification") . EP A - woul d accordingl y allo w ful l aedi tfo r a .systemati c phase^wn< ^ production. , • ; curtailmen

ta ta sourc e Ifl ti s reported••••• i n advanc e t o th e permitting authority . : Industr y woul d b e allowe d t o phas e i n orderl y growt h withoutrannin g highly : polluting , obsolet e units a tful l operation^aimpl

y to accru e maximu

m - offse tcredit- p • A n adjustmen

tto the r potential -

• emissionsiui e i s neede d i n a cas e where potentia l emission s ar

e greate r tha n .:ilowabl e emissions . I

n suc h a case , n

o credi tma v be take n fo r reducin g potentia l emission s uow

n t o allowabl e jnissions . Thi

s adjustmen

tis neede d t

o implemen tCongress ' intent

, a s interprete d i n Alabama Power, dia

t offset s should be permitte

d a s a n incentive t

o upgrad e air poliution controls . Sli p op . a

t21 . Wher

e th e improvemen

tin contro

l technology woul d b e legall y required under th e SIP , th e sourc e shoul d notb e permitted t o tak e creditfo r makin g the legall y require d decrease . Thi s approac

h appears i n th e offse truling , which wa s endorse d b

y Congress . Th e 197

7 Amendment

s provid e that.th e emission s baselin e fo

r calculatin g offset s unde r th e rulin g mustbe the stat e pla

n requiremen

tin effec ta tth e time th e source applie s fo

r a permit . Se e sectio n 129(a)(1 ) o

f th e 197 7 Amendment

s (not e unde r 4 2 U.S.C . 7502(a)(1)) . I n addition , allowin g offse tereditfo r independentl y require

d reductions. " woul d mak

e itdifficultfor th e SI

P to reduc e tota l emission s i

n a n area wher e standard s o

r increment

s are violated . I

f ' suc h offsets wer e allowed , a sourc e tha t, cam e int o complianc e wit

h a required ; . emissio n limitatio n coul d the n us e th e sam e reduction t

o offse tIncrease s in . •'. ' emitting capacit

y such thatn o net" . '.'.." . A increas e woul d occur . Total emission s " f-' " fo r th e sourc e woul d remain th e sam e •; ' and th e violatio n woul d stil l exis tThe " > propose d regulation s woul d avoi d thi s unacceptabl e resul tb y prohibiting th e sourc e fro m taking creditfo

r suc h a - reduction . , . "Allowabl e emissions " ar e define d a s the mos tstringentof

(1 ) any ne w aourc

e . performanc

e standard or standard for hazardou s poilutaht

a applicabl e t

d thi s ... . constructio n unde

r review, ? ]2)L- ."•'- A.','.A.^ "• A\ applicabl e SIP

. emissio n Uii^^^'^Llu^^:^ ; emissio n rat e sftecifiedai'-an^^'rj^^^^^i ^ enforceabl e pemid

tfjndifiomlljyl*^ ^ 'l^:'\At§ ther e are'any t-ittforceabltenito*^ ^ limits thatnuutttaaronijilie^ ^ future , an d wMchuredifferTOt-fiipO!^ ^ limi tc**-rrentiy're.}.u^sdWl»Vi^ ^ stringento i th

a presentand^atei*^^ ^ emissio n limitation * i s * determinin g the^lloiwabl e T o continu e ekistiirg i policies , th e Administra t eac h -candidate

) nidiwttfii H followin g criteria.'*/" -'A^$.p

. (1 ) I tmustb e enfai?6Mii i applicabl e SIP ; either ! •Her e th e appScahi a

- standar d far-hamdona |>nlhrt*n*» ptG/t* } standar dtha t

aparticula r

ssnrce-l * no t ne w standard * ocrevteipn * standard * tvhfc * affse t bu t tha t woal d oa taj*p.j-<->th* i5193 6 Federa l Registe r '.Yednesdav , Septembe r 5 , 197 9 / Propose d Rule s

revisio n o r a n alteratio n o f th e source' s permit . \ {2} I

tmus tb e fo r tn e sam e pollutan ta s f th e emissio n increas e an d hav e comparabl e impact s to healt h an d welfare . Sectio n IV.C.4 . o f th e offse t ruling , involvin g credi tfo r hydrocarbo n substitution , shoul d appiy . Th e criteri a outline d i n th e propose d polic y statemen to n stat e implementatio n o f th e "bubble " concep tfo r existin g source s (4 4 F

R374 3 col . 1 ) January 16 . 1979 , woul d als o apply . Accordingly , reduction s o f

pollutant s withi n th e sam e pollutan tcategorie s butwit h differen t healt h o r ambien tai r impact s canno tb e trade d agains teac h other . (3 ) I tmus tno thav e bee n alread y committe d t o i n th e SIP . (4 ) Ai r qualit y nee d no timprov e o r sta y th e sam e a tever y locatio n affecte d b y th e propose d construction , bu to n balanc e th e affecte d are a shoul d no tb e adversel y impacted . Th e Administrato r recognize s a proble m associate d wit h creditin g offset s a s defined . Unde r today' s proposa l ther e i s a possibl e incentiv e t o see k a loos e BAC T requiremen twhe n undergoin g PS D revie w i n orde r t o la y ' a n earl y clai m t o a n exces s amoun to f th e increment . I

f a n applican tobtain s approva l o f

propose d constructio n unde r p , a looseBACT-requiremen th e coul d " » the n alte r th e proposa l t o provid e fo r th e pllnstallatio n o f

th e bette r control s s o a s Jkio-oSaet

afutureexpansio n a tth e sam e 'JI^I W Withou tful l PS D r e vi e w . Th e /^Administrato r ask s fo r comment s o n '•' ' ho w bes tt o addres s thi s problem . B. Restrictions on Construction. EPA i s proposin g tha tth e bubbl e shoul d no t appl y a tal l fo r area s subjec tt o constructio n restriction s unde r sectio n 10(a)(2)(I ) o r 173(4) . Fo r thes e ^visions , EP

A i s proposin g t o defin e o r modification " a s an y chang e in , : ang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n o f jajo r stationar y sourc e tha tresult s i n jqtlatrease i n th e potentia l t o emi to f a

, a - pollutan tfo r whic h th e sourc e i s majo r i f

as e exceed s th e de minimis ijcnrth e pollutan t(See "D e • • '• J MiJi^Exemptions'') . j jyA'believe s tha tth e Alabama Power .establishin g tha tinterna l s tb e permitte d i n determinin g BHit y o f PS D t o modifications ,

. . i»«tf tappl y to sectio n 110{a)(2)(I ) o r p'i-^Stft^restriction s o n construction . Th e •i^BSiiftthilin

g wa s essentially , a n interi m ^TM*^'-" ~ Mo

w som e furthC

T growt h aat e pla n revisions wer e ed p EPA believe s tha ti n < 1e*ipiaingJttjet>ffBe trulin g o n Jun e 3 a 'i&atlati d restricting furthe r majo r - . pafefiiffutation unti l Par tDplaid s ar e '-< c ' approve d an d implemente d Congres s intende d t o terminate : no tonl y offse t. nction s betwee n differen tsource s JU I :;:; o thos e withi n th e sam e plant , l n tijh to f thi s intent , no tpermittin g ,:.t.-- - - . offset s i s particularl y importan t j!; „ t•• mos toffse ttransaction s permitte d unde r th e offse trulin g hav e involve d offset s insid e th e sam e source . Thi s interpretatio n i s als o require d to avoi d underminin g th e purpos e o f th e restriction s o n construction . A s discusse d i n th e "Source/Facility / Installation " sectio n o f th e preamble , whe n a sourc e matche s a n emissio n reductio n wit h a n equa l amoun to f increase d emission s fro m ne w construction , th e nonattainmen tproble m get s harde r t o solve . Thi s i s especiall y tru e wher e ther e i s n o adequat e SI P tha t demonstrate s attainment . EP A believe s tha tth e restrictio n o n constructio n wa s designe d t o sto p th e proble m fro m becomin g wors e an d provid e a n incentiv e fo r state s t o submi tan d carr y ou tcorrectiv e SIPs . Allowin g offse t credi tfo r reduction s woui d instea d provid e a n incentiv e fo r source s t o see k delay s i n th e adoptio n o f acceptabl e stat e plans . Dela y woul d allo w source s mor e tim e t o conver treduction s int o offset s befor e a pla n requirin g thos e reduction s ca n b e adopt e an d approved . A n alternativ e t o prohibitin g th e bubbl e outrigh tma y b e t o allo w n o offse tcredi tfo r reducin g potentia l emission s dow n t o th e leve l tha twoul d b e require d i f

reasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y (RACT ) wer e applied . Sinc e RAC T i s require d i n approvabl e Par tD SIPs , th e effec twoul d b e to discoun tcredi tfo r reduction s tha t woul d b e legall y require d i f a n approvabl e SI P wer e i n place . Suc h a polic y woul d preserv e th e incentiv e t o submi tadequat e SI P revision s fo r

. affecte d areas . Whil e Congres s remove d a simila r RAC T baselin e from th e offse truling , i n sectio n 129(a ) o f

th e 197 7 Amendments , EPA doe s no tbeliev e tha tCongres s prohibite d a simila r approac h wher e area s d o no thave , o r hav e faile d t o implemen tacceptabl e Par tD plans . A majo r drawbac k t o thi s approach ,

- however , i s tha tRAC T ma y b e difficul t t o defin e i n th e absenc e o f a ful l regulator y proceeding , suc h a s thos e require d fo r SI P submissio n an d approvals . Therefore . EP A i s proposin g instea d to prohibi tinterna l offset s i n arta s subjec tt o constructio n restrictions. However , EPA als o invite s commen to n th e alternativ e approac h o f permittin g offse tcredi ti n area s wher e th e growt h prohibition s appl y i f RAC T wer e firstapphed - -•-••'• ' " • " • C . Accumulation. A s note d above . ' EPA propose d to continu e th e current ; polic y o f requiring NS Rfo r a sourc e p wh^ n aggregat e ne w emission s from*•* ; 

## i f individuall y mino r unit s a tth e sam e site . ufte r a n applicabl e date , ar e sufficien tt o quaiif v th e serie s o f

change s a s a majo r modification . Fo r PS D review , th e dat e irom wnic h emission s increase s ar e aggregate d i s Augus t7,1977 , (4 0 CF R 51.24(b)(2) , 4 0 CF

R52.21(b)(2) ) an d fo r source s subjec tt o th e offse truling . Decembe r 21,1976 , 4 4 F R3283 , coi . 1 (January 16.1979) . Thes e date s continu e curren tEP

A policy . Fo r source s subjec t to PartD plan s an d restriction s o n constructio n affectin g designate d nonattainmen tareas , th e applicabl e dat e fo r accumulatio n wil l als o b e Decembe r 21,1976 . Accumulatin g ne t emissio n increase s fro m tha tdat e forwar d ensure s tha tmodification s resultin g i n emission s whic h Congres s define d a s majo r wil l b e subjec tt o revie w unde r a Par tD pla n o r els e t o th e restriction s o n growth . In addition , tiiese source s receive d notic e a s o f Decembe r 21.197 6 tha taccumulatio n coul d late r subjec tthe m t o nonattainmen treview . EP A i s proposin g on e chang e t o ti s existin g accumulatio n provisio n t o confor m i tt o th e court' s decision . Th e curren taccumulatio n regulatio n aggregate s emissio n increase s afte r a n applicabl e date , wit h n o credi tgive n fo r contemporaneou s emissio n decreases . Th e court , however , define d modificatio n a s a ne tincreas e i n potentia l t o emi tT o mak e th e accumulatio n provisio n consisten twit h this definition , EPA i s proposin g tha ta sourc e b e subjec tt o NS Rwhe n the * aggregate net

increas e i n it s potentia l t o emi tafte r th e applicabl e dat e qualifie s i t a s a majo r stationar y source . A s i n th e existin g regulations , onl y ne temissio n increase s afte r Augus t7,197 7 fo r PS D — sources , an d Decembe r 21,197 6 fo r source s subjec tt o nonattainmen t requirement s wil l b e considere d i n V. . determinin g i f

a sourc e i s subjec tt o NSR . -...*-' . Unde r thi s approach , i f a modificatio n •-•' : a ta mino r sourc e result s i n a ne t'•- '2'A'y" - 2 ' increas e i n emissions , suc h tha tits aggregat e ne tincrease s i n potentia l ;'p*-" - '"" ' emission s sinc e th e dat e o f concerrt'j'i f

? P " exceed s th e applicahlel0p/25O-to n *"X : threshol d th e modificatio n wil l bi s . -J i .*f-'•': .•

: subjec tt o review. Thi s approac h -^.a. w . : p p requires revie w fo r esin^ e motlificatid'H >ai r/"' " t o a mino r sourc e constructe d befor e tKt&j H * applicabl e dat e *rbmih^od&cati(&^ .'. results i n a Txttamai^it^t'^M^S^AL^y. emission s o f

overth e applicabl e iob/^%^r..vs< ^ 250-to n threshold 5 ---'.:: . ;HHs't^^^H" ' Onc e a serieso f

todftddual miito^* ^ changes'accnmiifet^tt^jB"Sa.4j&F;^!p^^^ > : .... , modification , question s hris e conceraifi^^i : J p th e degre e o f

reide w tha' twoul d ajpipjj^t?'v*pp ; th e earlie r eddiia^'^^a8^l^ 7 ^^ r * 1 f^^ geirtralvtocilaiy ^ ,:- * 

# I

m

m

-*fi^ki0^2Ar

2$ 2->M 

# *^m

'-•'• • • -.ria'.aaaT&arP-- '

• V-V.}??

.Federa l Registe r / .Veiinesriav . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 5193 7

:J J requirementto npni y BAC T o r I.AF. K J. I oni v tha

temission s increas e wnic h —.:ike s ih e sourc e subjec tt

o review . O n •i e oir.e r hand , tota i aggregate d -mission s tro

m tn e sourc e wi n b e o i i.ancer n whe n performin g ai r qualit y :ests . Suc h test s includ e incremen t •naiysi s tor PS D source s an d thos e relevan tt

o emissio n offset s fo r source s subjec tto nonattainmen tNSR . An y subsequen tmodificatio n a tth e sourc e resultin g i n a ne tincreas e i n potentia l t o emi ttha texceed s th e de minimis cutof f wil l b e subjec tt o NSR . Th e accumulatio n approac h a s modifie d to confor m wit h th e court' s decisio n close s a loophol e i n EPA' s curren tregulations . Previously , a modificatio n wa s no tsubjec tt o revie w unles s i tincrease d a source' s potentia l emission s b y 10 0 o r 2K

0 ton s pe r year , whicheve r wa s applicable . Unde r bot h th e existin g an d propose d accumulatio n provision , a powe r plan tconstructe d .ute r tn e dat e o f

concer n whic h emit s 9 0 ton s o f SO i an d the n add s a ne w 5 0 to n SO » boiler , woul d b e subjec tt o contro l technolog y requirement s fo r th e 50-to n uni tan d t

o ai r qualit y revie w fo r th e entir e facility . Unde r th e existin g provision , i

f th e plan tthe n adde d anothe r 90-to n boiler , however , th e boile r would.no tb e subjec tt o existin g revie w requirement s becaus e i twoul d no tmee tth e 100-to n threshold . Thi s i s tru e because.th e curren tregulation s allo w th e accumulatio n slat e t o b e wipe d clea n afte r a permi twa s obtained . Unde r th e approac h propose d today ; any.ne tincreas e i n potentia l t o emi tafte r th e sourc e become s majo r i s subjec tt o review . Consequently , th e nex t90-to n increas e woul d b e subjec tto review , unles s ther e wer e sufficien t contemporaneou s emissio n decreases . Th e de minimis exemption , a s discusse d mor e full y i n ih a sectio n o n "De Minimis Exemptions. " woul d als o - appl y t o emission s fro m major , modification s o n a cumulativ e basis . J Onc e a mino r sourc e i s subjec tt o review becaus e it s aggregat e potentia l emission s mak e i tmajor , an y futur e ne t.- . emissio n increas e wil l als o b e reviewed unles s i tqualifie s a s a d e minimis - increase.dHowever , an y futur e da •-?... . minimis ne tincrease-front:a- ; modificatio n wil l b e cumulate d wit h ne t increase s from subsequen tp- * modification s t o determine-i f total net.-r, p increase s excee d th e applicabl e at e minimis cutoff

. : .->';' . :pr.-.p•.-.-_:...";_-.

- Finally , i f

a mino r aourc e becomes*. , ; majo r throt^accumolatkmo f lt*7~ - .: . emission s an d thesourcemtocated-ih a . PS D are a wher e n o baselin e dat e .- - applies , tha tsource' s applicatio n fa r a . , majo r modifteatiottpeniiH.wittJtrigge r a -.-•• baselin e dat e fo r th e area . Th e baselin e ::.-? woui n O e tn e dat e a compic'. s implicatio n to r tn e maio r modificatio n i s ry.yd ant i no ttpt ? dat e o n wnic h th e firs t -.-_r.i to f th e thcr.-nmo r sourc e wa s :ns!ruc.eu . X . "D e Minimis " Exemptio n i n th e Alabama Powerdecision , ih e courtprovide d tha tEP

A ma y exemp t fro m revie w thos e situation s determine d t o b e de minimis. Specifically , th e cour t stated : "Th e Agenc y doe s posses s authority , inheren ti n th e statutor y scheme , t o overloo k circumstance s tha t in contex tfairl y ma y b e considere d de minimis." Sli p op . a t10 . Th e cour tspok e o f th e administrator' s abilit y to exemp t from review modification s wit h smal l net . increase s an d t o dispens e wit h th e BAC T an d monitorin g requirement s throug h th e applicatio n o f de minimis threshold s fo r thos e pollutant s emitte d b y a n otherwis e subjec tsource . Th e cour tdi d limi tth e Administrator' s discretio n i n formulatin g suc h exemptio n cutoff

s b y statin g tha ta cost effectivenes s rational e woui d no tb e appropriate . Th e Administrato r i s toda y proposin g to exercis e this authorit y b y establishin g a pollutan tspecifi c exemptio n syste m tha texclude s o r limit s revie w o f propose d constructio n havin g emission s o r ai r qualit y impact s belo w certai n values . Tabl e 1 contain s fo r eac h pollutan tregulate d unde r th e Ac ta n emissio n cutof

f tha twoul d b e considere d insignifican to r de minimis. Tabl e 1 woul d hav e tw o principa l uses . First , i twoul d b e use d to sho w dia tth e ne tincreas e associate d wit h a modificatio n woul d b e de minimis fo r al l pollutant s fo r whic h th e sourc e i s major . I n nonattainmen tareas , thi s demonstratio n woul d involv e onl y th e nonattainmen tpollutant(s) . whil e a showin g fo r al l regulate d pollutant s fo r whic h th e sourc e i s majo r woul d b e require d o f

modification s a tmajo r stationar y source s i n PS D areas . A successfu l showin g woul d exemp ta modificatio n from PS D an d nonattainmen tpermi trequirements . However , suc h a sourc e woul d b e require d t o provid e notic e t o th e •-.. .. Administrato r and . therein , mak e th e di e m/n/m/ s demonstratio n (se e sectio n o n "NOTTFICATION")cThe.'propose d regulation s incorporat e ihedejnininiis ...-, . concep tb y requiring "tha tmajor ' H p modification s hav e a significan tneti r , p ~ increas e in . potentia l emissions.- , ~ y . 2A.-LTabl e 1—Gtiidefiae ? Rates. - - --'•••. . -v igntfinan t Pollutant and Emission Rate Carbon mmoxide^-ip o tana pe r year . Nitroge n dioxide—1 0 ton s per year . Potn i Suspende d particulates—1 0 ton s pe r '

. a'ar

. ^'lil'u r dioxide—1 0 Ion s De

r year , '..'/.cm.:—1 0 ion s pe r

yea r u i volatil e organi c ...jmoounus

. '.-..•.iu— l io n pe r year . Pi.-rcurv—

. 1 Urn s pu r

voir

. Uerviiium—0.1X

H to n pe r

year . Asbcsios— 1 io n pe r

year . Fluorides—(1.0 2 to n pe r

year . Sulfuri c aci dmist— 1 to n pe r year . Viny l chloride— 1 to n pe r year . Tota l Reduce dSulfu r Hydroge n sulfide— 1 to n pe r year . Methy l mercaptan— 1 to n pe r year . • Dimethy l sulfide— 1 to n pe r year . Dimethy l disulfide— 1 to n pe r year . . Reduce dSulfu r

Compounds : Hydroge n sulfid e (se e above) . Carbo n disulfide—1 0 ton s pe r year. . Carbony l sulfide—1 0 ton s pe r year . • Eve n if a modificatio n canno tb e show n t o b e minor , Tabl e 1 ca n b e use d t o limi tth e pollutant s fo r whic h BAC T . mus tb e applie d o r a n ai r quality,: . analysi s done . I

f a modificatio n toi- a "

• ' • sourc e i s subjec tt o revie w becaus e i t result s i n a significan tne tincreas e i n potentia l emission s o f

a "pollutantfo r whic h th e sourc e i s major , or a ne w sourc e i s subjec tt o review becaus e i t' wil l hav e th e potentia l t o emi ta regulate d pollutan ti n majo r amounts , th e sourc e ma y stil l avoi d B.AC T o r a n ai r qualit y analysi s fo r othe r pollutant s i temit s i f

i temit s suc h pollutant s '•ia.it&.'ii. . , - ( minimis amounts . Tabl e 1 identifie s the- ' emissio n cutoff

s tha twoul d trigge r th e *y ' nee d fo r contro l technolog y an d ambien t revie w fo r thos e othe r pollutants . Thus.*- " whe n a majo r stationary.sliurc e or.. ' modificatio n i s subjec tt o PS D review, i ' becaus e o f

potentia l emission s o f on e o r mor e pollutant s th e revie w woul d appl y t o onl y thos e othe r pollutant s whic h th e sourc e woul d hav e th e potentia l t o emit " i n amount s abov e thos e propose d in. . Tabl e 1 . N o notic e requirementi s . neccssai y fo r thes e pollutant s sinc e th e . sourc e or. modificatio n woul d mak e th e T " de minimis demonstratio n a s permi tapplication . ,;', " Tabl e 2 is ; propose d a&4as$ mechanis m t o limi tth e air " revie w fo r certai n pollutant * sourc e wouldhaveth e p o ' i n significan tamounts-t a n insignifican tajmbt

e may.occurfrequehdy.8 i emissio n value s i n Tabl e from, th e ai r qu^SyJjay ; preliminary , conservativ e value s i n Tabl e 2represent * fractiMiaof

thosean»fcian t o b e protrctivecr f

p^blfcs p welfare;.Tab! e l'ddWndf,i j pollutant s fo r whlcn^aije ' woul d emi ti n exces s o f thje j 100/250-to n threshol d no r "* " S^Ssa'*. ^

•fr'rr.-^jtft^&i'.'i .

... . -.ar. a« -">&': ' ••rrrrA^j^r^M ...•i v.^trfl-.-'. a „-.Si ; -A "P.1 8

5193 8 Federa l Registe r •A'ednesdav

. Septembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s

t o maio r constructio n tri mwoui aioi.at e i n t i nonaitainmen t

are ao r woul d adversel y impac t

aClas s 1 area . Tabl e 2—Guideline s fo

r Significan

t Ambien t Ai r Qualit y impact s Poliutar.t and Air Quality Impact Carbo n monoxide—500 M-g/m 3

. B-hou r avg . Nitroge n dioxide—l|ig/m J

. annual

. Tota l suspende d particulates— 5 ug/m J

. 24

- hour

. Sulfu r dioxide—

5 fig/m3 , 24-hour

. Ozone— 1!>

. Lead—.0 3 ng/m 3 , 3-month

. Mercury—0. 1 -tg/m3

. 24-hour

. Beryllium—.005 fig/m3 , 24-hour

. Asbestos— 1 ng/m 3 .1-hour

. Fluorides—.0 1 ns/m 3 , 24-hour

. Sulfuri c aci d mist— 1 ug/m 3

. 24-hour

. Vinyl chloride— 1 wj/m J , - maximumvalue

. Total reduce d sulfur : Hydrogen sulfide— 1 ng/m 1 ,1-hour

. Methyl mercaptan—. 5 ng/m 3 , 1-hour

. Dimethyl sulfide—. 5 ng/m 3

. 1-hour

. Dimethyl disulfide—

2 ng/m 3

. 1-hour

. Reduce d sulfu r compounds : Hydrogen sulfide (se e above)

. Carbo n disulfide—200 ng/m 1

- 1-hour

. 1 Carbony i sulfider-20 0 ng/m 1

. 1-hour

. I n orde r t o utiliz e Tabl e 2 , source s ar e require d t o us e apreliminar y screenin g techniqu e t o determin e if thei r ai r qualit y impac t

wil l excee dth e •M&J. acceptabl e de minimis guidelines

. Th e jll^screenin g techniqu e i s se t fort h i n '^rGmdelines for

Air Quality Maintenance A Planning and

Analysis Vol. 10 ix&yRpvised); Procedures for Evaluating Air •mZ'XZuaJity Impact

of New Stationary ffLSbiirces (Octobe r

1977

. U.S

. EPA

. Offic e } H o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standards , j v . Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C

. 27711)

. If a source' s ambien t

impact s ar e expecte d

" t o excee d th e de minimis guideline s usin g thi s conservativ e technique , i t ma y :

_elec t t o d o amor e sophisticate d

- modelin g analysi s t o demonstrat e ade

,. minimis impact

. Upo n ashowin g tha t •.•-^h e anticipate d impac t o f aregulate d lir "' " "utan t

woui d b e les s tha n significan t jo r stationar y sourc e o r

majo r ifk-atio n woul d no t

fac e th e detaile d n t impac t analyse s o f

PS D fo r tha t t (subjec t t o th e exception s above)

. Thus , suc h asourc e woul d

• require d t o d o a n analysi s fo r it s t o n increment s an d standards , ppwoul d suc h asourc e b e require d t o it s effec t o n soils , vegetation , : ^Pji|!i3^pisib.lity o r

t o conduc t

an y ambien t studies.-

. - --followin g i s a n exampl e o f ho w pose d dua l de minimis approac h - • -*Urork

. Suppos e ane w sourc e 2v ^tfoxhtninimis ai r

qualit y leve l tapiupiiw d fo

r oione

. However

. an

y ne t increas e o f 10 0 loo t pe r < yearo l volatil

e organi c compound ! rabject

to PS D • woul d b e required t

o perfor ma n ambien t impac t .eqaljaia , includin

g th e gatherin g o f ambien t ai r > • .£iafii)r.data a- ;•-v.... . .7-. j • .:J;KC ; t o PS D woui demi t P " ton s o t SO. , bu t oni y 5 ton s De

r yea r o f P M an d 1 0 (on s pe r

vea r o f bot h nitroge n dioxid e '.'0 % . l an dvolatil e orsuni c compound s 20C2,. A DAC T analysi s woul d b e :iL'cessary io r

S0 2 . NO, , an dVO C bu t no t fo r PM

. A n ambien t

ai r quaiit v analysi s woui db e require dfo r S0 2 . Th e sourc e coul dd o ascreenin g analysi s t o determin e i

f a n ambien t

analysi s i s als o require d fo r

NO T . N o ambien t

analysi s woul d b e require dfo r

th e VO C emission s becaus e th e potentia l VO C emission s ar e unde r

10 0 ton s pe r

year . Th e number s propose d i n Tabl e 2 fo r criteri apollutant s reflec t th e level s o f significan t

impac t promulgate di n th e existin g PS D regulation s o n Jun e 9.197 8 (4 3 F R26398)

. whil e th e de minimis ai r qualit y guidanc e propose dfo r beryllium , fluorides , an d mercur y ha s bee n derive d fro mhealt h effect s dat acontaine d i n th e repor t entitle d "Effect s o f

Trac e Contaminant s fro mCoa l Combustion" — proceeding s o f

a n ERD A worksho p conferenc e Augus t

2-6.1976

. Th e remainin g de minimis ai r qualit y guidanc e wa s formulate d followin g a revie w o f

stat e ambien t

ai r qualit y standards , stat e emissio n regulations , an d backgroun d document s use dt o develo p standard s unde r 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 an d 61

. Th e on e exceptio n t o thi s patter n i n Tabl e 2 i s ozone . Th e Administrato r

her e i s proposin g th e majo r sourc e cutof

f o f 10 0 ton s pe r

yea r a s th e valu e t o trigge r

ambien t concer n afte r BAC T ha s bee n applied

. A backgroun ddocumen t

wil l b e issue db y EP A providin g th e methodology , data , an d reference s use d i n developin g bot h Tabl e 1 an d2

. Th e Administrato r

woul d lik e t o poin t ou t tha t th e propose dde minimis numbers , particularl y th e ai r qualit y values , ma y b e to o hig h o r to o low

. Becaus e o f

th e urgenc y associate dwit h today' s proposal , th e number s identifie d i n Table s 1 an d2 ar e no t supporte d b y extensiv e analysis

. Publi c commen t o r followu p investigation s ma y resul t i n change s i n th e number s i n th e final - package

. Althoug h th e value s i n Tabl e 1 an d Tabl e 2 ar e subjec t

t o change , th e Administrato r

believe s tha t

de minimis guideline s ar e necessary . EP A believe s tha t thes e exemption s ar e no t onl y justifie db y disassociate d insignifican t ai r quaht y impact s bu t

als o b y administrativ e necessity

. Th e potentia l administrativ e burde n o f processin g permit s fo r

nearl y ever y mino r

chang e a t a i majo r stationar y sourc e appear s unmanageable

. Fo r

example , if

n o de minimis exemptio n wer e provided , an y ne w elemen t

i n a n oi l refinery, includin g avalv e o r

smal l spac e heater , wouldbe

- ..•ji>iect t o N-SR

. In th e Agency' s view , neithe r ai r qualit y no r

efficien t .-•dministrativ e operatio n ar e serve d b y "jquirin apreconstructio n revie w fo r auc h changes , o r

fo r ne w sources-wit h a comparaoi e impact

. I n additio n t o requestin g comment s o n ih e propose dvalue s i n Table s 1 an d 2

. th e Administrato r

solicit s comment s regardin g th e nee dfo r

bot h ai r qualit y ' an demissio n de minimis number s an d th e nee d t o pu t

eithe r directl y int o th e regulations

. XI

. Geographi c Applicabilit y Thi s sectio n addresse s issue s raise d b y th e court' s interpretatio n o f th e geographi c applicabilit y o f th e PS D regulations

. Fou r

majo r topic s ar e discussed : (1 ) source s constructin g i n designate dnonattainmen t areas . (2 ) source s constructin g i n designate d attainmen t

o r unclassifiabl e areas . (3 ) VO C sourc e considerations , an d (4 ) interstat e pollution

. A

. Designated

Nonattainment

Areas. i n th e Alabama Power

decision , th e cour t hel d tha t

th e PS D provision s appl y onl y t o majo r

source s eithe r

locatin g i n area s specificall y designate d a s attainmen t

o r unclassifiabl e unde r sectio n 10 7 ("clea n ai r

areas") , o r locatin g i n an y are afro mwhic h th e sourc e woul dsubstantiall y impac t a clea n ai r are ai n anothe r

state

. EP A ha s filed apetitio n fo r reconsideratio n regardin g th e court' s restrictio n o f

th e geographi c applicabilit y o f

th e PS D provision s o f th e Act

. I n th e petition , EP A argue s tha t Congres s intende dPS D revie w t o appl y t o majo r construction , whethe r locate d insid e o r outsid e adesignate d nonattainmen t

area , tha t

woul d significantl y impac t

an y clea n area . Th e Agenc y argue dfurthe r

that , eve n i f

th e cour t doc- 3 no t

accep t EPA' s entir e position , th e cour t

shoul d rul e tha t

th e PS D provision s shoul dappl y t o an y majo r constructio n tha t

woul d impac t

a- Clas s I are ao r

atriba l reservation

. Th e Administrato r

believe s tha t

a s muc h a s 4 0 percen t

o f th e tota l acreag e o f

th e mandator y Clas s I

area s i s locate d i n o r adjacen t t o formall y designate d nonattainmen t

areas , an dmus t

b e - r - '"• - y protecte d agains t

th e impact'o f

new 4 "-• • * constructio n i n th e nonattainmen t areas . Today' s proposa l conform s t o the-- V court' s Jun e 18,197 9 opinion

. EP A woul d require permit s onl y fo r majo r '22LL : ^2r constructio n occurrin g ii i designate d "§•&' ~- attainmen t

o r unclassifiabl e • areas : or - for*. ' - constructio n i n adesignate d ' .../.a*.

- nonattainmen t

area.tha t

Wpuld^j ? H'-ir : -f

r significantlyimpac t

aclea n ai r

are ain > anothe r state

. I f th e cour t

alter s it s opiniona s Q> A aakedi t todo , EP A WM-J-

- hav e t o reconsider

thi s proposal:-

- - "iAL'L •X-i*

-.->.-* * A2*2

:A4s£&i* .-TXfS SP.1 9

: edera l Registe r / Wednesday

. Septembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Prorjose d Rule s 5193 9

EP A i s als o proposm s t

o exten d NS

R

• mder sectio n 17

3 an d tn e offse

t nihne

. in d th e Par

t D restriction s on srowth

. t o ..ever major source s everywher e i

n th e josignate d nonattainmen t area . Thi s ;ul e woul d appi y regardles s o f whethe r the sourc e coul d demonstrat e tha t i t •.voul d no t significantl y impac t

th e specifi c pointjs ) o

f violation

. Thi s woul d b e achang e t

o th e curren t

policy , whic h no w allow s asourc e to b e exemp t fro m nonattainmen t

requirement s i

f i t makes suc h ademonstration

. Th e abov e chang e i s neede d to overcom e avery significant shortcomin g tha t woul d otherwis e b e create d in th e regulator y system

. Under

th e curren t regulations , propose d major source s i n designate d nonattainmen

tareas wit

h n o significant impac t o n th e violation s coul d b e exempte d fro

m nonattainmen

t requirement s becaus e the y ar e mad e subjec t to PSD preconstructio n revie w requirements

. But

. unde r

Alabama Power an d th e regulations no w bein g proposed , suc h major

source s woui d usuall y notb e subjectt

o PS D requirements

. I

twoul d b e inequitabl e an d contrar

y t o the apparen

tstatutor y purpos e to allo w suc h majo r source s t o b e totall y exemp tfro

m an y preconstruction revie w permi t requirements , including n o minimu m emissio n contro

l requiremen

tand no evaluatio n o

f air qualit y impact. Therefore . EP

A propose s t

o eliminat e the shortcoming by extendin g nonattainmen

trequirement

s t o al l majo r source s constructing in designate d nonattainmen

tareas . I f the cour t accept s EPA' s petitio n fo

r rehearing , and extend s PS

D requirement

s t o mor e source s in designate d nonattainmen t areas , EP A ma y reconside r thi s proposal . B . Designated

Attainment

and Unclassifiable Areas. Hi e court' s decisio n i n th e AlabamvPowercas e addresse d onl y th e issu e of whethe r the PS D requirement

s o f th e Ac tappiy t

o source s i n designate d nonattainment areas . The cour

tdi d no taddres s th e "issu e o f whethe r th e Agency ma

y appl y th e nonattainmentpreconstructio n permi trequirement

s o f th e Ac tt o source s locatin g i n area s designate d . attainmen to r unclassifiable.- . - Currendy, majo

r source s i n designate d attainmen to r unclassifiabl e area s tha t woul d caus e o rcontribute t o a violatio n o f a standar

d anywhere , a*e required t o meetal l applicabl e nonattainment requirements . Thes e includ e stat e plan - requirements adopte d t o mee tPar tD of th e Actfo r neighboring designate d ' nonattainmen

tareas , and offse trulin

g requirement

s for newl y discovere d violationai n area s designate d .:(ainmen t orunciassiiiable. 1 1 lr

. I'-.oition

. EP

A ha s propose d thai the r frictio n c n constructio n fo r a • •••sicnate d nonattainmen t

are awu h a n ..iadequai e (o

r inadequatel y ::*iD.ememed

) Par t D pla n shoul d appl y t o major constructio n outsid e o

f th e area , i f i t woul d significantl v impac t on an v pointis ) o

f violatio n i n th e area . (4

4 F R38585

. Jul

y 2,1979. ) Althoug h specifi c regulatory ianguag e i s no t bein g proposed , EP

A i s considerin g changin g it s polic y on th e applicability o

f nonattainmen t requirement s t

o source s in designate d clea n areas . Under

th e approac h bein g considered , nonattainmen t requirement s woul d only appl y to propose d major constructio n eithe r

insid e adesignate d nonattainmen t

area , o r propose d i n a designate d clea n are afo

r asit e wher e a n ambien t standar d i s actuall y violated

. Stat e pia n requirement s providin g fo

r NSRunde r

sectio n 17 3 o

f th e Ac t woui d appi y oni y to major constructio n widii n th e designate d nonattainmen t

area . Likewise , th e restriction s o n constructio n fo r failure t o hav e o r carry ou t aPart D pla n woul d appl y to majo

r constructio n onl y withi n th e designate d nonattainmen t area . Th e offse t rulin g woul d appl y t

o majo r sourc e constructio n a

ta sit e where th e standar d i s violate d widii n a designate d clea n area . Majo r constructio n tha

twoul d hav e a significan t impac to n a violatio n o

f a standar d anywhere , butlocatin g where th e standar

d i s attained , woul d stil l hav e t o reduc e its imapc

tenoug h s o tha t i twoul d no

tcaus e o r contribut

e t o the violation . Th

e source coul d reduce its impac tth e neede d amoun

tby applying mor e emissio n controls , by obtainin g offsets , o r both . EP A has earlie r proposed the lega l argumen ttha tth e existing , mor

e restrictiv e approac

h i s require

d b y sectio n 165(a)(3)(B) . Thi s section.state s tha tn o source subjectt

o PS D revie w ma y b e constructe d unles s th e permi t applican tdemonstrate s tha tth e sourc e wil l notcaus e o

r contribut

e t o ai r pollutio n i n exces s o

f an y national ambientai r .qualit

y standar d i n any ai r quaht y region. I n th e earlie r proposal . EP A state d the vie w tha

tthi s provisio n applie s t o an y sourc e whos e own . emissions , irrespectiv e o

f offsets , cause s orcontribute s t o th e violation , 4 4 F R 3858 4 (Jul y 2.1979) . I

n th e proposal , EP

A interpreted the litera

l language:of

= - sectio n 165(a)(3)(B ) a s forbidding an y such sourc e t o construc

ta tail : Q' A sa w thi s prohibitio n overridden only " i f th e 80urce«atisfieda D condition s o f the offse trulin

g o r a stat e plan progra

m

" See44ER327Bcoi4.JairaaiylB.1879: / unde r sectio n 173

. I

f n o Par t D plan wer e i. i effec t an d carrie d out

after th e jradiin e fo

r havin g suc h aplan , EP

A •"'-.e n propose d that

th e restrictions o n constructio n describe d i

n section s :i0(a)(2j(l ) an d 173(4

) woul d apply , throug h stric t

applicatio n o

f th e languag e o

f sectio n 165(a)(3)(B)

. EP

A invite s commen

to n whether th

e mor e relaxe d approac h no w unde r consideratio n woul d satisf y the requirement

s o f sectio n 165(a)(3)(B) . This change in approac

h i s not require d b y th e court' s opinio n in Alabama Power. Th

e court' s decisio n wa s base d o n its interpretatio n o f the phras e "an

y are a t o which thi s par

t applies " i n sectio n 16

5 and a revie w of. - other provision s in the Act . I n contrast. , sectio n 172(b)(6) simpl y state s tha t nonattainmen

tpreconstructio n revie w - shoul d appl

y t o "ne w and modified • - majo r stationar

y sources. " Ther

e i s n o languag e iimitin

g Par tD revie w t o - source s i n an y particula

r area ; Likewise , th e offse t rulin g which was~ratifie

d by Congres s i n sectio n 12

9 o f th e 197 7 Amendments , applie s by its term s t o al l source s whereve r located , tha tcaus e o r contribut e t o a n ambien tviolation . Finally , sectio n 16

5 requires tha

tprior t o constructio n a source canno tcreat e a - violatio n anywhere . Ther e i s no- - comparabl e language i n Par tD'8aying.jgf<

; 'v tha tPar tD source s mustprotectPS D /'.'.<•;;- • increments . Al l o

f thesefactoreten d to'.-.' '• ' distinguis h the nonattainmen tprogram.^ ' fro m the PS D program

, s o thatAlabama Powershoul d notb e viewe d as " ••"• . governing geographi c applicabilit y o f nonattainmen

trequirements., '•'-. , Althoug h neithe r th e court' s opinion- 2 " no r the statut

e prohibi tth e applicatio n . o f nonattainmentrequirements , t o PSD" ! sources , EP

A believe s tha

tther e ma y b e . significantpolicy an d administrative . .p v reason s for limiting th e applicability^ol;,'-vnonattainmentNS

Rinihi s w^l^Q^|jJ - PS D requiremen

to f BAC T an d air. : .VH?S.V

qualit y offsets (i.e. , a n impactin g AQU I mustoffse tits contributio n to,_kviola i anywhere ) provide s sufflciehlai r protectio n fo

r a n are a thatisduith i designate d nonattalnmm tntffffi^, ^ actuall y violatin g the/standsi^v'^^^i j Applicatio n o

f al l nona i " requirements t o PSD.e

i burdensom e t

o bothimi^ ; authority-and th e permi

l On th e t-Jtherh ! importan tprogramrea

i th e offse truling co

m with PSDrequirem

i

. constrectiaiLat:a.si

i : • dea n butwher e ,••.- — th e standard.'Co'natrtiufft»wMa^t»^^ | where.ther e i s a/yfUakti^jm^klytlffi n th e greates tiInptBdi:on"^it^^^i^Ujt i ifl||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^

.5194 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 . No . 173 /

U'ednesdav . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / ProDOse

d Rule s W is therefor

e mosti n nee d o f stringen t i\ nonattainmen

tcontrols . I

n addition . j f retainin

g otfsetrulin

g requirement

s fo r / constructio n a

tsite s wit h ambien t p violation s woul d reduc e an y incentiv e state s an d source s migh

totherwis e have t o includ e to o muc

h territor y withi n th

e boundaries o

f designate d clean areas . Thi s approac

h i s legall y permissibl e because , a s explaine d above . EP A believe s nonattainmen

trequirement

s including th e offsetrulin

g ma y appl y regardles s o

f th e applicabl e designation . However , EP

A als o invite s commen

to n whethe r suc

h constructio n shoul d b e totall y exemp tfro

m nonattainment requirement

s includingth e offse truling , a s i s proposed for othe r constructianin. . designate d clea n areas . I n addition , i

f EP A shoul d adop tthi s applicabilit

y approach . EP

A seek s comment s o n whethe r state s shoul d b e allowe d time t

o conside r adjustin g ' boundaries o

f existin g area designation s befor e EP A change s it s policy . C. Geographic Applicability forVOC Sources. Whatever approac h i s taken on , th e lega l and policy issu e discusse d above , itwil l b e necessary t o determine , a s a.factua

l matter, whethe r a standard i s violate d atan

y particular site , and 1 whethe r a majo

r sourca a ttha

tsit e | woul d aignificantiy contribut e t o a violatio n elsewhere . Thi s raise s particular difficul

tissue s fo

r source s of ' .. . volatile , organi c compounds . O n publishin g it s offse trulin g o n Januar y 16,1979 , the Agency sough t publi c commento n applicabilit y issue s specifi c t o source s o

f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC

) tha twoul d impacta

n area o f ozon e NAAQ S violation .

- Atmospheric simulatio n technique s ar e generall y notavailabl e t

o estimate th e ai r qualit y impac to f a n individua

l VO C source . I n th e offse truling, th e Agenc y prtjKB&d^h

e polic y tha tin lie u of $•$ . a major VO C sourc e woul d b a Kt o review , a s significantl y . . "" [t o th e violation , i f

i t {'constructio

n withi n 36 hour

s B o f a - no*u a ttuinmen

tmonitor , _, . 1 condition s associate d wit h

• thyozon e concentration s found t o -ie5c^id=m

e NAAQSfo r ozone : > wer e solicite d o n di e final apestabhshmen

tof th e *"3 8 hou r rote." : nent s hav e raised r question s o n th e technica l i-rule. Also;stateswit h •

_sh e monitoring networks-- . ipoaaieaied

thatthe 1 rul e gav e *-••- . (x>n^Mrtittvaaconomicadv«ntag e t o ^ ' statessWit

h lessjraffldeiitaanitodn g • • •?. 8ystem£OthertnffiBmeats : iiotedthatih a • : 3 8 hourrul e presentslturall^dr-nothlng -". ; ^toatio n reqitii±3g.fiiffarnooffsata^nto - jjigjujigmentiorfidloffietratpotnntiall y long " distance s from a nonattainment monito r wa s considere d inequitabl e treatmen to f VOC source s whic

h (1 ) -.voul d no tbe abl e t

o avoi d th e nonattainmen

trequirement

s b y reducin g emission s s o tha

tth e impac ti s les s tha

n significant. (2

) woul d b e subjec

tt o offse t requirement

s eve n i f th e source i s significantly farthe

r awa y fro

m th e violatio n tha

n woul d b e require

d fo r particulat e o r sulfu r dioxid e source s tha

t impac to n P M o r SO - violations , and (3 ) woul d b e subjectt

o offsetrequirement

s base d o n les s rigorou

s technical estimate s tha

n require d fo r P M and SO

» sources . I n respons e t o th e comment s received , the Agency propose s t

o eliminat e the 3 6 hou r rule a s a criterion for determining whethe r o r nota VO C source wil l impac ta nonattainmentarea . Unde r th e proposal , EP

A woul d assum e tha

t propose d constructio n woul d hav e a significantimpac

to n a n ozon e violatio n oni y i f the source i s physicall y withi n the boundarie s o

f a designate d nonattainmentare

a o r i s a ta sit e in another area where th

e ozon e standar

d i s actuall y violated . I

f a source were in a designate d attainmento

r unclassifiabl e area ata sit e wher e ther

e i s n o violatio n o f the ozon e standard . EP

A propose s t

o trea tth e sourc e a s havin g n o significant impac to n any ozon e violatio n anywhere . Th e monitoring require

d fo r a PS D permi twoul d in mos tcase s indicate whethe r th e particular sit e attain s th e ozon e standar d ir However . i n som e cases , a sourc e locate d i n a designate d clea n area wit

h potentia

l emission s ove r 100 ton s bu

tles s tha n 250 ton s wil l no t b e subjectt

o PS D review bu

tma y b e subjec tt o review under the offse t ruling. l

i Unlik e PSD , th e offse trulin g doe s notrequir

e monitoring . Fo

r an y source s covere d b y thi s ruling , bu tno t PSD , i tmay therefor

e b e necessar y t

o determine , withou tmonitoring o f th e particula r sit e Whethe

r th e ozon e standard i s violate d T o simplif y such determinations , EP

A i s considerin g whethe r a violatio n measure d aton e monito r should.b e presumed t o exten d throughou

tth e entir e count

y wher e th e monito r .B located, ' o r t o som e othe r area aroun d th e monito r though

tt o b e - representative of

ai r quality ; Comment itfinvite d o n th e -questio

n o f ho w far aroun d a monitored violationtha---" - "Th e AganejMWronttyaBow ta sourc e toaubfeet lt*ettta*ltmttaBM*tx^uqatomuaM*ttaBak*. pi-aKmatii^e Q VO C monitorin g lo-allo w •>'• " -ImiharfUta^wiiiieiinemanto f conatimcttoa . ao Jon

g • aa poetaconatraetfai * niimilurtug l a undertake rto ' • deteMtoBwhittil<t<t»iaavtohtloB»Bqrinn» s - SIP mriaioBo-jde rPar

tD . , . v ,

. "Th e oifa truling applie s t o al l Mtuce * with: potentia l emission s o f

J0 0 too * o rmora . wW a for. : VSD ma tkind s o f

tomca ta w no ttable tto reriew unles s potentia l ami ssinn e ar e 25 0 ton s o rmore . standar d violatio n shoul d b e presume d t o extend , f

n the absenc e o

f monitorin

g data , ther e woui d be a presumptio

n tha t th e standard i s attaine d throughou ta n are a designate d a s attainment. Th e Agency i s o

f th e opinio n tha

t exceedance s o

f th e ozon e standar

d can b e foun d in all direction s fro

m a majo r city . Thus , a sourc e proposing t o locat e upwind o f a nearb y cit

y shoul d expec t t o fin d ozon e NAAQ S exceedance s whe n monitoring according t o EPA' s monitoring procedure s foun d i n Ambient AirMonitoring Guidelines for Prevention of

Significant

Deterioration. OAQP S No . 1.2-096 , ILS . EPA Researc h Triangle Park

. Nort h Carolina 27711 . A polic y memorandu

m outlinin g th e backgroun

d dat a fo r dii s decisio n ha s bee n mad e a par

to f th e Docket 1 4 D . Interstate Pollution. The court' s discussio n of

th e geographi c applicabilit

y o f PSD raise s issue s concerning interstate pollution . Th e cour ti n Alabama Powergave ne w emphasi s t

o protectio n agains tinterstate pollutio n o

f PS D areas , pointing t o section s 160(4) an d 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of th e Acta s prohibiting emission s tha twoul d interfer e wit h anothe r state' s PSD plan . Alabama Power, Sli p op . a t28-27 . The Agency seek s commen

to n whe n a - source shul d b e subjectt o revie w becaus e of

it s interstate impact

s an d ho w t o se temissio n limits necessar y t o protec tagains tpollutio n tha

tinterferes , o r ma y interfere , with anothe r state' s - PS D measures . Th e Agenc y intend s t

o continu e usin g the alread y establishe d level s o f significanc e fo r determining whethe r a n impac to n a Clas s I

I o r II I are a warrant

s review . See , e.g . 4 3 F

R2639 8 (Jun e 10. . ; 1978) . EP A als o propose s t

o maintai n it s curren tpolic y o f

allocatin g incremen t consumptio n equall y a tstat e line s i n , case s o f interetate disputes . Comment a > ar e sough to n thi s approach . Finally . j : EP A i s considerin g whethe r interferenc e witi i anothe r state' s PS D progra m is-'- * adequatel y prevente d b y permitting - j . source s iocatedi n one-atate bu tA*Airi-i? impacting o n anothe r state , t o us e one~ : hat f of th e remaini^ incremen ta ttho ^ pointro f impactin^ e othe r stat&EPAaa- . solicit s comments :o a whethe r interstat e protectio n shouMJw broadene d to/. ; require.a^B^aj^|^i;ttBuapk^^p;,,- . y.Auil limitation s crothrtPt©;requirem«jt»tPa p . • .,- 1 containe d i n th e pteutftha:-.-- , •.,- , -p.;-;- - yf . p -.- " - \ -r-'

- *'•

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

-- • Tho.reguktittispropoaed.toda y woui d - •' ' > r^ t maintai n th e practic e cifdetermini^i-g . 

# M

M 3

wl&k*^^£r*&tsi$$,

- Barte rto OB^eTOWtti^iigBhBi^a^ ^ Ne w o rModifie d VO C Sources . . • ,-. • #-. - ; ' V ' •:> 'S'??.*S-"^

T •'. ; a-^-j.-

- — '• ' r >'-,-'-y-rA*-? s ^

' . „,•;:'••; • r.y.yi^.t-:-:^r edera i Registe r / , • oi

. •A'ednesaav . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 3194 1 pollutan tb v pollutan tvvnettie r a sourc e

. 3 suuiec tt o PS D review , nonattainmen

t ,-svie w o r both. However , i

n accordance •vit h th e Alabama Powerdecision , onc e

. : sourc e is suDjec

tt o PS D review , i

t mus tmee tth e applicabl e contro

l .ccnnoiog y an d air qualit

y analysi s requirement

s fo r each pollutant. Fo

r nonattainmen

tNSR . onl y emission s o

f

• h e nonattainmen

tpollutan tar e subjec t t o th e applicabl e revie w requirements. Unde r today' s proposal , a modification woul d b e subjectt o PS D i f i twoui d resultin a significantne t increas e i n th e emission s o

f an y regulated pollutantfo

r which the source is major . I n addition , di e are

a mus tb e designate d attainmen

to r unclassifiabl e fo r th e pollutant, o

r designate d nonattainmen

ti f th e source impact

s a PS D area i n another state . I

n contrast , th e NS Rrequirement

s o f sectio n 173 , the offse truling , o r the sectio n 110(a)(2)(I

) constructio n restriction s woul d appl y onl y t o a modification whic

h woul d resul ti n a significan

tne tincreas e i

n th e amoun to f th e nonattainmentpollutan t whic h di e source already emit s i n majo r amount s (i.e. , 10 0 o r mor e ton s pe r year) . A larg e additio n o r a serie s o

f small addition s sinc e the applicabl e tim e o f concer n a ta n existin g "minor " source woul d b e treate d a s a "majo r modification" : Provided, Tha tthe net emission s resulting fro

m the additio n o r additions , in conjunctio n wit h the emission s fro

m th e existin g minor sourc e woul d excee d the applicabl e threshol d fo

r a majo r stationar

y source (se e discussio n o n "Accumulation " i n "Modification") . Th e applicabilit

y of th e proposed regulations t

o ne w source s i s mor

e straightforward Fo

r PSD , a ne w sourc e i s subjectt o revie w i

f its potentia

l t o - emi tan y pollutantregulate d unde r th e Ac ty.oui d make i ta major stationar y source . Nonattainmentreview -..,• • "applicabilityagpunrequire»4hs tfto- ' nonattainmentpollutantb e potientiaU y #ftnittedi n major amounts . ' > ^Examples o f

th e propose d ^applicabilit

y follow : •-.-•

.

. rH (1 ) Construction o f a ne w plantwith.. . Ar^y potential emission s of SO O ton s peryea r " ^^ (fry ) SOeAnd.60 tp y hydrocarbon s (H Q --^ ; ^.p;plocatingi n a n areadesignatBdpv4pJ: J p ' p ; , -. . attainmentfo r SQ»hu taouaftaihrnen tr^ .

- r--fo r ozon e woul d b e subjortpt d PS D -

# , v preconstnict^roviewiS^ ^ H|^||rtllutants . PS D review {MCTanAait p <igjpr ; fi^aht y aiudysi s requirements ) applie^t o • any poUutaa

temitte d b y th e sourc e onc e

... . p : th e sourc e i s subjectl o review fo p one* j r ---; -••• : pollutan t--...• ; ••,.^-2^^~.LL'Li^r:\L22i:A-\-. (2 } Constructio n o f

thaaamephmt H describe d i n exampl e (i ) i n a - .'=•-•-•js;^.- . non^ttainmtnrtjMe^fprbotk.Spsand ^ -i.'.. ozon e would " replicabl e nonattainmen tprovision s to

r i-Oa . N o PS D o r nonattainmen

t requirement

s woui d b e applicabl e fo

r M C becaus e nonattainmen t requirement

s appi y oniy t o poiiutant

s fc r whic h th e source i s major

. This assume s tna

tth e source woui d affec

tn o clean ai r are a i n another state . (3 ) A modification t

o th e exampl e (1 ) pian twhic h woui d caus e a significant ne tincreas e i

n bot h SO a emission s an

d H C emission s woul d b e subjectt o PS D revie w fo r SO a a s wel l a s HC . Nonattainmen

trevie w fo

r th e netH

C emissio n increas e woul d notb e applicabl e unles s the ne w constructio n woul d itsel f

qualif y a s a majo

r modification . (4 ) Modification a

ta n existin g source o f 5 0 tp y SO a emissions , itsel f constructed sinc e December 21,1976 , in a nonattainmen

tarea fo r SOa , adding a ne w uni twit h 9 0 tp y SO a emissions , woul d subjectth e source t o nonattainmen

trequirements . (5 ) Construction o

f a ne w source wit

h potentia l emission s o

f 50 0 tpy H C and 50 tp y SO a locatin g in a

n ozon e nonattainmen

tarea woul d subjectthe source only t

o nonattainmentreview . Since the source i s notmajo r fo r other pollutant s regulated unde

r th e Ac tfo

r whic h the area i s designate d unclassifiabl e o

r attainment, PS

D woul d no tapply . (6 ) Modificatio n t

o a source wit

h emission s o

f 50 0 tpy SO , an d 5 0 tp

y H C i n a n area designate d nonattainmentfo r bot h SO a an d ozone , resultin g i n 20-ton netincrease s i n th e leve l o f emission s fo r bot h pollutants , woul d subjectth e source t o applicabl e nonattainment provision s onl y for th e SO * emissio n increase . Ther

e i s n o requiremen

ti n th e nonattainmentprovision s o f th e Ac t comparabl e t

o th e requiremen

ti n th e PS D provisions , tha

tsubjects a source t

o review fo r al l regulated pollutants it emits once.i ti s subjec tt o review fo r on e pollutan t- • • (7) A he w sourc e with potentia l emission s of

150 tp y o f P M locate d i n a

n area designate d attainmentfo r P M bu t impactingoiv a violationin. a designate d nonattainmentare a to whic h a Par tD pla n applieB.'Uhdtt

f th e regulations .•<•:••

• propose d todajKfhe sourc a would-b e subjec ttd bt^PSD^ahdndnattainmen t

. requirement

s (se e "Geographic-^ - ; . .ApplicabUity' ' dUeussfonfrTtd s woul d ; indud e appUcationnf

LAER.^ 5 .•T~, 'V'\j' . certificatio n of

statewid e complianc e b y

: oth a source s owne d o r operate d b y th e 'iwxi-c&inm ^ - '

, offset s to insurerreasonabl e furthe r A progresspi

n th e nonattainmen tarea-,:. ' • -—- (-reconstruction monitoring an d > p !B

) A new plan

twhic h woul d b e a 50- p y sourc e 0 1 bot h SO a an d H C propose s t o construc

ti n a n are a designate d nonattainmen

tfo r SO a an d ozone . Neither PS

D no r an y nonattainmen

tNS R unde r sectio n 173. th

e offse truling, o r th e sectio n 11 0 restriction s o n construction woui d apply . XIII . Baselin e Concentration Th e ter m "baseline concentration " generally means th

e actua l ambien t concentratio n level s o

f pollutant s in a n are a a s o f the applicabl e baselin e date . This ter m i s applicabl e onl y fo

r source s o f SO a and PM . The baselin e concentratio n o

f a n are a i s importan

t becaus e all emission s notcounte d in th e baselin e concentratio n countagainst ' allowabl e increments . EPA' s curren

tregulation s se ta unifor m baselin e dat

e o f August7,197 7 (4 0 CF R51.24(b)(ll) , 52.21(b)(ll ) (1978) ) • as explaine d a

t4 3 F R2640 0 (Jun e 19 , 1978) . Th e cour tin Alabama Power foun d tha tthis unifor

m baselin e dat

e deviate d impermissibly fro m sectio n 169(4 ) o f th e Ac twhich generally . define s baselin e i n term

s o f the ambien

t concentratio n existin g atth e time of th e firs tapplicatio n fo

r a permi ti n a n area . Slip op . a t37 . A s a consequenc e o

f th e court' s decision , EP

A propose s t

o remove the

< - unifor m baselin e date o

f AuguBt7

t 1977;i;p ^ and se tth e baselin e concentratio n attfee~";; i tim e afte r August7,1977 , "o

f tha&tt-v-t ' applicatio n fo

r a permi ti n an-are»?v:'.-•"•'•.•

. subjectt o thi s part. " Sectio n 169(4) ; 4 2 A* U.S.C . 7479(4) . •* . ••„,?. , I n order t o implemen

tth e mandate: . expresse d in sectio n 169(4) , EPA- • " generall y intend s t

o defin e "are

a subject t o thi s part " o n th e basi s of AQCRs.•••-.• When a majo

r stationar

y sourc a o»•'•

• majo r modificatio n fo

r any-pollutant

~ •* • regulate d under th e Actapplie s fo r a - •'. , p . PS D permi ti n a par to f a n AQCRl•?;>...••••- ; designate d a s unclassifiabl e or^S^i<2:A*Lll attainmentundeMectidn405lt; . (E ) ("clean ai r areas") , H est a baselin e dat e for bot

h P M part s of th e AQC Rtha

tar e attainmento r unclassified , pollutants !

. A s mentione d i n th e 8

1 Transition; ? th e he w majo r stationary source * modification * woul d boi : baselin e date s baseline\date$rbidd£* : applicationrforauch wa a afil-^whichpWas

p complete for ptirpo

f es^Of ; th e appHtAblep ; ""'""* ' Therefbre/sourc* * $ 1

>- i

sssiti'sk^ .Hai x '..'. i '

. . . '

. I V l *

•«&£&?"?; •^j-, : incrementanalysis , j

- • &*•'•*>&&**•**?*?'*. !: V^-v! p whic h wquld.hb tqdalif^jE

-constructbu-Eimdttfjtht^

•-. . a.-?-'-:-- ' V^.?;A>'a'V(a. J

•'•:•&%?&

:: * .-•-•••-;- -*- r

. :

. y.- • •.•-'-vc.''a.

. « , ,A

j

.. . , v J * J- - -a - ' J-*'r

^- - -•^*-^»y.4't.'--tV , -;r^.V^ , 'aOa i • .-t.« .



## mmP.2 2

5194 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 . No . 17

3 / Wednesday . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s woul d nottrigge

r th e baselin e date . Similarly , source s diatwer e notsubject t o th e existin g regulations bu

twoul d b e unde r th e fina l one s woul d no

thav e triggere d th e baselin e dat

e sinc e n o PS D applicatio n wa s filed . This definitio n i s proposed t

o confor m t o th e court' s mandate , t

o minimize administrativ e and technical problems , and t o preserv e futur e growt h option s t

o the states . Th e phras e "are

a t o which (th e PSD

) par tapplies " i n sectio n 16

5 include s dea n ai r area s and thos e nonattainment area s fo r which major constructio n i s proposed tha

twoul d hav e a substantia l impac to n a clea n ai r are a i n anothe r ' state ; Clean air areas mustb e AQCR' s o r portions thereof

. Sectio n 107,4 2 ' U.S.C . 7407. EPA' s propose d definitio n o f "area " fo r purpose s o f

th e sectio n 169(4 ) baselin e dat e thus comport s witi i the ter m "area " a s use d i n section s 10 7 and 165 . EPA

, however , ha s aske d th e courtt o reconsider and broaden it s interpretation o

f "area " i n sectio n 16

5 and shoul d the cour

td o so , EPA' s proposa l unde r 169(4

) migh tb e affected . I n formulating it s propose d definitio n o f "are a subjec tt

o (th e PSD) part, " EP

A Weighe d th e eas e o f

administratio n unde r competin g interpretations . Th e court s hav e recognize d tha ta polic y of 'regularit y and simplicit

y i n regulatio n e£„*Herceles; Llnt&lEP&AZmC

1378,1394(1978) . ,}r^ti^BP^i'ptapoiahthe baseline dat e ^^^udrt^^ ^-i^ea*s& area s - ri-raKHW&i&tWAQCR^Thi s mininriw- s p^adtiihdstretiv a probteni B thatWoui

d resul tfrom th e profusio n o f different baselhi e starting points i n th e sam e AQCR.. Forexample-,-i

f "area " wa s

. -ili-fiMKiiiya source' s are a of impac t cumbersom

e recordkeeping procedure s woujd ^ requitisd^ASaiotrvouiCM aV < appit ^ fo i PS ) pfermlts, area s *r f sovro e - itoov«riap«ijd'f&a ' ld ! growujora>comp{*]ttSdc k ' * \m^&mHf*^9PX^tif ^a*k^tiooa«fe«aL*.: " ^a.^? s - : snrato>4tote<wugafeSaa t M ta * & baselin e are * iSome^dtrfntiairdf -lemsLGMJsfato^laa ^ i a PSDspurc e wouktidcaiaj j r tfiu twoul d option s o f th e state . 4 3 F R2640 1 (Jun

e 13.1978) . Man

y state s have , in som e cases , designate d clean air areas mor e narrowl y tha n b y AQCR . I f a state ca n i n it s revise d SI

P defin e "area " fo

r purposes o

f baselin e concentratio n a s narrowl y a s a designate d portion o f a n AQC Rthi s migh

thav e the effec

to f establishin g a late r baselin e dat e fo r som e area s and increasin g the amount * o f incremen tavailabl e fo

r growth . Thi s migh tb e attractiv e t

o a state , especiall y i f i tfeel s the administrative and technical problem s cause d b y proliferating baselin e date s coul d b e overcome . However , i

f EP A were t o define "area " a s eac h clea n ai r area designatio n o

r source impac

tarea , a stat e tha twante d t o expan d the definitio n t

o AQCR-wid

e o r statewid e t

o eas e administrativ e o r technical problems migh

tfeel constraine d fro

m doing so . Thi s i s becaus e th e expansio n o f "area " migh

tresul tin a

n earlie r baselin e date suc

h tha tles s incremen

t woul d b e availabl e fo

r futur e growth . Se e di e additional discussio n in "PS D SI PREVISIONS. " Therefore . EP A i s proposin g t

o allo w state s som e flexibilit y i n defining "area " t

o whic h a baselin e date applies . EP A specificall y solicit s comment s o n it s propose d definitio n o

f "area subject t o (th e PSD

) part " Commenter

s ar e urge d t o addres s th e legal , . administrativ e and technical effectof an y othe r definition , a s wel l a s th e effec t o n futur e growt h option s o

f th e states . Finally . EP

A generall y intend s t

o continu e the actua l emission s concep t (explaine d a t4 3 F

R2640 0 (Jun

e 19 , 1978) ) i n r-fllfji-UHn

g baselin e . ' . concentratio n a s of

. th e applicable . baselin e data-i n th e Jun

e 18,197 8 promulgation . EP

A outline d certai n .exe^ons-to,^ a strici;.us e ot-anjictual ; vSnuMfai^j--gg^ ^ c^^xi^w^dconcen^iE^.y Ar. example , source s thatwoul d increas e , actual eausaionaby , prbefore.th e jbjgvso f 

### imA $fe2« H

. „ _ v .„„.*»•.«--<« . "-T"ltifmi tmiAmwmiinHmm . 

## ,&&B&^i$MmiWri

*H&£pr H 

### L'L&LrrA. XIV . Bes tAvailabl e Contro

l Technology Sectio n 165(a

) o f the Actprovide s in par ttha tan y "majo r emitting facility " t

o b e constructe d i

n a PS D are a mus tapply bes tavailabl e control technolog y (BACT ) "fo r each pollutantsubjectt o regulation unde

r thi s Ac temitte d from. o r whic h results from

, such facility. " 4

2 U.S.C . 7475(a)(4) . I

n di e existin g PSD , regulations . EP

A limite d di e BACT ' requiremen

tt o eac h pollutantfo

r whic h a majo r stationary sourc e o r majo r modification woul d b e "major; " 4 0 CF R 51.24(i)(l) , 52.21(i)(l ) (1978) . Fo r example , i

f a majo r stationary sourc e i n on e o f di e 28*categories woul d emit-only 5 0 ton s pe r yea r e f carbon monoxide , it woul d nothav e t

o appl y BAC T fo

rthat , pollutant. I n Alabama Power, th e cour thel d tha t EP A had n o authorit

y t o limi tth e BAC T requiremen

ti n tha tway . Sli p op . a

t31.i t did hold , though , tha

t.EP A ha s authorit

y t o appl y de minimis threshold s t b the

_ BAC T requirement

, a s lon g a s they ar

e "formulate

d wit h reasone d consideratio n fo

r thei r contex twit

h . attentio n t

o th e natur

e of th e pollutant involved" Id

. .--.•.-• I n respons e t

o th e court' s decision . EP A i s proposin g t

o requir e a'mafo r . stationar y sourc e o

r majo r modificatio n t o apply BACT for eac h regulated. ".-. • pollutantthati twoul d emi t.Sea.: '',. , A.L propose d H&L24(j)(i>an d &2^j#j|* ; Sectio n 165(a

J of th e ^ provide s ih ^ par ttha tan y "majo

r enutiii- g facility ^ t o b e constructe d i n aP§ P areamus tappl y • bes tavailable , contro l technolog y j (BACT ) "fo r eac h pollutantsubjec tto. Aregulatio n unde r thi s Ac temitte d fcom. o r which results .from

, suc h facility; " 44 , U.S.C . 7475(a)(4) ; hiluexm^^^A regulatioaia

, EPA^t^,^^g^ ; . f J t requiremen

tto e^ppijbtfJ^fcKiWiad tp a major: atatianMj&flttfji^fc ^ modificatiaRftcenMb ^ exaagitetti^iMioBaitt^prtwyiWa w on e of th e 2 8 Categoi^i«^*^ii*fei ; 5 0 ton s pe r yewtalm^a^aoiKM^tA2 wouldno thav e 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.XiSWte iP.2 3

Federa l Registe r 44 . No . " 3 / Wednesday . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 5194 3

propose d § § 51.24(i)(l ) an

d 52.21(i)(l) . A s noted i n th e sectio n o

n .Transition, " ,.ni s ne w requiremen

twoui d appi

y oniy t o a sourc e o r modification whos e application fo

r a PS D permi ti s not complet e befor e th e requiremen

tcome s int o effec t EP A believe s tiiatclosel y tailored de minimis exemption s ma

y b e unnecessary , sinc e i n settin g BACT , the permittin g authorit y ma y tak e int o accoun tthe relativ e cos to

f th e variou s contro l alternatives . See section s 169(3) , 4 2 U.S.C . 7479(3) ; 4

0 .CF R51.24(b)(10

) (1978) . Excep twhere a standar d o f performanc

e fo r ne w source s impose d a minima l leve l o f stringency , th e authorit y coul d decid e tha

tBAC T fo r a pollutan temitte d in "minor " amount s wa s n o control a

tall , in vie w o

f th e hig h cos to f an y control . Nevertheless , th e Administrato r has propose d de minimis emissio n rate s (se e sectio n o n "De Minimis Exemptions ^ which woul d appi y t o th e applicabl e BAC

T and LAE

R requirements . Th

e reader i s aske d t

o commen to n th e nee d fo

r th e proposed de minimis levels . XV . AmbientMonitorin

g I n uphdldingth e environmenta l petitioners ' challenge s t

o EPA' s PS

D monitorin g regulations (4 0 CF

R51.24(n)) , 52.21(n ) (1978)) ; th e cour tidentifie d three area s wher e th e regulations fel l shor tof th e statutor

y mandat e fa Bection 165(e ) of th e Ac tTh e pollutants for whic h monitoring i s required; required use s o f monitorin g data ; an d guideline s fo r stat e exemptio n authbrity.-Tharefore, EP A i s proposing t o amen d It s PS D regulations t o correc tshortcoming ^ tar th e existin g monitorin g requiremeots. I n addition , EP A i s propV»itig%!fr: tee i d f certai n tf e : minimis <a*Reri

e whidr'wBidd'gtTver

n th e requiremen

tfoi - mohitbrihg-tota'a s par t- ; o f aas^xja^^S^fiy^^'^'^'- ~*- c > m/n/m/yt-rifeaattfc'nfr^ ^ "De M//7iOT/

s Ese^*t^-s>iafiWd F th e pTeambfeittcu&UiS&^ > exemptio n guidanr e i s folfedtt^tfiij^p '•'•*•' • A . Precbrutrvci cour tfeeld'thatagclWffti ArticqiiaCFW-ta

a ana regijHaewunuW i a«?^tta* : ] applyihgfo i EPA' s i-only for pollut e ambientafi

r

. (criteri a ofpoUufiwt».«t * standarda*jdst ' hazardou s p o regulated undernev ? perfoniialttsfi r an d ' T H hazuruuttr^poun

l EP A intend s t

o compl y wit h th e court' s riiin g b y requirin g a n ambien tai r puaiit y analysi s fo

r ai l regulated poiiutants . Th

e analysi s eeneraily wil l be require d t o includ e ambien

t monitorin g data . T o mee tth e monitorin

g requirement

, a proposed source wil l have t o establis h a

n appropriat

e monitorin g networ k prio r t o applying fo

r a PS D permit , o r wil l hav e t

o gather an

d analyz e representativ e air monitoring dat a resulting fro

m ongoing monitorin

g activities . Preconstruction monitorin g dat a wil l . notb e require

d wher e th e estimate d impac to f a pollutan

temitted fro

m a proposed source , a s determined by modeling , i s lowe r tha

n the de minimis ai r qualit y ieve l an d th e sourc e i s nota majo r stationar

y sourc e fo r th e pollutan tA n explanatio n o f how th e de minimis exemptio n applie s t o monitorin g requirement

s i s i n th e preamble sectio n o

f "De Minimis Exemptions. " EP A wil l perfor

m a case-by-cas e analysi s o f a proposed source which impact s a Clas s i area , eve n thoug h a proposed source ma

y demonstrat

e tha t its impac tfail s belo w th e de minimis. level . In such cases , monitorin g data ma y b e required wher e i ti s determine d • tha tth e propose d sourc e wil l significand y impac

tthe Clas s I area . • Guidanc e o n thi s an d otiie r monitoring situation s addresse d in today' s proposa l wil l b e furthe

r describe d i n a revised versio n of the Ambient

Monitoring Guidelines forPrevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD). OAQPS 1.2-098 . U.S . environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Offic e <o f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an d - Standards , Researc

h triangl e Parit

y N.C . 27711 , originally publishe d i n Ma y 1978. . Copie s o f thi s revise d guidelmeAflyb e obtaine d fo r reviewed commentby-a-^ j writin g t o EPA' * Monfteirfeiglto d .'Odttfc& a Analysi s Divisio n (%0^14 ) afjm e abov e addreas-sB'ji--;;' ; p 'Ay^A":L'A\2^: :

- For-certaih-nonLrllerif

i ppflotantsr- • • "•

- includin g siilfiirf

c ad d Btis tcarboii : • -

' -'-r disuffidiilaiiFbonytw ^ mercaptan , en d dimethy l disulfide , EPA ; currenu y ratM warei

M methodvi^fS^mafeH^and- - : interna l ^WfconlKrfpSk^^tr ^ perfor m b * eve l ,-r.odelin g t o estimate the ai r qualit

y impac to f thes e pollutants . A s .nonitorin g technique s ar

e develope d notice s o f availabilit

y wil l b e publishe d i n th e Federa l Register and source s wil l be require d t o appi y thes e techniques . • i n meeting the requirement s fo r ' preconstruction monitoring , representative ai r qualit

y data . as . •< determined throug

h modeling , toay-.b©;'.:.inappropriat

e fo r som e sources^In ; j,,-/; ; :-...;. > particidar, representativ e data tsar.be v adequat e fo r isolate d sources * whenrts-l : few , i f an y othe r sources , woul d affect^- , backgroun

d concentration s i n the»i':*;r,,;v source' s are a of

impact. EP

A soliciteaior, , commen to n th e us e o

f representative*.;;? ai r qualit y data-i n general and--:.--'..::ivpr ' specificall y fo r isolate d Bourooa>.p-;-rP-. • • Asid e fro m th e hste d naneritetia , s w pollutants.monitoring.techn^iMBa-are-a i availabl e an d monitoringreq^UKaments^^ . wil l b e phase d i n a s discusse d i*lbap>.v , "Transition " section . EP

A recognoeSr-". , however , tha

tcurrend y a vailal^p^H ! monitorin g teehiuquea-for;£aro,Qfrtng$«b : pollutant s ma y b e experimenta l in,.>;C> J nature . I n addition , a s t

o some-p * ~v>''i,.: . pollutants , other components o f aft f acceptabl e monitoringjsysteniv standard reference materials^ , and external qualit

y contjK^. ; and networ

k an d dl ,**"g^^Tihftrifrfltfrtftlr' 1

-' ' b e fully, developed . With ' limitation s in;mind , EPAMMMpra^wj*^;,-• > impleiaeatnoacritana a - f y 

### Lt

•'• $

• " . -."a

.



### ; 

# '4. ] : 24 .'V ' I

"> i



### *tig-y»%^';.* M

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

_.. . _. w case-by-cas a Kno-i. | T),n..f ijjjj^SflR^^ , H^ | conside r tlM^st^te^-^h^j^Me^ff^^A^A reliabilit y o f dat a i n detfts^^aii^fV^rV ^ technique s wil l b e required^J^^VJ*,*^'--. ,- P B . Post-construction AfSJa-tf""*^-^ ^ • * additio n t o th^<pre-appli^aU t monitoring r^vdrement s T " described , todays p : ' " * discretionary^ a ' detenxiiiia4^ M emission s 'ioo, allowable, addinon^uoafcconsi o \ncremeia^(g^actfi' mad e th|buiw4Bdda ' EP A m194 4 Federa l Registe r .'ednesdav . Sentembe r 5 . 1979' / Propose d Rule s

ata.ma y inchnqnntconsi sourc e o r modification , o

r wher e all source s locate d i

n th e are a o f concer n have emission s whic

h coun tagains tth

e increment . I n an y case , wher

e a n applican to r other part

y believe s tha

ta mode l require d b y EP A has eithe r overpredicted o

r unde r predicte d the ai r qualit y impac to f a source , monitorin

g dat a wil l b e evaluate d t

o th e exten t possibl e t o determine whethe r modelin g adjustment

s ar e necessary . Over time , the developmen to f mor e sophisticate d monitoring technique s ma y permi tincrease d us e o

f monitoring dat a t o trac k incremen

tconsumptio n an d establis h ambien

tbaselines , a s wel l a s improv e the leve l o

f confidenc e i n modeling . XVI. Notificatio n Eac h perso n wh o plan s t

o construc

ta source o r modificatio n mus

tdetermine initiall y whethe r i

ti s "major. " Currently, EP A doe s notactivel y polic e thes e negativ e determinations . I n particular, th e Administrato r doe s no

trequir e an y notic e o f di e constructio n o

f an y source o r modificatio n which i s indee d not "major. " A s a result, i

f a n owne r o r operato r believe s tha

thi s constructio n woul d notb e "major, " h e i s fre e t o construc tth e source o

r modificatio n widiou ta constructio n permi tand withoutnotifying th e appropriat e permittin g authority . Undoubtedly , fe w person s makin

g a negativ e determinatio n woul d giv e any notic e of constructio n t o th e reviewing authority . I n vie w of th e ne w definitions , o

f "potentia l t o emit " and "modification " propose d today , th e Administrato r believe s preconstructio n notic e i s no w necessar y for certai n sources . Sinc e "potentia l t o emit " refer

s t o controlle d emission s an d "majo

r modifications " t o ne tincrease s only , th e scop e o f PS D preconstructio n revie w wil l shrin k dramaticall y wit h many mor e source s havin g th e opportunit

y to constructo r modif y withou tpreconstructio n review . In EPA' s judgmen tthebdrderlin e case s .wher e mistake s o r evasio n coul d occu r wil l increaseauffitfentlyJ o justif y scnitinyV''^7^-77--'p ^v-^r-P' . •.?."•- ; •

. • Based,a n 4h e Administrator' s r v ;..,. . authorit y imderaet^ ^ - any.owher . o r p4Jeretort

o pror i •igforrt'at^'ai^ ^ . ' L- - ^ ^ ?eittoBalijEiequire ,

TTsffico p * E i ni- n uoiy

o f thCTelimitatif^^ A i ; O de'terihinatioiSi ^ tot -the pwseatgBidaiiorii^^-nqttefl ' i^uirementwoul d jppea r i n J ;52^v)gtePialSind4 h subparagraph H o f setgb^a^Af toffse truling.- - pj.UmJ^J^prDjiasedTeguktions.an^ . -. . requir e monitorin

g onl y t o determine -.vhethe r a n applicabl e nationa

l ambien t

. tandar d wil l b e exceeded . Th

e cour t -.ote d tha tsectio n 165|e)(2 ) provide s :na tcontinuou s ai

r qualit y monitorin

g dat a mus tals o be use d t

o determine whethe r increment

s wil l b e exceeded . Th e cour trecognized tha

tmodeling techniques woul d b e th

e principa l devic e reiie d upo

n fo r th e projection o

f th e impac to n ai r qualit

y emission s fro

m a regulated source , bu

tthe y envisione d thatmonitoring woul d "impose a certai n disciplin e o n the us e o

f modeling techniques. " Moreover, th e cour t indicate d tha

tthe widesprea d us e o

f monitorin g woul d enhance the developmento

f sophisticate d monitoring technique s an

d th e collectio n o

f a dat a bas e fo r each pollutant. EP A agree s tha

tmonitored ambien

t dat a i s valuabl e fo

r suc h purpose s a s validatin g an

d refining model s and , in some cases , providin

g a direc tmeasur e o f incremen tconsumption . I

n accordanc e wit

h th e court' s opinion . EP A plan s t o plac e a greater emphasi s o n the developmentand us e o f monitorin g data . However , us e o

f monitorin

g dat a wil l alway s b e limited t

o som e degree . Firs t ai r quaht y impact s o f a propose d source mustnecessaril y b e base d o n modeling , no tmonitoring . Second , severa l actua l

. emissio n change s tha

twoul d b e detecte d b y a

n ambien tmonito r ar

e not considere d t o consum e incremen tFo r example , emission s fro

m any source commencing constructio n prior t o Januar y 6,1975 , bu

tcomplete d a

tsom e late r date , d o notcoun

tagains t increments . Thir d a stat e ma y exemp t certai n emissio n change s whic h otherwis e woul d b e counte d agains t incremen tPotentia

l exemption s includ e federall y ordered fuel switches ,

. •---=^ 5 ----., tel |j a

jk n8 > an d ne,

w sources- . tth*lJnite d States . Fihally^witf i "•' = .sectio n S2

3 pTohibitt

* i from receivin g credi tfo r the ' - raffed * o f

a stack&eigh i , " ' i-goo d engineerin g itly f if aaSourceV - ; 2 •">

. tcounte d agains tincrement ^__ ^ejasBed»^joo]^~^/j v 3 i ptfucaco§- its ; aninsioD a HaUtat^j.' - Vas'though ; emilted>fiom:tt7p : " '"" " " "' '"UiML"^" preconstruction notic e t o th e Administrato r 90 day s i

n advanc e o

f beginnin g on-site construction . Th e notic e requiremen

twoul d appl

y t o (1 ) emissio n change s notqualifying a s majo r modification s du

e t o suffien t emissio n reductions , and (2 ) source s not qualifyin g a s majo r stationar

y source s du e t o applicatio n o

f air pollutio n control s notgenerally require d by th e applicabl e SI

P o r 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 and 61 . Th e notic e mus

tstat e specificall y th e natur e an d timin

g o f th e applicabl e emissio n change s and contai n a demonstratio n tha

tth e propose d reduction s are sufficient, enforceable , and contemporaneou s wit h increases . Afte r a n owne r o r operato r woul d provid e a n acceptabl e notice , n o constructio n permi

twoul d b e required. Th e Administrato r i s als o proposing tha ti f a propose d constructio n projec t eithe r fail s t

o provid e th

e require d notic e o r t o construc

tin accordanc e widi information withi n the notice , i t woul d b e considere d t

o b e i n violatio n o f the applicabl e SIP

. Section s 52.2 1 (s ) an d 51.24(s) . Merel

y providing notic e 0 shoul d notb e construe d a s satisfyin g al l other applicabl e responsibilitie s unde r Ui e Act , and a source which improperl y construct s woul d d o s o i n violatio n o f th e SIP . Difficult y ma y aris e i n determinin g whe n contemporaneou s intrasourc e . emissio n tradeoff

s hav e occurred orwil l occur . Th e Administrator , therefore , i s . als o proposin g t

o require writte n notic e fro m sourc e owner s intendin g t o tak e futur e offse tcredi tfrom soon-to-occu r shutdown s o r cleanup . Suc h notic e woul d b e give n atdi e tim e th e emissio n reduction s woul d b e accomplishe d an d woul d giv e detail s a s t o wha temission s ar e bein g reduce d Wit

h thi s approach. . th e sourc e owne r wil l ad d certaint y t o . hi s abilit y t o clai m reductions , an d Iqs s revie w tim e wi

U b e neede d b y th e ^• ^ reviewing .agra«y:tt'yei^. : tiM; : ;p^:-?'*^S' 4 credibilit y o f controversial emission;^' : jj v reductions . •

• -2-r-A.' —p

- > • . A \ Aj^iAfS; Finally , for nonattainmen tareaswit]!r ^ .a n approvedr«infbrc8^eSIP,.'tlm ^ Administrato r isconsiderin g ^eiran^p^H ^ : ^ f * ' mechanis m t o im

pjementth e fatrasottftif

r-s ~ Pp ^ complianc e requirementuhdelr -* i!i r•*"""•••' " 173 . Under thi s ai

_AL'L

• detenhiningifiH * ne tincreas e occu r a ta facility (piant^tii a --.wo u " " . . J

. auAorityjthatal l eai^ft :

. : . --i>lant^.if

f ccnp^l^is^^3i£^^^ | applicabl e Sff

i Tbd p ' " solicit s commenrb n AVU.-JW U pM"„Jt^|(HS|P«W5jJ^V7:.-.f^Jjf ; Commentsar e sqlicitedjOn . -issoeSa'attB B •>*rt-it$&*&z.y,.- • ;

.

Jvrt.*-".- ! *•--'•. • .J

. • /*•;• : '••'r&y^ALLAryP.2 5

•"edera i Registe r / 44

. No

. I " VV'ednesdav . aSeotember 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 5194 5 •?sue s are : (1 ) Th

e abilit y o f state s t o •.•uomi tdifferen tbu teffectiv e PS

D programs , j2 ) th e flexibilit y tha tstate s j.ave t o define th

e baseiin e area fo

r PSD . an d (3 ) th e state monitorin

g exemption .

. A . Equivalent

State Programs. Durin

g th e pastyear, state s hav e submitted PS D portion s o f thei r SIP' s tha

tdeviate considerably fro

m the existin g 4

0 CF R 51.2 4 regulations . Under existin g regulations , th

e Administrato r can onl y approv e differen tPS D requirement

s submitte d b y state s tha

tindividuall y ar

e mor e stringen ttha n the corresponding 4 0 CF RPar t5 1 regulations. A s a result, fe w opportunities ar

e lef tfo r approva l o f different , bu teffective , stat e PS

D programs. Toda

y the Administrato r i s requesting commen

to n th e "existin

g approach . While Par tC i s quit e specifi c o

n th e type o f PS D progra m tha twoul d b e acceptable , portions o

f th e Actma

y • ailo w the'state s t

o us e equivalent methods t o meetstatutor

y objective s (suc h a s sectio n 110(a)(2)(D)) . Th e Administrator believe s som e flexibilit y i n approvin

g state plan s shoul d als o appl y t o th e PS D program. I

n addition , ther e er e polic y reason s for permittin g equivalentstat e PSD programs . State s shoul d b e allowe d som e latitud e t o develo p PSD program

s mor e closel y tailored t o thei r individua

l gqal s and needs : Provided. Tha

tth e stat e PS

D progra m woul d uphold th e objective s of Par tC. Suc h program

s woul d conceivabl y identif

y several potential improvement

s i n terms o

f administrative eas e an d some opportunities fo

r additiona l emission s control . The Administrato r i s today specificall y seekin g comment s o n what provision s unde

r 4 0 CF R51.2 4 allo w any flexibdityfor innovativ e .stat e program

s and wbetherallowin g such flexibility woui d undercutib e nee d fo r consisten t nationwid e implementatio n o f PS D review. * Commen

ti s als o solicite d o n ho w EP A Can-verif

y whethe r a propose d stal e progra

m wil i offe r a n equivalen to r improved syste m fo r implementin g PSD . To facilitate comment.the . Arimmirfrat(*rJa«akingiforrespons e o n a n approac h whic h woul d permit. - variatio n i n stat e planaio r certai n $ requirementet/ndefttfaiaappitwch . state s coui d no tsatisf

y :thefollowin g . requirement

s o f 4 0 GFRJ5L2

4 with . . alternativeregulations:.. - a . Maximnmallowabl e increments . b . Modeliagtechniques . cvClasai&re a protection s d. Notic e t o th e Administrato r o r th e applicabiefederaHandManagertfbr- ' significaa|«etionsr*:

j * JJ J i.i2j. 'yr&iv.-i:. bi New^graas roots } majoratatiooary. - source applicability.':...•, . • : -'P ;.'• • .•• • L. : . NSPS . N'ESHAP S minimu m reouirement

s fo r BAC T determinations . State s wouid b e permitte

d t o mee tth e following requirement

s o f 4 0 CF R51.2 4 wit h differen tbu tequivalentstat e regulations o

r implemen

tthe m wit h considerabl e discretion : a . BAC T determinations . b . Design and amoun

to f dat a neede d fo r monitorin

g purposes . c . Establishing de minimis level s fo r BAC T an d air qualit

y review. d . Temporar

y exclusion s fro

m incremen tconsumption . e . Bankin g o f emission s fo

r futur e offsets . f . Sourc e informatio

n and analysi s require d o f th e applican t g . Public participatio n after providing th e opportunit

y for publi c hearing . I n determinin

g i f a stat e progra

m wit h severa l requirement

s differin g substantivel y fro

m 4 0 CF R51^2 4 satisf y thos e requirements , overat i progra m equivalenc e woui d b e base d o n th e abilit y o f th e state syste m t

o captur e a s man y emission s a s woui d th

e 4 0 CF R 51.2 4 regulations . B . Baseiine Area. A mor

e specifi c issu e related t

o stat e flexibility in developin g PS

D plan s involve s the definitio n o

f th e area affecte d b y the baselin e date . Under th e propose d amendmen tthe Par

t5 1 regulations , lik e the Par t5 2 regulations , woui d defin e "are a subjectt

o thi s part " o n th e basi s o f AQCRs . Unde

r diatdefinition , the baselin e date woui d b e se tfor every par to f a n AQC Rdesignate d unclassifiabl e o r attainmentunde r sectio n 107(d)(1 ) (D ) o

r (E) , 4 2 US C 7407(d)(1 ) (D

) o r (E) , whe n th e first majo r stationar

y sourc e locatin g i n any suc h par tof the sam e AQC

Rapplie s for a PS D permi t(Se e "BASELIN E CONCENTRATION") . Thi s definitio n i s propose d t o minimize administrative and technical problems an d t o preserv e futur e growt h option s o f th e states . A s discusse d i n "BASELIN

E CONCENTRATION, " EPAbelieve s tha

ta stat e ma y i n it s revise d SI P define "area " for purpose s o f baselin e concentratio n t o b e an y specifi c AQC

Rportio n tha

ti tha d designate d aa attainmento r • — unclassifiable . Conversely; ^ stat e fo r administrativ e reason s coul d defin e - - ' "area " a s bein g th e entir e State . EP A specificall y solicit s comment s o n it s propose d regulatory guidanc e t o state s fo r defilin g Pare

a subjec tt

o this : part " i n sectio n 189(4) . Comment s : shoul d addres s the legal , asministrativep ' and technical effects o f

othe r proposals , - a s wett-a s effect s t

m futur e Jjjrgwth"- ^ option s e f th e states. '- - *'<••'-' " : "•• • • C . StatmhtOnitoring Exemption. I n th e court'ttruiing . i twa s indicate d tha tEP A di d no tprovide th

e state s wit

h adequat

e guidanc e t o determin

e whe n les s dia

n on e calendar yea

r o f dat a ma y b e use d

• o perfor m a complet

e and adequate analysi s o f continuous ai r quality monitorin g data . Subsectio n 165(e)(2 ) stipulate s tha

tsuc h partia l exemption s fro m monitorin

g shall b e applie d "i

n accordance wit

h regulation s promulgate

d by th e Administrator. " Guidanc e addressin g shorte r period s of " tim e wa s included i

n the AirMonitoring' Guidelines forPrevention of Significant Deterioration (sectio n 2.7 . Duration o f Monitoring) . T o comply wit h th e cour

t' ruling, EP A propose s t o promulgat

e the appropriat

e materia l i n th e PS D regulations. - Unde r thi s proposa

l state s woul d b e allowe d t o accep tless tha

n on e calendar o

f dat a fo r PM , SOi , CO , and ' ' NO , monitorin

g i f the applicant demonstrate s tha

tdat a obtaine d durin

g a shorte r tim e period , bu

tn o les s tha

n fou r months , accountfor th e maximu m •' ai r qualit y level s thatcan b e expecte d I n th e cas e o f ozone , monitoring requirement

s mus taccountfo r thos e \ months i n whic h th e averag e dail y maximu m temperature s excee d 20* C " ' (68* F ) i n th e area unde r study , d r fo r th e fou r month s o

f the yea r wf&'tht*F | *'•'•

' warmes taverag e maximu m temperature fo r areas where ther

e ar e notaUeaSt' ' • ' fou r month s with ayeragelffla'ximum - \ ' temperature

s greate r than"•ahC.'CBfiP'FJ . * I tshoul d b e note d tha

tthi s ''..'•' ' .:

" ' ' amendmen

tapplie s onl y t

o pollutants " fo r whic h a nationa

l ambientai r quality , " standar d exist s sinc e sectio n 183(e)(2} " ' doe s notapply t o noncritert a polhitdrits . • Guidanc e o n th e amount

, of monitoring. , dat a required fo

r noncritert

a jpo!liitetfrtir'/

s * J ' wil l b e adde d t

o thB'AirMonttatring2 r '2'' Guidelines forPrevention of '.S^jKaaii tV p Deterioration at

th e samenhib . guidelin e i s revise d t o adoMsitli#^f' .

:••*• - tr ; s-f . &m^&X$t

• * — 1 .t i Afj*.-rt'}fty$i* The AdmimBtrato

r i s today-pwp^^igif;' ; certai n regulatory-changes require d b y the'AArfwm

o 'nMHg^S^ g decision . Thes e changeiii correction s consideredL i

__ _ make th e PSD regulatidnrajl a s possibl e with th e nona l requirements' tot" NStt:"ih l change * propose d fodti y h o f th e secttenrtii(jyifalfc* ; innovativ e contrai l BACT , (Sinews , requirement

s t o modif y pxiS . 'constructio n perinits; < PS D review t o modifie d n t o r ednterttotul fecastteac^j notic e required fromjreloral sources ; an d (8)1tpp

l secondary

i ernissioiis. >f

n

" 2c>:.-j£-*

. . . ' * > aVtiial*\W^ r • X

"••" 4

•v l

monitoring criteria. ' XVm . Additiona

lP.2 6

,194 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 44

. No

. Wednesday

. Sentembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s jectio n contain s discussion s o n tn e economi c impac t

o f th e propose d regulation s an d ho w to commen t o n thi s rulemaking

. A

. Innovative Control

Technology. Sectio n lllfj ) o

f th e Ac t provide s fo

r th e issuanc e o

f waiver s t o source s whic h propos e us e o

f contro l technolog y th e Administrato r

determine s to b e innovative

. Under

sectio n lll(j) , on e o r more waiver s fro

mth e ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) may b e issue d for aperio d o

f u p t o seve n (7 ) years . A waive r

may b e issue d i

f th e Administrato r

determine s that : (1 ) Th e innovativ e ichnolog y ha s no t bee n adequatel y demonstrated : (2 ) Th e innovativ e technolog y ha s a substantia l likelihoo d o

f meetin g th e NSP S a t lowe r cos t i n term s o

f energy , economic , o r

non-ai r qualit y environmenta l impacts ; (3 ) Th e sourc e woui d no t

caus e o r contribut e to a n unreasonabl e risk t o publi c health , welfar e o r

safety ; an d (4 ) A n excessiv e numbe r

o f suc h waivers , a s determine d b y th e Administrator , hav e no t

bee n granted

. Th e waive r

i s to includ e condition s necessar y to assur e tha t

th e sourc e wil l no t preven t attainmen t

an d maintenanc e o f ambien t standard s an d t o assur e tha t th e authorize d syste mwil l functio n properly

. Th e Ac t offer s n o indicatio n a s t o ho w asourc e dia t

obtain s asectio n lll(j ) waive r shoul d b e treate d fo

r purpose s of PS D review

. Sinc e alarg e numbe r o f NSP S source s ar e als o subjec t t o PSD , th e Administrato r

i s concerne d tha t faUur e t o accommodat e sectio n lll(j ) source s unde r

PS D woul d ten d t o discourag e th e developmen t of newer , more effectiv e contro l technologies

. I n th e Jun e 19,197 8 Federa l Register , th e Administrato r

solicite d commen t

o n makin g th e innovativ e contro l waive r aplicabl e to BAC T determination s unde r th e PS D program . Sinc e n o advers e comments wer e received , the

. Administrato r

i s today-proposin g specifi c regulator y languag e definin g ho w th e sectio n lllfj ) waive r applie s t o BftC T determinations . Today' s amendment

s t o th e PS

D regulations provid e diatBAC T fo r a sourc e wit h a sectio n lllfj ) waive r woul d b a define d aalh e innovativ e control equipmentfo r whic h th e waive r ha s bee n grante d an d woul d includ e a

n emissio n limitatio n • •- l a schedul e fpr meetin g that - : gtfpn . Paragrap h (u ) a s proposed - : - * i tha tasectio n lllfj ) sourc e may.fatifiaf

y th e ai r qualit

y analysis qnfrftTiipn tb y modelin g it s projected - -issibn s afte r th e lllfj ) controteare , stalle d An y increase d leve l o f emission s whic h migh t

occu r durin g th e wafver.peno d woul d b e treate d as * ^ • '•jmsorar y an d a s havin g a

n :r.si2nitican t

impac t on ai r quality

. Th e .Administrator

snecificail y solicit s :'-mment s o

n EPA' s authorit y to allo w ,-mporar v violation s o

f increments , especiall y i

n Clas s I areas , du e to lllfj ) waiver s whil e no t

allowin g temporary violation s o

f th e ambien t

standards

. i n addition , th e Administrato r propose s to modif

y 4 0 CF R52.2 1 to accommodat e PS D source s whic h propos e t o us e innovativ e contro l technology , bu t

whic h ar e no t

subjec t t o NSP S an d therefor e no t

eligibl e fo

r sectio n lllfj ) waivers

. Unde r th e proposal , thes e source s woul d receiv e th e sam e treatmen t

a s source s eligibl e fo r sectio n lllfj ) waivers

. Subparagrap h (u)(2 ) outline s criteri ab y whic h th e Administrato r

ma y determin e whethe r

a propose d PS D source' s contro l technolog y i s "innovative. " Th e criteri a trac k th e requirement s establishe d fo r sectio n lllfj ) waivers

. Onc e apropose d technolog y i s determine d t o b e innovative, th e Administrato r

mus t establis h aschedul e fo r meetin g di e BAC

T emissio n limit

. Th e schedule , whic h wil l b e specifie d a s par t o f th e BAC T requirement , shoul d tak e int o consideratio n th e design , installation , an d capita l cos t o f th e technologica l syste mo r

system s bein g used

. I n n o cas e ma y th e schedul e (includin g an y extension ) exten d beyon d seve n year s afte r

PS D permi t

issuance , o r lllfj ) waive r

issuance , o r

four year s after th e sourc e commence s operation , whicheve r

i s earlier

. Th e regulation s includ e aprovisio n fo r bringin g int o complianc e an y sourc e whos e waive r

i s terminate d becaus e i t ha s faile d t o achiev e BACT witi i th e innovativ e syste mo r

faile d t o demonstrat e dia t

th e syste mwil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a n unreasonabl e risk o f publi c health , welfar e o r safety

. Suc h asourc e wil l b e grante d a n extensio n for

whateve r

minimu mperio d o f tim e th e Administrato r

feel s i s necessar y t o achiev e BACT

. Th e extensio n ma y no t

excee d thre e years . B

. Modified

Permits. Th e Administrato r

i s als o proposin g t o ad d a he w paragrap h (t ) whic h woul d requir e tiiat PSD-permitte d source s obtain , - * unde r certai n circumstances , modifie d o r ne w PSD permits . Similarly , subsectio n H i s propose d t o b e adde d t o sectio n I I of th e offsetruling

. Th e ne w requirement

s ar e intende d t

o resolve th e curren tuncertaint

y regarding the;-- 1 •••.:- - obligation s of a sourc e an d a reviewin g authorit y whe n change s ar e necessar y . i n a n approve d constructio n permi t" Unde r today' s proposal , a permitte d - sourc e woul d b e required t o modif y it s permiti f i tobtaine d a permi tan d then , prior t o commencemento f operation, - altere d it s desig n capacit y suc h tha t

emission s increase d significantl y bu t les s than th e applicabl e 100/25 0 ton s fhrsshoid

. Her e th e ter

msignificantl y refer s to tha t

pollutant-specifi c emissio n rat e whic h woui d equa l o r excee d tn e rat e identifie d in Tabl e 1 (se e sectio n o n 'Ve Minimis Exemptions")

. I n addition

. i f desig n capacit y an d potentia l emission s wer e decrease d prio r t o commencemen t

o f operation , th e permi t shoul d b e modifie d t o reflect th e change

. Suc h informatio n i s vita l fo r trackin g th e PS D incremen t

tha t i s availabl e t o othe r ne w sources . A sourc e woul d als o b e require dt o obtai n amodifie d permi t

when , prio r

t o commencemen t

of operation , i t

propose d change s i n th e natur e o

f it s proces s equipmen t

suc h tha t th e potentia l emission s fro

mth e newl y planne d equipmen t

woul d no t

equa l o r excee d the applicabl e 100/25 0 tons threshold

. Finally , amodifie d permi t woul d b e . require d fo

r asourc e tha t

obtaine d a permi t unde r th e existin g regulation s whic h limite d it s hour s o

f operatio n an d the n later , decide d t o increas e it s operatin g hours

. Propose d source s whic h increas e desig n capacit y suc h tha t net potentia l emission s woul d increas e b y greate r than 100/25 0 tons pe r

yea r an d propose d source s whic h pla n ne w proces s equipment , potentiall y emittin g 100/25 0 ton s pe r year , mus t

obtai n ne w permits

. Suc h source s woul d likel y requir e a mor e extensiv e review , possibl y requirin g mor e tha n 9 0 day s fo r completion

. Th e Administrato r

wishe s t o poin t

ou t tha t durin g th e tim e o

f applicatio n for

a modifie d permi t

di e affecte d sourc e woul d retai n incremen t

right s onl y fo r thos e specifi c point s of

emission s whic h wer e permitte d originally

. Fo r example , conside r asourc e tha t

obtain s a permit t o buil d a160

0 tons/da y (dr

y pulp):lime. : kil n an d the n decide s t o scal e dow n the final construction t o 150

0 tons/da y an d -•

* buil d a2 0 megawat t

stea mgenerato r a s - wel L Assum e th e potentia l emission s of' eac h pollutan t

emitte d b y th e steam.*

- generato r woul d b e les s tha n 100 tons- v pe r year . Th e sourc e woul d nee d ai^L222 modifie d permitt o reflect-th e additib B o f th e generato r an d th e decreas e i n th e p v siz e o f th e lim e kiln . -Hi

e generator . -•- >- J emission s woul d hav e to-b e evaluated^' •* ' agains t th e availabl e incremea t

a t IheW-^ p tim e o f th e propose d permitmodificatio n p afte r al l othe r complete applications . ->v- . file d befor e thi s time . Th e fac tdia tthej? : : < lim e kiln' s incremen tusag e woul d b e x-i , - reduced-doe s no tmeantha tan y - incrementrightsar e transferabl e t o thea** ^ steam generator , becaus e th e generate* ^ woul d no tbea n originall y peraaltte d * • • • '•'•'•:.'&J

•U.M .

XT' V T jM-Ai'%.) * v*-E !P.2 7

r edera l Registe r A'ednesaav

. Sentembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s 3194 7

• missio n point , i

f th e generator s •mission s were ove

r 10 0 ton s per ysar . -.2 sourc e woui d requir e ane w permit

. C

. Nonprofit

Institutions. Unde r

tn e -existin g regulations , upo n writte n reques t b y th e Governo r

o f astate , th e PS D permittin g requirement s woul d no t ippi y t o anonprofi t

healt h o r educationa l institutio n t o b e locate d i n tha t state

. Th e Administrato r i s proposin g tha t

thi aexemptio n appl y t o modifie d nonprofi t

healt h o r

educationa l institution s a s wel l a s thos e newl y constructed

. D

. Portable Facilities. Unde r existin g regulations , previousl y permitte d PS D source s whic h propos e t o relocat e mus t provid e athirt y (30 ) da y notice

. Base d o n experienc e i n implementin g thes e regulations , th e Administrato r i s proposin g t o chang e th e thirt y (30 ) da y notic e t o on e whic h reflect s a reasonabl e amoun t

o f time , t o b e no t .JS S tha n te n (10 ) days

. Thi s woui d enabl e source s wit h extremel y shor t tim e delay s betwee n constructio n projects , suc h a s portabl e asphal t batc h plants , t o bette r

comply-wit h th e inten t o f th e regulations

. S

. Secondary Emissions. Th e Administrato r

i s toda y incorporatin g int o th e PS D regulation s th e definitio n o f secondar y emission s i n th e offse t rulin g (44 F R3274)

. Unde r

thi s proposal , secondar y emission s woul d mea n emission s fro mne w o r

existin g source s whic h occu r

a s aresul t

o f th e constructio n and/o r

operatio n o f

a majo r sourc e o r

majo r modification , bu t d o no t necessaril y com e fro mth e sourc e itself

. Secondar y emission s woul d include , bu t

woul d no t

b e limite d to : [a) Emission s fro mship s o r train s comin g t o o r

from asourc e o r modification , o r (b ) Emission s fro moff-sit e suppor t source s whic h woul db e constructe do r woul d otherwis e increas e emission s a s a resul t o f th e constructio n o f

amajo r source . Unde r today' s proposal

. Secondar y emission s woul dno t

coun t i n determinin g th e potentia l ^ o emi t o f a source , i n addition ; whe n the.sourc e i s otherwis e subjec t

t o PS D review, th e BAC T requiremen t

woul d no t

appi y t o secondar y emissions

. However , - „ secondar y emissions , wher e well-know n an d quantifiable,'woul d b e take n int o accoun t i n assessin g i f

a n dtEarwis e subjec t sourc e woul d caus e o r ' contribut e t o aviolatio n ofan y applicabl e incremen t

o r standar d

. ¥. Economic Impact

Assessment Sectio n 31 7 o f

th e Ac t requires a n economi c impac t

assessmen t

fo r j regulations aii d revisions t o regulation s issue d unde r

Pari C Executiv e Orde r - 1204 4 similarl y require s animpac t ' assessmen t

fo r significan t

regulator y •ctions

. Th e Agenc v na s no t ye t -.onducte d eithe r

assessmen t

for severa l reasons . First , apreliminar y assessmen t suggest s tha t

man y fewe r

source s wil l b e subjec t

t o revie w unde r

th e ne w definitio n o f

potentia l t o emit

. A s man y a s three-quarter s o f

th e source s subjec t t o revie w unde r

th e existin g regulation s wil l no t requir e permit s unde r

th e regulation s propose dtoday

. Moreover , th e applicatio n o f

aplant-wid e definitio n o f

sourc e fo r

PS D woul dallo w replacement s an d reconstructions a t existin g unit s t o offe r

escap e review

. Whil e man y fewe r

source s ma y b e subjec t t o review , th e impac t

o f certai n ne w requirements , suc h a s PS D monitorin g fo r

othe r pollutants , remain s t o b e assessed

. Th e Administrato r believe s tha t

suc h additiona l cost s unde r today' s proposa l wouid

. o n balance , b e mor e tha n offse t b y th e reduce d economi c impact s associate d wit h th e issuanc e o f

fewe r permits

. Second , th e Administrato r ha s determine d t o propos e regulation s withou t a n economi c impac t

assessmen t t o replac e a s quickl y a s possibl e th e regulation s struc k

dow n b y th e Alabama Power decision

. Th e cour t

state d tha t it s purpos e i n issuin g it s summar y opinio n wa s "t o enabl e EP A t o procee d a s soo n a s possibl e t o commenc e rulemakin g o r

othe r proceeding s necessar y t o promulgat e thos e revision s i n th e PS D regulation s require db y ou r rulings , an dt o tak e othe r pruden t actio n t o effectuat e congressiona l policies. " Sli p op . a t

7

. I n vie w o f

th e court' s directiv e an dth e need , identifie d bot h b y industr y an dEP A i n paper s file d wit h th e court , t o maintai n a n ongoin g PS D permi t program , i t

i s th e judgmen t

o f di e Administrato r

tha t thi s propose d rulemakin g no t

b e postpone dunti l a n economi c impac t

assessmen t

i s prepared

. Finally , th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e court' s supplementa l opinio n ma y clarify , whic h o f severa l option s propose dtoda y shoul d b e adopte d Give n th e limite d tim e an dresource s o f

th e Agency , th e Administrato r

believe s tha t

better-us e wil l b e mad e o f

th e Agency' s resource s i f th e economi c assessmen t i s performe d afte r issuanc e o f

th e court' s suppiemental:opinion , an d furthe r clarificatio n o f

whic h option s th e Agenc y wil l adop t

Consequently , th e Administrato r

intend s to'prepar e th e require deconomi c impac t assessmen t

* afte r issuanc e o f

th e court' s — ' supplementa l opinion

. Thi s analysi s wil l b e madeavadablefo r

publi c commen t

• upo n completio n an d suc h commen t wil l b e takendnt o accounti n th e • > promuigate®uiattons

. - G

. Comments. Thi s rulemakin g i s prooose d unde r

authorit y o f

sectio n •J07(d ) o f th e Act

. 4 2 U.S.C

. 7607(d)

. EP A solicit s writte n comment s o n th e porposal s i n thi s notice

. Th e perio d fo r commen t end s Octobe r

5.1979

. Comment s shoul d b e sen t i n triplicat e i f possible , t o th e Centra l Docke t Section , EPA

. Roo m2903B

. Watersid e Mall , 40 1

. M Street

. S.W.

. Washington

. D.C

. 2046 a Attention : Docke t

No

. A-79-35

. EP A plan s t o hol d publi c hearing s o n th e " proposal s i n Septembe r 197 9 i n Sa n Francisco

. California , an d 'Washington , D.C

. Th e hearing s wil l b e informa l an d• legislativ e i n nature

. Transcript s wil l b e • taken

. EP A Wil l announc e th e exac t time

. an dplac e fo r

th e hearing s i n th e nea r future

. Th e writte n comments , transcript s o f

hearings , an dothe r relevan t document s wil l b e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g betwee n 3:0 0 a.m . an d4:0 0 p.m. ; Monda y throug h Friday , i n th e Centra l Docke t Section

. ,

_ (Sees

. 101(b)(1) , 110.114.160-89 . and 301(a ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act. a s amende

d (4 2 U.S.C . r-U)l(b)(l) , 7410. 7414 . 7470-79 , and 7601(a). ) • Dated : August22.1979 . Dougla s M . Costle , Administrator. —v Requirement s fo r

Stat e PS D Plan s -

• , .,>. , 1

. Titl e 40 ; Par t

5 1 o f th e Cod e b f

:

. ; Federa l Regulation s i s propose d t o b a'• ' .'•' , amende da s follows : I n § 51.2 4 paragraph s (b)(l)-(8 ) an d '..•',-

. (11 ) ar e revised ; (b)(16 ) i s deleted : " existin g paragraph s (b)(12Hl7 ) ar e . , • renumbere d a s (13)-(18) : ne w (b)(I2 ) an d (20)-{23 ) ar e added : paragraphs ' (i)-(kj

. an d (n ) ar e revised ; (tj-(v ) ar e added

. A s : revise d an dadde d thos e paragraphs

. - rea da s follows : §51.2 4 Preventio n o

f significan t deterioratio n o

f ai r quality

. P V-i ;

• *

.. . - ..... . .;.•..• • ••••Mr : ^ (b ) Definitions: Fo r

th e purpose s of;'«-? ' * thi s section : • - ; •• • -'•:•-\ *.•

• .^.•••--v.r-w'*! ' (1 ) "Majo r

stationar y sduro^inesfns ^ (i ) An y o f

th e followin g statk»harj(^S:V'iM: | source s o f

ai r pollutants"wideii-aiB^to^- ^ hav e th e potentia l t o emitsi00*WiJpan ^ " yea r o r mor e o f an y poUuta*rf»«gulatti & unde r th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t (tfiefl Fossi l fuel-fire d stea melectolbtyM&£ ^ mor e ma n 25 0 millio n BrfaaKl*- Js ^ M * r i unit s pe r hou r hea t inpu t i plant s (wit h therma l dryerej d mills , portlan dcemen t

plants ^ zin c smelters;.iro n &t d ste£t- t primar y aluminu more i primar y coppe r

smelters, ' i incinerator s capabl e ofchi f tha n 25 0 ton s o f

refuse perdi»>>^f$j* f hydrofluoi*ka v 8ulfiiric,-ando f ~ plants , petroleu mrefin e pho'sphateroclrp r ove n batteries, " s o 

### dMsW-»fc 7P.2 8



### U94 8 Federa l Registe r / VM . J4 N'ri . V. 'A'pflnesdav . Seotembe r 5. 197 3 / Propose d Rule s .irbo n nlac k piant s |furnace process) , primar y lead smeiters , fue

i conversio n giants , sintering piants . secondar y meta l proauction piants , chemicai proces s :ants . fossii-fuei boilers (o r ..imbination thereof

) totaling mor

e tha n ioQ million Britis

h therma l unit s pe r hou r hea tinput , petroleu m storag e an

d transfer unit

s wit h a tota l storage capabilit y exceedin g 300.00

0 barrels , 'aconit e ore processin g plants , glas s fibe r processin g piants , an

d charcoa l productio n plants ; (ii ) Notwithstandin g the stationar y sourc e size s specifie d i

n paragrap

n fb)(l)(i ) o f thi s section , an

y stationar

y sourc e which emits , o

r has di e potentia

l t o emi t250 tons pe

r yea r o r mor e o f an y ai r pollutantregulated unde r di e Ac t (2)(i ) "Majo

r modification " mean s any physical change in o

r change in the metho d o f operatio n ofa major stationar y source , o

r serie s o f contemporaneou s physical change s in o r change s in th

e method o

f operatio n o

f a majo r stationary source , tha

twoul d resulti n a significantnetincreas e in tha tsource' s potential t

o emi tth e pollutan tfo r whic h the stationar

y source i s majo r (o r tha twoul d mak

e th e stationar y sourc e majo

r takin g int o accountai l accumulate d netincease s in potential emission s occurring a tth e source , includin g any initial constructio n sinc e Augus t7,1977) . The ter m "majo r modification " serve s a s th e definitio n o f "modification' ' o

r "modified " whe n use d ii i th e Ac tin reference t

o a majo r stationary source . (ii ) A physica l chang e shal l no t includ e routine maintenance , repair and replacemen t (iii ) A chang e i n the method of operation , unles s previousl y limited b y enforceabl e permi

tconditions , shal l not include : (a) Us e o f a n alternativ e fue

l o r raw materia l b y reason o

f a n orde r under section s 2(a ) and (b ) of

th e Energ

y - Supnf y an d Environmenta

l Coordination Ac to f 1974 (o r an y supersedin g - legJifetion} , a prohibitio n unde r th e PdWerPian

tan d Industria

l Fue l Us e Ac t ofi87 8 (or an y supersedin g legislation) . • o r tb y reaso n of a natura

l ga s curtailment pt&p«nuan tt o th e .Federa l Powa r Ac t- p{£> } Us e o f a n alternativ e fuel o r ra w - matariafcif

prio r t o Januar

y 6,1976 . th e - 80urc*wa s capabl e of

accommodatin g suc k feel o r material : ••• • ->..'.

. ! a n alternativ e fue l b y fa n orde r o r rul e unde r sectio n 12Stif,theAc t ^^jCbang e i n ownershi p o f the * stationary source ; o r [e) Us e o f refuse derive d fuel «^ generate d from municipa l soli d waste . .

- (iv)£hange s ar e "contemporaneous' ' onl y i f reduction s occu r afia-a.notie8.i s Tile d pursuan tt o paragrap

h (vj(4 ) an d befor e operation o

i th e emissio n uni

to r unit s tha twil l resul ti n emissio n increases . Also , t

o v e :;ontemDorannou

s al to f th 8 emissio n reductions mus

i be completed an

d enforceaol e unde

r th e stat e pla n befor e operation o

tth e emissio n uni

to r unit s tha twill resul

ti n an y emissio n increase . Wher e th e ne w emissio n uni

ti s a replacemen

tfo r a n emissio n uni

ttha ti s bein g shu tdow n in orde r t o provide th

e necessar y reductions , di e reviewin g authorit y ma y allo w u p t o 18 0 day s fo r shakedow n o

f di e ne w emissio n uni

t befor e the existin g emissio n uni ti s require d t o ceas e operation . (v ) Fo r a serie s o

f change s i n a stationar y source t o satisf y di e requiremen

to f "n o ne tincrease,' ' al

l o f th e followin g mus

tb e satisfied : (a ) Al l reduction s an

d all increase s mus tb e fo r th e same pollutant : lb) The su m o f al l decrease s mus

tb e greate r tha n o r equa l t o th e su m o f ai l increases ; (c ) O n balanc e th

e air qualit

y o f th e affecte d area mus

tnotb e adversel y impacted . (vi ) I n performin

g the calculatio n i

n paragrap h (b)(2)(v ) o f thi s sectio n t

o determine whedie r the su m o f al l decrease s i s greater tha

n o r equa l t o the su m o f al l increases ) the followin g rule s shal l apply : (a ) Subjec tt o the followin g adjustments , th e siz e of

a n increas e o r decreas e i s determined by di e difference betwee n th e potential t o emi tof th e change o f emission s uni

tbefor e and afte r the change . (b) I f potentia l t o emi tfo r a change d emissio n uni

twa s initiall y highe

r tha n allowabl e emissions , then n o offse t creditma y b e taken fo

r decreasin g potential t

o emi tdow n t

o allowabl e emissions . (c ) The . requiremen

tof 4 0 CF RPar t51 . Appendix S , section s IV . C . 2 and 4 shal l appl y involvin g th e amoun tof credit permissibl e for changing fuel s an d fo r replacin g on e hydrocarbo n compound with anothe r o f

lesse r reactivity . (3)^'Potentia

l t o emit " mean s th e .capabilit y a tmaximu

m desig n capacity . t o emita pollutan tafte r th e applicatio n of ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t Aanual potential shal l b e base d o n th e maximu m annualrated'eapacity of th e -. stationar y sourc e assumin g continuou s . yea r round operations Enforceabl e - permitcondition s o n th e typ e of . material s combuste d o r processe d may b e use d i n determinin g th e annual potentia l Secondar

y emission s d o no t coun ti n detent*iumg.wjpnuB l potential . •

• Fugitiv e emission s als o d o no tcoun t«.• ' • excep twith respec tt o th e fallowin g stationar y source s an

d the n oniy t o th e ,-xten tquantifiable : ji ) Coa i cleanin g plant

s •:i ! Kraf tpui p miii s .iii ) Portlan

d cementpiant

s (iv ) Primar y zinc smelter s (v | Iro n an d stee l mil

l plant s (vi ) Primar y aluminu m or e reductio n piant s (vii) Primar

y coppe r smeiter s (viii ) Municipa

l incinerators fix ) Hydrofluoric , sulfuric , o r nitri c aci d plants (x ) Petroleu m refinerie s (xi ) Lim e plants (xii ) Phosphat

e roc k processin g plants (xiii ) Cok e ove n batterie s (xiv ) Sulfu

r recovery plant

s (xv) Carbo

n blac k plants (xvi ) Primar

y lea d smelter s (xvii ) Fue l conversio n plants (xviii ) Sinterin g plants (xix ) Secondary meta

l production plant s !xx) Chemica

l proces s plants (xxi ) Fosst

i fuel-fired boiler s (xxii ) Petroleu

m storag e and transfer unit s (xxiii ) Taconite or

e processin g plants (xxiv ) Glas s fiber processin g plants (xxv ) Charcoa

l production plants (xxvi ) Fossi l fuel-fired stea m electri c plant s (xxvii ) An y othe r stationar y source ' categor y which , a tth e tim e of

th e applicabilit

y determination , i s being , regulated unde r sectio n 11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e Act . (4 ) "Stationar

y source " mean s an y structure , building , facilit y o r installatio n which emits o r ma y emit an y ai r pollutantregulated unde r the Act . (5 ) "Structure, building , facilit y o r installation " mean s an

y groupin g o f pollutant-emittin g activitie s whic h are locate d o n on e o r mor

e contiguou s o r - adjacen tpropertie s an d whic h are owne d o r operate d b y th e sam e perso n (or by person s unde r commo n control) , c . (6) "Emissio n unit " mean s any par to f . a stationary sourc e whic h emit s or.haJs 2 % th e potentia l t o emi tan y pollutant„ . regulated unde r th e Ac t-••-•-;.. . "...

* * • * * ' > * ' .-PJ.-H^:^-/,

. . (11 ) "Baselin e concentratiant"*ntan*-*«, ; thatambien tconcentratio n leve l whicluc exist s a tth e tim e of

theapplicabl e ;. p 7 .J, baselin e date , minusanj»contritattai£*i * from major stationar y ssuxoesandnu^orvfe. . modification s o n whu^canstnictioo^i*-^' - commence d o n o r afte r January * MOTiip"i' Th e baselin e concentratio n BbaUSndfclai~ 2 . contributian8'£i*onir.:'.*'j<'r.;-'i^ ^ (i)TEeactuaiemissionsofotherj t: 7 source s i n existenc e o n th e apphcabtepj.,•' • baselin e date, - excep ttha tcdnttibWJdn#3> from suc h enstm g source s to the-axt*ntc a "•-•• £ •m



### ' 

### ,L> • ••••#4

: • • : ; ' • A$•-

' Ar : --m--- /• • . •£! £ •

-,'-.'•«.-$ ?P.2 9

ddiirm Ke«isie r 

### VVedr.e.saav

. SoDtembe r 5

. 197 9 / Prcoose d Rule s 3194 9



### $g$2 |ft?^ p ©•;:• , .*.::.: a pla n revisio n proposin g .es s

-p=trictiv e requirement s affect s suc n • ource s wti s siiiimutec i o n or uefor e thi i •'.seiin e dat e an d wa s pendin g actio n i. v th e Administrato r o n thatdat e shai i e determine d fro

m th e allowabl e ^mission s unde r th e pla n a s revised : an d ii i Th e allowabl e emission s o f majo r -tutionar y source s an d majo r .Modification s whic h commence d constructio n befor e January 6.1975 . bu t wer e no ti n operatio n b y th e applicabl e baseiin e date . (12 ) "Baselin e date " means , fo r ever y par to f a n Ai r Qualit y Contro l Regio n (AQCR ) designate d a s unclassifiabl e o r attainmen tunde r sectio n 107(d)(1 ) (D ) o r i E ) o f th e Ac tth e dat e o f

th e firs t complet e applicatio n afte r Augus t7, 197 7 fo r a permi tunde r this sectio n fo r

= n y majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n i n an y par to f di e AQCR . #* * • :20 ) '"Secondary emissions' ' mean s amission s whic h occu r o r woui d occu r a s a resul to f

th e constructio n o r operatio n o f

a majo r stationar y sourc e or majo r modification , bu td o no t necessaril y com e fro m th e majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n itself . Fo r purpose s o f

thi s section , secondar y emission s mus tb e specifi c an d wel l define d mus tb e quantifiable , an d mus timpac tth e sam e genera l are a a s th e stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n whic h cause s th e secondar y emissions . Secondar y emission s ma y includ e bu t ar e no tlimite d to : fi ) Emission s from ship s o r train s comin g t o o r from th e stationar y sourc e o r modification : an d (ii ) Emission s from an y offsit e suppor t sourc e whic h woul d b e constructe d o r woui d no totherwis e increas e it s emissions . (21 ) "Innovativ e contro l technology " mean s an y syste m o f

ai r pollutio n contro l tha tha s no tbee n adequatel y demonstrate d i n practice , bu twoul d . - hav e a substantial , likelihoo d o f achievin g greate r continuou s emissio n reductio n tha n an y contro l ayste m i n curren tpractic e o r o f

achievin g a tleas t comparabl e reductions a tlowe r cos ti n term s o f energy , economics , o r nonai r quaht y environmenta l impacts . (22 ) "Fugitiv e emissions " mea n thos e emission s whic h d o no tpas s throug h a . stack , chimney , ven to r other . . - ^^J j functionall y equivalen topening . .• " H (23 ) "Reconstruction" : wil l b e - .

. presume d t o hav e take n plac e where , th e

- fixed capita l cos to f

th e new . component s exceed s 5 0 percent-o f th e •••*.:., fixe d capita l cos to f

a comparable ' entirel y ne w stationar y source . ..-.. ; Howeven^n y final dedsiona s t o whethe r reconstructio n ha s occurre d - • iiai i b e mad e in accordanc e wu h th e provision s ot4 0 CF

R60.15|i](l)-(3) . A

. . ion s trucke

d stationer y sourc e wii i b o in-iite d a s a ne w stationar y sourc e io r purpose s o i ihi s section , excep ttna tus e :; f a n auernativ e fuei or ra w materia l b y reaso n o i a n orde r i n effec tunae r section s 2 fa ) an d ib ) o

f th e Energ y Suppl y an d Environmenta l Coordinatio n Ac to f 197 4 fo r an y supersedin g legislation) , b y reaso n o f a natura l ga s curtailmen tpla n i n effec tpursuan tto th e Federa l Powe r Act , o r b y reaso n o f a n orde r o r rul e unde r sectio n 12 5 o f th e Act . shal l no tb e considere d reconstruction . I

n determinin g bes t availabl e contro l technolog y fo r a reconstructe d stationar y source , th e provision s o f

4 0 CF R60.15(f)(4 ) shal l b e take n int o accoun ti n assessin g whedie r a standar d o f

performanc e unde r 4 0 CF R Par t6 0 i s applicabl e to suc h stationar y source . (i ) Review of

MajorStationarySources and

MajorModifications — Source Applicability and General Exemptions. (1 ) Th e pla n shal l provid e tha tn o majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n shal l b e constructe d unless , a s a minimum , requirement s equivalen tt o thos e containe d i n th e paragraph s (j) , (1) . (n) . (p) , (r) , (t) , (v ) o f this sectio n hav e bee n met . (2 ) Th e pla n shal l provid e a s follows : (i ) Th e requirement s o f paragraph s (j ) throug h (u ) shal l appl y t o an y majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n that : [a] Woul d b e constructe d i n a n are a whic h i s designate d unde r sectio n 10 7 a s attainmen to r unclassifiabl e fo r a pollutan tfo r whic h th e sourc e o r modificatio n woul d b e major , o r [b] Woul d significand y impac ta n are a i n anothe r stat e whic h i s designate d unde r sectio n 10 7 a s attainmen to r unclassifiabl e fo r a pollutan tfo r whic h di e sourc e o r modificatio n woul d b e major . (ii ) A majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n tha ti s majo r fo r violatil e organi d compound s i s als o majo r fo r ozone . (3 ) Th e pla n ma y provid e ma t requirements equivalen tt o thos e containe d i n paragraph s (j ) throug h (u ) o f this sectio n do . no tappl y taan y majo r stationar y sourc e tha twoul d b e a nonprofi thealt h o r educatio n institutio n o r toan y majo r modification , tha twoul d . occu r a tsuc h a n institution . .".. • (4)Th e pla n ma y provid e tha ta .-. - . . .__ , portable-stationar y sourc e whic h ha s -...- . received a permi tunde r regw$ment s ,-.,„. equivalen tt o thos e containe d i n -thie-v-i--:" . subparagraphs.q f

paragrap h IflJthmrigh... . '-.. ) o f thi s section , a s applicable , ma y relocat e witnou tagai n bein g subjec tt o -.os e requirements , if

— ii ! Emission s fro

m tn e stationar v -ourc e woui d ne texcee d it s allowabl e -missions : •'ii ) Emission s fro

m th e stationar y sourc e woui d impac tn o Clas s I are a an d r. o are a wher e a n applicabl e incremen t i s know n to b e violated : an d (iii ) Reasonabl e notice , no tt o b e les s tha n 1 0 days , i s give n t o th e reviewin g - authorit y prio r to th e relocatio n identifyin g th e propose d ne w locatio n an d th e probabl e duratio n o f operatio n atth e ne w location . (j ) Control

Technology Review. Th e pla n shal l provid e that

—, (1 ) A majo r stationar y source-b r majo r modificatio n shal l mee teac h applicabl e emissio n limitatio n unde r th e Stat e Implementatio n Pla n plu s eac h applicabl e emissio n standar d an d standar d o f

performanc e unde r 4 0 CF R Part s 6 0 an d 61 . (2) A majo r stationar y sourc e q r majo r modificatio n shal l appl y bes tavailable contro l technolog y fo r eac h pollutan t• regulate d unde r th e Ac ttha ti twoul d emi ti n a significan tamount . (3 ) I n th e cas e o f

a majo r modification.-.- . - th e requiremen tfo r bes tavailabl e • -.• • V - contro l technolog y shall , appl y onl y to... . .•.- . ; eac h ne w o r modifie d emissio n unit i ty-A. '•'..' , (4 ) Fo r phase d con8truction.projects.t^~ > th e determinatio n o f

bes tavatiable.- . -p-vi^j. ' contro l technology-shal l b e revdewedpHtrj; an d modifie d a s appropriateja tth e latest* - •' - reasonabl e tim e prio r t o commencemen tP. . o f constructio n o f

eac h independen t• • ', ' phas e o f construction. . _<',,-,.-,.. . -.-*- (k ) Exemptions from Impact Analyse*;:**, fl ) Th e pla n ma y provid e tha twit h • •, . respec tt o a particula r pollutan tth e . ; .. • •.-;-,' • requirements-of

paragraph s (1) , (n)an d H (p ) shal l no tappl y t o a proposed , major r t-i'-r l stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificationpj^ , : r . . . . . .. . ^...^^--a-iito-,. ' if — (1 ) Th e increas e i n allowable :-«~^. r emission s o f

tha tpoUutantfrari n the ? stationar y sourc e orinod»fk«atitjuw < impac tn o Clas s I are a andntpjnea ^ wher e a n applicabl e increment"*!- * t o b e violated : an d .-•

* •-V.'^?',*. ^ (ii ) Th e emiasiona-o f

th» j -o f a temporary-natur e limite d t o tiiosefroma pUofcptiiBt\^ < portabl e facility,",coiutatoti(Hgg(^U-& £ exploratioa.Vv

;i ,>Hi,r,.-^i>>a<ft' (2 ) Th e pla p ma y p

i respectt o sulfntdi i matte r th e requirements. (l),(n)and(p>bfthi s appl y t o a modificatio n stationar y sourc e wWdiywriti^V i existenc e o n August-7 , •.- . (i ) An y increas e i n a , _ emission s o f

eithar-o f

4hqeite> j afte r th e applicatio n o f 

# m

-,.- ••wp'^^sfeS ! • >j:..'vV.t/! ; ' .r

> . •



### ??mv*y. ;

' • x.?Ai2*/fi

•• ; "i ; V'^? %P.3 0

5195 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 44 . \'o . 17

3 / Wednesday , SeDtembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule ; contro l technology woul d impac tn o Clas s I area : (ii) An y suc h increas e woul d caus e o r contribut e t o n o violatio n o

f an y nationa l ambien tair qualit

y standard ; an d (iii ) An y increas e in allowabl e emission s o

f an y air pollutantregulated unde r th e Ac tafte r applicatio n o

f bes t availabl e contro

l technology woul d be les s tha n 50 tons per year . (3) Th e requirement

s o f paragraph

s (1) , (n) , and (p ) o

f thi s sectio n shal l no t apply t o a proposed majo

r stationar

y source o r majo r modification wit

h respectt o a particula

r pollutan ti

f (i) Th e increas e o

r netincreas e in 

### emission s woul

d impac t n o Clas s I area ; (ii ) The increas e o r ne tincreas e i n emission s i s notsignificanto r woul d caus e n o significan

tai r qualit

y impact ; and (iii ) Th e increas e o

r netincreas e i

n emission s woul d b e les s tha n 100 ton s per yea r fo

r stationar

y source s liste d unde r (b)('l)(i) o r 250 ton s per yea r fo r othe r stationar

y sources . **** * (n ) Monitoring —(1) Preapplicatio n monitoring, (i ) Th

e pla n shal l provid e tha tan y applicatio n for a permi

tunder thi s Section shal l contai n a n analysi s of ambien tai r qualit

y i n th e area th e propose d stationar

y sourc e o r modificatio n woul d affectfo r eac h pollutantregulated unde r th e Ac twhic h th e stationar

y sourc a o r modificatio n woul d emi ti n a significantamoun t (ii ) Th e pla

n shal l provid e tha

ta s necessar y t

o determin e whethe r emission s from th e propose d stationary source o r modification woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n of

an y maximu m allowabl e increas e o r national anibientai r qualit y standard i n an y area , th e analysi s required unde r paragrap h (n)(l ) o f thi s sectio n shal l includecontinuou s ai r quaht y - r-2'" fflonffartftgdata fo r an y pollutant " -- • emHteH-< y th e stationary sourc e n r ThodiBosMm-fot

whic h a national >'--'• •"• • •» • *. equalit y standkrdvxists-:' ' ••«• ' netiian e hydrocarbons* * - •:-••• pla n shal l provide-tha tAe 4 ••&, ' t,«ir-monitofingdats required '•••' »#MtKiiybfthissection- i

. an d sfcfcl } haV e bee s **•**

• ' • '-> - ove r th e yea r precedin g ttfeeli> r mmeieRippitoanoii . - H -. . -'-- J I , . Btandihg^tapiplf*^^ . >"• • miiif-"M*

, . . . . . trownet«<rtrdpem^)Qitt^ t•'-•, ' iw^W^lh^OTeye^oft*datfm^ 9 o - "*" " Titjr.tTOititoriii^*t#fci< ^ .r.oaification demonstrate s fo r tota l suspende d particulates , sulfu r dioxide , jarbon monoxide , an

d nitroge n dioxid e :hroug h historica

l dat a o r dispersio n .-.odei s tha

tth e dat a fo r suc h shorter ?eno d o f time, bu tnotless tha

n fou r months , wil l b e obtaine d durin g a tim e perio d when maximu

m air qualit

y level s ca n be expected . [b) Th e dat a fo r ozon e wil l b e obtaine d fo

r thos e months in whic

h th e average dail y maximu

m temperatures excee d 2 0 degree s Celsiu s (6

8 degree s Fahrenheit

) in the area under study , o r fo r di e fou r month s of

th e yea r wit

h the wannes taverag e maximu m temperature

s fo r area s where ther

e ar e nota tleas tfou r month s wit

h average maxim-i:* - temperatures greater tha n 20 degree s ^isiu s (6

8 degree s Fahrenheit) . Fo r can..... . tin

g th e dail y maximu

m temperatures , a climati c recor d of a t leas tte n var ? shal l b e use d excep t wher e n c • jr

d o f tha tlengt h whic h ca n b e corstdere d representativ e o f the area exists . (v) Th e owne r o r operato r of

a propose d stationar

y sourc e o

r mociiiication o

f volatil e organi c compound s wh o satisfie s all conditio n o f 4 0 CF RPar t51 , Appendix S , sectio n IV. A ma y provid e post-constructio n monitoring dat

a fo r ozon e i n lie u of providing preconstructio n data for ozon e a s required under paragraph (n](l)(i ) of thi s section . (2 ) Post-constructio n monitoring . Th e plan shal l provid e tha

tth e owne r o r operato r of

a propose d stationar

y sourc e o r modificatio n shall , after constructio n of di e stationary sourc e o r modification , conductsuch ambientmonitoring a s the reviewing authorit

y determine s ma

y b e necessar y t o determin e th e effec t. emission s from th e stationary sourc e o r modificatio n may have , o r are havin g a n ai r qualit y inan y area. . v ,,." . ,.V

J .'. v , : - (3 ) Operatio n o f

monitoring'stations . •-/.

. The pla n shal l provid e tha tth e owne r o r operato r shal l mee tth e requirements of appendixJ B t o Par t5 8 o f thi s chapte r y duri^t^pperstiOT ^ monitoring , i ; — station s fo r purpose s o f

paragraph (n ) o f thi s section , a s follows : (i ) N o late r tha n Januar

y 1, - 1980 tfa r v exJstingitatkiWiatvi-:.--OjpL»p^^;;;''-i.^;-- " (ii ) Fo r ne w stations , a tA e time-the-

. strftiim^i s pntinto^jperation . J p -a..*. . fi ) Prio r t o commencemen

to f operation , th

e owne r o r operato r woui d propos e a change i

n desig n capacit

y o f a n emissio n uni

to r emissio n unit

s whic h wouid significantl y increas e ne t potentia l emission s bu

tno ta s muc

h a s 10 0 ton s pe r yea r fo

r stationar

y source s liste d unde

r paragrap

h (b)( l )(i) o

f thi s sectio n o r 25 0 tons per yea r fo

r othe r stationar y sources ; (ii ) Prio r t o commencemento

f operation , th e owne r o r operato r woul d propos e fundamenta

l change s i n th e natur e o f th e proces s equipmen

tuse d suc h tha tthe potential emission s from th e changed emissio n uni

to r emissio n 

### units woul d b e significan

t butTes s tha

n 10 0 ton s per yea r fo r stationar y source s liste d in paragrap

h (b)(l)(i ) of

thi s sectio n o r les s tha

t250 ton s pe r yea r fo r other stationary sources ; o r (iii ) After obtainin g a permi tunde r thi s sectio n whic

h limit s the hour s o f operation , the owne r o

r operato r propose s t o increas e th e hour s o f operation . (2 ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a major stationar y sourc e o r a major modificatio n wh o obtain s a permi tunde r this sectio n shal l obtai n a ne w permi t prio r t o beginnin g any constructio n no t authorized b y th e existin g permi tif , prior t o commencementof operation , th e owne r o r operato r proposes : (i) A n increas e in desig n capacity , o f on e o r mor e emissio n unit s which woul d increas e ne tpotential emission s o f th e stationary sourc e b y 10 0 ton s o r more pe r yea r fo r stationary source s liste d i n paragrap h (b)(l)(l ) o f

thi s sectio n o r b y 25 0 ton s o r mor

e per yea r for other stationar y sources ; or . . (ii ) Fundamenta

l change s i n th e nature of th e proces s equipmentuse d such lha t th e potential emission s from th e - A'r. r A' change d emissio n uni to r emissio n uni t woul d b e 100 ton s pe r yei r o r morse l stationary source s liste d iaMii^awl . - . - , (b)(i)(ijd f tM s sWtio n pr^tfe^o|Sf ^ 

### mor e pe r yta^vth^^iS^^fr-^ sources . :r&ij£&^%&}gigg&£ i :•*. 

### (3 ) lie iip^tal^j^iae^l'-^r^^:^^: . modifi&tii m skaitfiidm^} ^5$?f» ' . (i ) Adtoqpihratipn'ai tj^" ^ i "^ i v requirements o f

parSj^ji W met , and-H'^^r^ ^ (ii 7 A deiia^ttaftpirft ^ i n allowabl e emission s p prcontribute,|a&y& M 

## Am

qFUttsaection , l£ ^ -v*fej T Aei 1 (Bwne r o r cm»WSrW*^^ r *"' : jr|apsji§|%tMioi ^ Pa***. ' ' \ ft).M^#ft/ij^(t y operatoro f

a major^tftma^-sdirrcelor.;;'- . (4 ) The-ttLtv i etw^ii' a majo r modification* 'i^.'Sbwma:22iLA ^ apprdW * " "*""" " penni tunde r Je^^tiOTi'devi^qp^^,, ' H tit Wo I . inirsuanfMPIi^ia^ ^ modifie d ^Mt3j^r*o'bieSm*&H ; subsfantiauywuivalenVitd ^ostructitm^y^ttiM^^^^ paragraph s fflSiartfl ^' i 5nth6tee<Hytfc»ei3S- ^ ar e megm^^^^** •2 

## M& • I O - v'-* 3 •.**• • - - .

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

## M^^LA^^&L^^^£>AAA2

,.s,cy~zjg'r 

# ^mmP.3 1

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 44 . No . 173 /

Wednesday , Septembe r 5 , 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 5195 1

2.'

. - 

# I fc^apj-Bv...

•*•••-.•. : •as* * (ii) N

o demonstration i s mad

e b y a Federa l Lan d Manage r o f a n advers e impac to n th e air quality—related values (including visibility ) of a Clas s I are a t o whic h h e i s charge

d wit h direc t responsibilit

y fo r management

, unles s th e constructio n woui d b e approve d unde r procedures substantiall y equivalentt

o paragrap

h (q)(4) , (5) , (6) , o

r (7 ) o f thi s section . (5 ) Th e reviewin g authorit

y shal l approv e o r deny a complet

e applicatio n within 90 day s o

f its receipt . (u ) Innovative Control

Technology. (1 ) Th e pla n ma y provid e dia

ta n owne r o r operato r o

f a propose d majo

r stationar

y sourc e o r majo r modification ma

y requesto f the reviewin g authorit

y t o emplo y a syste m o

f innovativ e contro

l technology . (2 ) The pla n ma y provid e tha

tthe reviewin g audiorit

y shal l wit

h the consen to f the Administrato r and th e Governo r o f other affecte d state(s ) determin e tha ta stationar

y source o r modification ma

y employ a syste m o

f innovativ e control technology , if : (i ) Th e proposed control syste m ha s no tbeen demonstrate d and wil l not caus e o r contribut

e t o a n unreasonabl e risk t o public healh , welfare , o

r safet y i n its operation , function , o

r malfunction ; (ii ) Th e owne r o

r operato r agree s t

o achiev e a leve l o

f continuou s emissio n reduction equivalentt

o tha twhic h woul d hav e been required unde r paragrap h (j)(2 ) o f thi s sectio n by a dat

e specifie d b y di e reviewing authority . * Suc h dat e shal l notb e greate

r tha n 4 year s from the time o

f startu p unles s a n extensio n unde

r regulations substantiall y equivalen tt o thos e o f paragrap h (u)(4 ) o f thi s sectio n woul d b e obtained * (iii ) The propose d constructio n woul d mee tal l requirement

s unde r thi s sectio n base d o n di e emissio n rat e tha tth a - stationar y source employin g ith

e syste m of innovativ e contro l technology woul d meeto n th e date specifie d b y di e - reviewing authority ; and •

. (iv ) The proposed-constructio n woul d notcaus e o r contribut

e t o th e violatio n ' o f any applicabl e nationa l ambien tair.. . qualit y standar d before th e dat e . specifie d b y thereviewingauthority . (3) Th e pla n shal l provid e th^the . • re viewin g autho^&abalFdisaUp w an y ^ approva l t o tem^iy'a;ay8ta J ihof x - : J innovatrvecontioftechnp)ogy.mad e unde r requireiOent* equivalen tt o those.. . ofthieparagraph.ifepp . : Ay&:Ars-.:t (i ) th e propose d syste m fail s fay. th e • • dat e specified:to achieve^h e required - . continuou s emissio n reduction rate ; o r (ii ) Th e propos^jsyste m fail s befor e U w specifie d dat&soastojcontributat o a n unreasonableas k t o publi c health welfare , o r safet y i n its operation , function, o

r malfunction . (4 ) Th e pla n ma y provide tha

ti f a stationar y source o

r modification fail s t

o mee tth e require d leve l o f continuous emissio n reduction withi n th e specifie d tim e o r the approva

l i s withdrawn i

n accordance wit

h paragrap

h (u)(3) o f thi s section , th

e reviewin g authorit

y ma y gran ta n extensio n o

f the requirement

s equivalentt

o thos e o f thi s paragrap

h for . suc h minimu m perio d a s ma

y b e necessary t

o compl y wit h the requiremen

tin paragrap

h (j ) o f thi s section . Suc

h perio d shal l notexten d beyon d di e date three year s afte r th e terminatio n o f th e tim e perio d specifie d in paragrap

h (u)(2)(ii ) o

r (u)(3) , o f thi s section , whicheve r i s applicable . (v ) Preconstruction Notice. Th e pla n shall provide diat : (1 ) The owne r o

r operato r o

f a majo r stationar y source o

r majo r modificatio n shall notif y th e reviewin g authorit

y in writin g o f th e dat e on-site constructio n wil l begin a

tleas t90 day s befor

e i t begins . (2 ) Th e owne r o r operato r o

f a proposed constructio n activity , wh o believe s tha

tth e activit y i s notsubjec

t t o regulations develope d pursuan tt o 4 0 CF R51.2 4 shal l als o s o notif

y th e reviewin g authority , i

f such constructio n woul d b e considered : (i ) A majo r modificatio n bu

tfo r sufficien tcontemporaneou s emissio n reductions ; o

r (ii ) A major stationary sourc e bu tfor reduction s i n di e potential emission s o f di e source throug

h th e applicatio n o

f ai r pollutio n contro

l equipmen

tno t generally require

d unde r th e State Implementation Pla

n o r an y applicabl e standard s a s se tfort

h i n 4 0 CF

RPart s 6 0 and 61 . (3) The notic e required b y paragrap h (v)(2) o f dii s sectio n shal l contain : (i ) The name and addres s of th e owne r o r operato r ,', ••-..•...•..-. . > (II ) Th e natur

e an d locatio n of

th e stationar y sourc e o r modification ; (iii ) Th e potential t o emi tand allowabl e emissio n rate s of any . poihttantregulate d unde r th e Ac tfo r al l emissio n unitswithi n th e ne w o r ^7';« * . inodifie d stationar y atrorce ; i i ? * A--. (iv ) ALschednl

e o f whe n eac h chang e -

> - i n the^emissonof^ ^ pollutant- ^ ^7- : regulated .•atti$l&^^

. - • . (vl.C«dculatiato<rf*owai^^vp - • • ' >- • • • contemporaneousenrissiontediictioiis - *t j identifie d partipiitflq.(y)(4)w ^ adequatel y offise

tan y emissk ^ increase s fo r an y poihitantNgulated?^^ ^ undertiieAetr - - .•.K.-i^jj ^ • .••••- . (yif-A demonstratio n uia teac h such : p :

- emissio n reduction identifie d pursuan t{» toparagraph-(v){4 } woul d be > - • - i enforceabl e unde r the Stat e Implementation Plan ; and (vii ) An y othe r information th e reviewin g authorit

y reasonabl y need s t

o determin e whethe r the requirement s substantiall y equivalentt o paragraph

s (j ) throug h (r ) o f thi s sectio n woul d apply . (4 ) Th e owne r o r operato r wh o woul d accomplis h contemporaneou s emission. . - . reduction s shal l notif

y th e reviewing;.-., . . authorit y a tthe tim e »"c h reductions v»

. v , woul d occur , i

f crediti s t

o b e taken fo

r I v suc h reduction s pursuantto paragraph . •• ' (v)(2)(i) . (5 ) The notic e required b y paragraph.;: ; (v)(4 ) shal l contain : . <" . (i) The name and addres s of tha - - ;.-p. " owne r o r oper a to n .,,,

~ v •'."' ' , \ (ii) Th e typ e and amoun

to f eac h contemporaneou s emissio n decrease . > ..• . and th e affecte d emissio n uni t- - ' (iii) A schedul e o

f whe n eac h emission reduction woul d occu r o

r ha s occurred : an d (iv) Any other information tha ttha ' reviewin g authorit

y reasonably need s to determine i

f the propose d emissio n woul d b e acceptable . ,.,•' ' ' " Requirement

s fo r Federally Profnulgated< ? PS D Program

s . • • • '• -f

'...•;• . 2(a) Tid e 40 , Par

t5 2 o f th a Cod e o f

< ; v Federa l Regulations i s proposed* * be , "v.'i & amended a s follows:.'--'" ' -•'•" "•• vV'i - "'•••^ W I n { 52.21 . paragraphs (b)(IHB J aml»*ff c (11 ) ar e revised;-|^b)(17)tta(aettd?•; J H , ^ existin g (bKl2Hlo)^W*rtumb«^ ? a8'^ r (13H17) : ne w (b)(lZ ) an d (2CH-* ) are*'*'. - added : (iH-<) . (n

) and (s)(l ) are revised; ~ ftH v ) ar e relettered a s (xHz) ; he w (tj-f, !< ; (w) ar e added . Thos e paragraphs read f 'r''*p a s follows : ' J §52^2 1 Preventio n o f significant , deterioratio n o f ai r quaitty

. >..,. . ,(b ) Definitions. POT

tint thi s section : (1 ) "Majo r statio i (i)Anyofthefoll l source s of

ai r pollu l hav e th e jpotentit

d yea r o r moreo f

an y unde r th e Clean'Ai * 

### Fossil fuekfired- s mor e than'2SOJnillf

i units pet-Jibu

r hea t plants . tafflaT zin c d m el l primar y coppe r lncinerattwtf*a]ia

l than ZSO-tbnsd

f hydrofluoric;si

• ptantsvpetrdie

i -phosphdft ove n 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?>ftP.3 2

.95 2 •Hdera j ie-siste r/ No . 17 3 / Wednesday . Seotembe r 5 . 197 9 / ProDOsed Rule s bo n blac k plant s (furnac e process) . mar v lea d smeiters . fue

l conversio n •nts . sintering piants . secondar y meta l •ductio n plants , chemica

l proces s •nts . fossi l fue

l boilers (or nbinatio n thereof

) totalin g mor

e tha n j miilion Britis

h therma l unit s pe r hou r i tinput , petroleu m storag e an

d •nsfe r unit s wit h a tota l storage pabilit y exceedin g 300.00

0 barrels , ;onit e or e processin g plants , glas s e r processin g piants , and charcoa l jductio n plants ; ii ) Notwithstandin g di e stationar y irc e size s specifie d i n paragrap h (l)(i ) of thi s section , an y stationar y jrc e which emits , o

r ha s th e potential emi t25 0 ton s per yea r o r mor e of an y pollutantregulated unde r di e Ac t 2)(i ) "Majo

r modification " mean s an y ysicai chang e i n o r chang e in the -ho d of operatio n o

f a majo r nonar y source , o r serie s o

f

• ..raporaneou

s physical change s in o

r ja s in the method o

f operation o

f a i stationar

y source , tha

twoul d -u ti n a significantnetincreas e i n I source' s potentia

l t o emi tth e lutan tfo r which th e stationar

y sourc e najor (or tha

twoul d mak

e th e tionar y sourc e major

, taking int

o :oun tal l accumulated ne tincrease s i n 'entia i emission s occurrin

g a tth e rce , including any initial i s miction , sinc e Augus t7,1977) . Th e r n "majo r modification " serve s a s th e Initio s of/'modification " o r odified ' whe n use d i n th e Ac ti n srenc e t o a major stationar y source . ii ) A physical chang e shal l no t lud e routine maintenance , repai r and lacemen t :ii ) A chang e i n th e method of ration , unles s previousl y limite d b y )rceabl e permi

tconditions , shal l no t lude : 7 ) Us e of a n alternativ e fuel o r ra w srial b y reason of

a n order unde r ion s 2(a J and (b ) o

f di e Energ

y pl y and£oyironmenta i Coordination o f lf&Ctotan y supersedin g dation&alprohibitio n unde r th e ..- . e r Pfcnftaft

d industrial Fue

l Use Ac t J78^tj«fl f

supersedin g legislation) . y reaautfji f

I f natura l ga s curtailment- i patMMiWllt

b th e Federal Powe r Act ; lijplteniative fue l o r ra w ^ drt o Januar

y 8.197&thfl<

n cejWB* . Doabl e o f

accommodating . ,

> : fufil.frrWBifprinl

* • • "'-...T.T-

- Uas^jUgplteraativ e fuel b y mi^-^-tfide r o r rul e unde r section s :f" 1 ' J

„

_jershi p of

th e , > onar y source * o r •

• pp-p,-•:.

.

. Useo f refiis a derive d fuel rated from municipal soli d waste./. . 1 ChangeSaar

e "contemporaneous" ' f reduction s occu r after a notic e i a file d pursuan

tt o paragrap

h (v)(4 ) an

d befor e opertion o

tth e emissio n uni

to r unit s tha twill resul

ti n emissio n increases . Also , t

o be "contemporaneous " all o

f th e emissio n reductions mus

tbe completed an

d enforceabl e unde

r di e state pla

n befor e operation o

f th e emissio n uni

to r unit s tha twil l resultin an

y emissio n increase . Wher e the ne w emissio n uni

ti s a replacementfo

r a n emissio n uni

ttha ti s being shu tdow n i n orde

r t o provid e di e necessary reductions , di e Administrato r ma y allo w u p t o 180 day s for shakedow n o

f th e ne w emissio n unit befor e th e existin g emissio n uni ti s require d t o ceas e operation . (v) Fo r a serie s of

change s i n a stationar y sourc e t o satisf

y th e requiremen

tof "n o ne tincrease. " al l of th e followin g mustb e satisfied : (a ) Al l reduction s an d al l increase s mus tb e fo r di e sam e pollutant ; ib) Th e su m o f

al l decrease s mus tb e greate r tha n o r equa l t o th e su m o f ai i increases , (c) O n balance , th e ai r qualit y o f th e affecte d are a mus tno tb e adversel y impacted . (vi ) In performin g th e calculatio n i n paragrap h (b)(2)(v ) (t o determin e whethe r th e su m o f

al l decrease s i s greate r tha n o r equa l t o th e su m o f al l increases ) th e followin g rule s shal l apply : {a) Subjec tt o th e followin g adjustments , di e siz e o f a n increas e o r decreas e i s determine d b y th e differenc e betwee n th e potentia l t o emi to f th e change d emission s uni tbefor e an d afte r th e change . (b) If potentia l t o emi tfo r a change d emissio n uni twa s initiall y highe r tha n allowabl e emissions , the n n o offse t credi tma y b e take n fo r decreasin g potentia l t o emi tdow n t o allowabl e emissions . (c ) Th e requiremen to f

4 0 CF RPar t51 , appendi x S , section s IV.C 2 an d 4 shal l apply , involvin g th e amoun to f credi t permissibl e fo r changin g fuel s an d for replacing on e hydrocarbo n compoun d wit h anothe r o f

lesse r reactivity . (3 ) "Potentia l t o emit " mean s th e capabilit y a tmaximu m desig n capacit y t o emi ta pollutant-afte r th e applicatio n o f airpolhitianoontro l equipmen tA Annua l potentia l shal l b e base d o n th e maxtmimtannua l rate d capacit y o f th a stationary ^ sourc e assumin g continnou s » . . yea r rofflidioperation . Enforceabl e v . : p permi toonditian s onth e typ e o f '•-:. . material s combnfete d o r processe d ma y b e usadiK^ate^Btinin g tti&annua l v J --• r potential . Secondar y enrissiona'dono t coun tto*ktanufrting anima l potential . ~ Fug^ivaemissieB s als o d o no tcoun t. excep twiti i respectt o th s followin g . stationar y source s an d the n onl y t o th e exten tquantifiable : !i ) Coa l cleanin g plants . Hi ) Kraf tpul p mills . iiii ) Portlan d cemen tplants . <:v ) Primar y zin c smeiters . {v) Iro n an d stee i mil l plants . (vi ) Primar y aluminu m or e reductio n plants . fvii ) Primary coppe r smelters . (viii ) Municipa l incinerators . (ix ) Hydrofluori c sulfuric , o r nitri c aci d plants . (x ) Petroleu m refineries . (xi ) Lim e plants . (xii ) Phosphat e roc k processin g plants . (xiii ) Cok e ove n batteries . (xiv ) Sulfu r recover y plants . (xv ) Carbo n blac k plants. . (xvi ) Primar y lea d smelters . (xvii ) Fue l conversio n plants . (xviii ) Sinterin g plants . fxix ) Secondar y meta l productio n plants . (xx ) Chemica l proces s plan t (xxi ) Fossi l fuel-fire d boilers . (xxii ) Petroleu m storag e an d transfe r units . (xxiii ) Taconit e or e processin g plants . (xxiv ) Glas s fiber processin g plants . (xxv ) Charcoa l productio n plants . (xxvi ) Foss d fuel-fire d stea m electri c plants . (xxvii ) An y othe r stationar y sourc e categor y which , a tth e time o f th e applicabilit y determination , i s bein g regulate d unde r sectio n 11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e Act . (4 ) "Stationar y source " mean s an y structure , building , faciht y o r installatio n whic h emit s o r ma y emi t an y ai r pollutan tregulated unde r th e Act . (5 ) "Structure , building , facility, - o r installation " mean s an y groupin g o f pollutant-emittin g activitie s winc h ar e locate d o n on e o r mor e contiguou s o r adjacen tpropertie s an d whic h ar e owne d o r operate d b y th e samaperso n -:• > (o r b y person s unde r commo n control).' - (6 ) "Emissio n unit " mean s an y par to f ••• . a stationar y sourc e whic h emit s o r ha s • th e potentia l t o emi tan y pollutant , • •'.' • regulated unde r th e Act - (11 ) "Baselin e concentration " means-i ' •• • tha tambien tconcentratio n leve l which , exist s atlh e time o f

th e applicabl e i

> 'vbaseline-date , minu s any . confributiohi from majo r stationary - source s an d inajor' 1 " modifiMtioMonwbichconstruciioh- ^ 'Tcommence d o n o r after.'jatfnbiy.-4 $ iawat'"^*^ : " * Th e baselin e concentratio n shallfiiclud e j contribution s .from:' ; L&2^2- *.»:'. " s * ^-VB - i> - - - -**. p . (i ) Theactua f

emission s o f

otherf e - ; LL : L source s i n exteteno e o n theappUcahtle-- : baselin e date , excep ttha tcontriboti«is ~ from suc h existin g source s t o fta«deBt ,pi*p-; .P.3 3

Federa l Registe r 'oi

. 44 . No . 17 3 / Wednesday , Septembe r5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 5195 3

*2-r.. <?v2r?r iha ta pla n revisio n proposin g les s

restrictiv e requirement s affect s suc h source s wa s submitte d o n o rbefor e th e baseiin e dat e an d wa s pendin g actio n b y th e Administrato ro n tha tdate , shal l b e determine d from th e allowabl e emission s unde rdi e pla n a s revised : an d (ii ) Th e allowabl e emission s o f majo r stationar y source s an d majo r modification s whic h commence d constructio n befor e Januar y 6,1975 , bu t wer e no ti n operatio n b y th e applicabl e baselin e date . (12 ) "Baselin e date " means , fo rever y par to f a n Ai rQualit y Contro l Regio n (AQCR ) designate d a s unclassifiabl e o r attainmen tunde rsectio n 107(d)(1 ) (D ) o r (E ) o f th e Act . di e dat e o f

di e firs t complet e applicatio n afte rAugus t7 , 1977 . fo ra permi tunde rthi s sectio n fo r an y majo rstationar y sourc e o rmajo r modificatio n i n an y par to f th e AQCR .

... . * (20 ) "Secondar y emissions " mean s emission s whic h occu ro rwoul d occu r a s a resulto f

th e constructio n o r operatio n o f

a majo rstationar y sourc e o rmajo rmodification , bu td o no t necessaril y com e from th e majo r

. stationar y aourc e o rmajor , modificatio n itself . Fo rpurpose s o f

thi s section , secondar y emission s mus tb e specifi c an d wel l defined * mus tb e quantifiable , an d mus timpac ttheaam e genera l are a a a th e stationar y sourc e o rmodificatio n whic h cause s th e secondar y emission . Secondar y emission s ma y include , bu t ar e no tlimite d to : (i ) Emission s from ship s o rtrain s comin g t o o rfrom th e stationar y sourc e o rmodification ; and . (ii ) Emission s fro m an y offsit e suppor t facilit y whic h woul d b e constructe d o r woul d no totherwis e increas e it s emissions . . , $*•;•, -.;c. ••.:: - (21)"Innoyatiga<ientro l technology'-- mean s an y syste m o f

ai rpollutio n contro l lha thas.oetbeen:adequately..... . demonstratedinrpracticethutwonki'i P hav e a subt.taatia4iikei*oodel pa n p achievin g greatar<oniinuoaaemis8ioo « reductio n tha n an y contro l syste m i n _ curren tpractice^s^oftacfaieiting^atleast, , comparabl e reduction s atfawerjsosti n term s o f ea&gy . economics , io rnonai r-.- . qualit y environmenta l impocts.rfUi... , (22)"Fng^ve.^mitsmylh-inegna>thqs e emissionswhickdo>not^aae4teotighi t stadk , chimneySa-waitj a utiig^Atip^f'-'. . finctioaal^r-equivaienbopMiHig>s. " ' t (23)"Rec«mrtrB(Sa« ! tWil«je^ a • - presume d t o have.tafiBn*place^where-th e fixed capita l co^i^iBmkmir>*^'*tx^V-y- X componentsexceeds^ ) peroent*o f the . •• - fixed capita l cos tefiarotmiparebia^r ty entirelynewstattonaryt^onree . zrxi:-'-" Hawevetran y finat-rit^iaicn a s to*-V. . ' whethe rreconsfructioB ha s occmred- ' , shal l b e mad e i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f

4 0 CF R60.15(f)(l)-(3) . A reconstructe d stationar y sourc e wil l b e treate d a s a ne w stationar y sourc e fo r purpose s o f

thi s section , excep ttha tus e o f a n alternativ e fue l o rra w materia l b y reaso n o f a n orde ri n effec tunde r section s 2 (a ) an d (b ) o f

th e Energ y Suppl y an d Environmenta l Coordinatio n Ac to f 197 4 (o ran y supersedin g legislation) , b y reaso n o f

a natura l ga s curtailmen tpla n i n effec tpursuan tt o th e Federa l Powe rAct . o rb y reaso n o f a n orde ro rrul e unde rsectio n 12 5 o f th e act , shal l no tb e considere d reconstruction . I n determinin g bes t availabl e contro l technolog y fo ra reconstructe d stationar y source , th e provision s o f

4 0 CF R60.15(f)(4 ) shal l b e take n int o accoun ti n assessin g whethe r a standar d o f

performanc e unde T 4 0 CF R Part6 0 i s applicabl e t o suc h stationar y source . (24 ) "Complet e application " mean s a n applicatio n submitte d t o th e Administrato rb y th e owne ro roperato r o f a propose d majo rstationar y sourc e o r majo rmodificatio n whic h represents a reasonabl e an d goo d fait h effor tt o submi tal l infonnatio n necessar y fo r permi tissuance . **** * (i ) Revie w o f

Majo rStationar y Source s an d Majo rModifications — Sourc e Applicabilit y an d Genera l Exemptions . (1 ) N o stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n t o whic h th e requirement s o f paragraph s 0 ) throug h (u j o f thi s sectio n appl y shal l b e constructe d withou ta permi twhic h state s tha tth e stationar y sourc e o rmodificatio n woul d mee tthos e requirements. Th e Administrato rha s authorit y t o issu e an y suc h permit ' (2 ) Tfi e requirement s o f

paragraph s fj ) throug h (u ) o f

thi s sectio n appl y t o an y ; majo rstationary , sourc e an d an y majo r modificatio n wit h respectt o eac h pollutan tregulate d unde rth e Ac tdia l i t woul d tjnifcexcep ttre'ihi s sectio n • * ' ' Qtlleril^•^^d#/*^.p;^V::••'••'•'•;•^ , ;*'••; : (3 ) Th e requirements o f

paragraph s (J

J throug h (u ) o f

tt o sectio n d p no tappl y t o an y majo ratatipnars'.^nut^'^rfan^t; , majo rmod^cate n to Whic h ' : ; 'ALL constructio n commence d befor e August ' 7 . l^rTheieffJ^^MtmCFj^S^ -i whic h war e in- ti^foiifciib^iiTfA';•., 197 7 shal l gover n th e review-and--<r^ : . r permittii&ofanylh^sta^ ^ ormodificKtefcs ^ ^^^Lf^A^.^ (4}The-requH*emehtsd^para^jiMtfl ; tiirough-luyoftMiifc^OTtWhbWpjMy*- t o an y majorstationary-sdiinx* e a r major : moojfici&dtftiiiWiTO-SliSJ^ ^ revie w "requfciehi^tofc ^ ' 52.2IftfKf)1ciir:aWp6 ^ significantdeleriOratidnais^h i effec t- r• befor e Marc h 1,1978 . i f th e owne ro r operator — (i ) Obtaine d unde r4 0 CF R52.2 1 a fina l approva l effectiv e befor e Marc h 1 , 1978 : (ii ) Commence d constructio n befor e Marc h 19.1979 : an d (iii ) Di d no tdiscontinu e constructio n fo ra perio d o f

1 8 month s o rmor e an d complete d constructio n withi n a reasonabl e time. •-"- • (5 ) The requirements o

f paragraph s (j ) throug h (u ) o f thi s sectio n d o notapply t o an y majo r stationary sourc e o r major modification tha

twa s no tsubject.to 40 * CF R52.2 1 a s in effectbefore March!, ' - 1978 , i f th e owne r o r operator—-•••' ' "•"•• • •'< " (i) Obtaine d al l final fedorat ; state-da d local preconstructio n permit s necessary ' unde r the applicabl e State ' Implementatio

n Pla n befor e Marc h 1 , " 1978 : (ii) Commence

d constructio n before • Marc h 19,1979 : and (iii ) Di d no tdiscontinu e constructio n . fo r a period o

f 1 8 months'o r mor e an d ^ completed constructio n withi n a ••' ^ . reasonabl e time. .. ; • .yi- " (6 ) Th e requirements o f

paragraph s (f) v throug h (u | d o no tapply-t o a major * •- • ••••• • p stationar y sourc e o rmajo rmodJffatftjki K tha twa s subjec tt o 40CyR r 8S: M e«.iir . - effec tbefor e Marc h f,ltW'ifi*vfe*rdf.;. ; a n applicatio n fo rapprpvaMtifthfr* - •»*>•- : stationar y sourc e o i moadlfitatiafftflf^al^ - 4 0 CF R52.2 1 woul d HaVe.ttiiDp-' ; \ l -*• > ^ r ' complete d b y Marc h 1,1978 ; tro ttir W ' extensio n o f

th e pubU c crbnunen tperioff , . pursuan tt o a reques tfo rsuc h an-••."*''."?' " extension . I n suc h a case , th e ' ] ; , ;

, applicatio n shal l continu e to ; b % : ( .L*' L processe d an d grante d o rdehiedpuhder" ' 4 0 CF R522 1 a s i n effec tprio rto Ktitt&rA.

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

—* > .1,197a.... . . ;• ; • • • • "••- • (7 ) Th e requirements ! throug h (u ) o f

this « ' . ^ t o an y majo rstationar y i modificatio n meit i CFR.52.51.fy | i n -$L , th e owne rti to6di*at ' 

# rij^t^^Jt a loc^precdhslrudll c unde rth e applicabl e foplpmeothtf"•'"•**-'*'

- pifomu v '^ " thefdat i timei i not . i w-ftr .

imsci 

## ffl

t o an^m|q^attnWu| [ mootnc a no n trof tw,-~

i JwasSj**-.. ^ 

## [a\ m$0Wk w h5195 4 ? edera i Registe r AO

. ' ? ' Wednesdav

. Seotembe r 5

. 197 9 /

Propose d Rule s .ntainme mo

r unciassiiiabi e fo

r a pollutan t fo r whic h th e stationar y sourc e T

- moaificatio n woul d b e major ; o r

. . • ) Woui d sisniiicanti y impac t a n are a ;: : anotne r stat e whic h i s designate d unde r sectio n 10

7 a s attainmen t

o r unclassifiabl e fo

r apollutan t

fo r whic h the sourc e o

r modificatio n woui d b e ma]or

. (ii ) A major

stationar y sourc e o r

major modificatio n tha t

i s major fo r volatil e organi c compound s i s als o major fo r ozone . (9) Th e requirement s o

f paragraph s (j ) through , (u ) o

f thi s sectio n d o no t

appl y to an y major

stationar y sourc e tha t woul d b e anonprofi t

healt h o r educationa l institutio n o

r t o an y major modificatio n tha t

woul d occu r

a t suc h a n institution , i

f th e Governo r

o f th e stat e in whic h th e stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n woul d b e locate d request s tha t i t b e exemp t

fro mthos e requirements

. (10 ) A portabl e stationar y sourc e whic h ha s receive d apermi t unde r thi s sectio n ma v relocat e withou t agai n bein g subjec t

to thi s section , if

: (i ) Emission s fro

mth e stationar y sourc e woul d no t

excee d it s allowabl e emissions : (ii ) Emission s fro

mth e stationar y sourc e woul d impac t

n o Clas s 1 are aan d n o are awher e a n applicabl e incremen t i s know n t o b e violated ; an d (iii ) Reasonabl e notice , no t t o b e les s tha n 1 0 days , i s give n to th e Administrato r

prio r t o th e relocatio n identifyin g th e propose d ne w locatio n an d di e probabl e duratio n o f operatio n a t th e ne w location

. (j ) Control

Technology Review. (1 ) A majo r stationar y sourc e o r

majo r modificatio n shal l mee t

eac h appUcabl e emissio n limitatio n unde r th e Stat e Implementatio n Plan plu s eac h applicabl e emissio n standar d an d

. standard of

performanc e unde r

4 0 CF R Pait a6 0 an d 61

. (2) ' A majo r

stationar y sourc e o r

majo r mgdUtoitio n shal l appl y bea t availabl e cdS-raJ-technolog y fo

r eac h pollutan t regdlSfi^ i unde r

th e Ac t tha t i t woul d 'eTmfi n asignifican t

amoun t Th e requiremen t

tha t astationar y sourc e o r modificatio n appl y bes t

available

contro l technolog y fo

r eac h pollutan t

fo r whic h i t woul d no t

b e majo r shal l appl y . t o n o stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n (.applicatio n fo r

apermi t unde r

—_„..i%p n wa s complet e befor e th e dat e tha t requiremen t

cam e int o effec t

. (3 f Inth e cas e o

f amodification , the

. requiremen t

fo r bes t availabl e contro l technolog y shal l appl y onl y t o eac h ne w o r modifie d emissio n unit 1 (4 ) Fo r phase d constructio n projects , the ! determinatio n o

f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y shal l b e reviewed .-:r: amodifie d a s ar.propr.at e at th e lates t reasonabl e tim

e prio r io commencemen t o f constructio n o

f eac h independen t phas e o t construe!'.on

. "s l Exemptions irom impact Analyses. 2) The requirement s o

f paragraph s (I) , jr. ) an d (p ) o

f thi s sectio n snai l no t

appi y t o apropose d major

stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n wit

h respec t to a particular pollutant , if

: (i) Th e increas e i n allowabl e emission s o

f tha t pollutan t fro mth e stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n woul d impac t n o Clas s I are aan d n o are a wher e n o applicabl e incremen t i s know n to b e violated : an d (ii ) Th e emission s o

f th e pollutan t

ar e o f atemporar y natur e includin g bu t no t limite d to thos e fro

mapilo t plant , a portabl e facility , construction , o r exploration

. (2 ) Th e requirement s o

f (1), (n) an d (p ) o f thi s sectio n shal l no t

appi y wit

h respec t to sulfu r dioxid e o r

particulat e matte r t o amodificatio n o

f amajo r stationar y sourc e whic h wa s in existenc e o n Augus t

7.1977 , if : (i ) An y increas e i

n allowabl e emission s o

f eithe r o f thos e pollutant s after th e applicatio n o

f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y woul d impac t n o . Clas s I area ; (ii ) An y suc h increas e woul d caus e o r contribut e t o n o violatio n o f an y nationa l ambien t

ai r qualit y standard ; an d (iii ) An y increas e i n allowabl e emission s o

f an y ai r pollutan t regulated unde r th e Ac t after th e applicatio n of bes t availabl e contro l technolog y woul d b e les s tha n 5 0 ton s pe r

year . (3 ) Th e requirement s o

f paragraph s (1) , (n) an d (p ) shal l no t

appl y to apropose d majo r stationar y sourc e o r

majo r modificatio n wit

h respec t t o aparticula r pollutant , if

: (i ) Th e increas e o r

ne t increas e i n emission s woul d impac t

n o Clas s I area ; an d (ii ) Th e increas e o r

net increas e i n emission s i s no t

significan t

o r woul d caus e n o significan t

ai r quaht y impac t an d (iii ) Th e increas e o r

ne t increas e i n emission s woul d b e les s tha n 100 ton s pe r yea r fo r stationar y source s liste d unde r paragrap h (b)(l)(i ) o r

25 0 ton s pe r yea r fo r othe r stationar y sources . (n ) Monitoring-~{l) Preapplication monitoring, (i ) An y applicatio n fo r a permi t unde r thi s sectio n shal l contai n a aanalysi s o f

ambient-ai r

qualit y i n th e are ath e propose d stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n woul d affec t for eac h pollutan t regulate d unde r

di e Ac t whic h th e stationar y sourc e o r

modification , woul d emi t

Th e requirement

tha t a stationar y sourc e o r moairicatio n conduc t apreconstructio n analysi s o f •p. e ambien t ai r qualit y fo

r eac h pollutan t fo r whic h i t woul d no t

b e maio r snai l appi y to n o stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n whos e applicatio n fo

r apermi t unde r thi s sectio n wa s complet e befor e th e dat e that requiremen t

cam e int o effect

. (ii ) A s necessar y t o determin e whethe r emission s fromth e propose d stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n woul d caus e o r contribut e to aviolatio n o f an y maximu mallowabl e increas e o r nationa l ambien t

ai r qualit y standar di n an y area , di e analysi s require dunde r paragrap h (n)(l ) shal l includ e continuou s ai r

qualit y monitorin g dat a fo r an y pollutan t

emitte d b y th e stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n fo

r whic h anationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar d exists , excep t

non-metiian e hydrocarbons

. (iii ) Th e continuou s ai r

monitorin g dat arequire d unde r

paragrap h (n)(l)(ii ) o f thi s section , shal l relat e to , an d shal l hav e bee n gathere d over , th e yea r precedin g receip t

o f th e complet e application , unles s th e Administrato r determine s dia t

acomplet e an d adequat e analysi s may b e accomplishe d i n ashorte r

period

. Th e requiremen t

t o gathe r dat aove r

th e yea r precedin g receip t of acomplet e applicatio n fo r eac h pollutan t

for whic h anationa l ambien t standar d exist s bu t

fo r whic h • th e stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n woul d no t b e majo r shal l appl y t o n o stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n whos e applicatio n fo

r apermi t under-thi s sectio n wa s complet e befor e th e dat e tha t requiremen t

cam e int o effect

. Instea d suc h stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n shal l gathe r

dat aove r

th e time perio d fro

mth e dat e tha t

th e requiremen t

cam e int o effec t

an d th e dat e tha t suc h stationer y sourc e o r modificatio n woul d file a n otherwis e ~ complet e applicatio n unde r thi s section

. (iv ) I f th e owne r

o r operato r of a propose d stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n o f

volatil e organi c ~ r compound s wh o satisfie s al l condition s - o f 4 0 CF RPar t 51 , appendi x S , section. ^ IV. 4 ma y provid e post-constructio n monitorin g dat afo r

ozon e i n lie u of

xri^-A

providin g preconstructio n data-ass-;

. . ' ; - require d unde r

paragrap h (n)(l). : 22

..

p (2) Post-construction monitoringiyh&r owne r o r operato r o f a prqposed^^r H stationar y sourc e o r

modificatio n shaH^ . afte r con8tractiorti#theatationa^rg«y

- o sourc e o r modification , conductiuefe'-^ : - L ambien t me^ioiin g a s the-.- ' 'rAr^ph^t^yy^L AdmimQtm)t>rcaxeimines.maybev-i»^'j p necessar y t o d s tannineth e effect-H- ' : $& ,-:' " emission s fromth e stationar y sourceq * - '-'.-

. modification-pa y have- , o r ar e haviii^trirJ!; 1 ;" * ai r qualit y i r ._ • •> p-.ea . - '-••'•.•>-k-A: : 2"2-:' .IA •

^r-yy^-A

•juft,-« ^

'-MFedera l Registe r / 44 . No . 17 3 / Wednesday . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s 

### 5195 5 f-l ) Operation o

f monitorin

g stations . Th e owne r o r operator shall mee

tth e requirement

s o f appendi x B t o Par t5 8 o f :hi s chapter durin

g th e operation o

f nonitorin g station s fo

r purpose s o

f paragrap h (n ) o f this sectio n a s follows : fi ) No late r tha

n Januar y 1.1980 , fo

r existin g stations , o

r (ii) Fo r ne w stations , a

tth e tim e th e statio n i s pu

tint o operation . **** * fs ) Source Obligation. (1 ) An y owne r o r operato r wh o construct

s o r operate s a stationar y source o

r modificatio n noti n accordanc e wit

h th e applicatio n o

f notic e submitted pursuan

tt o thi s sectio n o r wit h th e terms o

f an y approva l t o construct, o

r an y owne r o r operato r of

a majo r stationary-source o r majo r modificatio n wh o begin s constructio n o n th e stationary'source o

r modificatio n withoutprovidin

g preconstruction notic e o r applying fo

r an d receivin g approva

l hereunder, a s applicable , shal l b e considere d t

o b e i n violatio n o

f di e applicabl e Stat

e Implementation Plan . ft ) Modified

Permits. (1 ) Th

e owne r o r operator o

f a majo r stationar

y source o

r a majo r modification wh o obtain s a permi tunde r regulations develope d pursuan tt o thi s sectio n shal l obtai n a modified permi

tprio r t o beginning constructio n o

f an y emissio n uni

tnot authorized b y the existin g permi tif . (i ) Prio r t o commencemen

tof operatio n di e owne r o

r operato r Woul

d propos e a chang e in desig n capacit y o f a n emissio n unito

r emissio n unit

s whic h woul d significantly increas e ne t potential emission s butno ta s muc h a s 10 0 ton s pe r yea r fo r stationary source s liste d unde

r paragrap

h (b)(l)(i ) o

r 25 0 tons pe r year.forothe r stationary sources ; o r A.~L*A (ii ) Prio r t q copjgepcemen tof operatio n th e owng&o

r operato r woul d propos e fundamental-changes i n th e ' natur e o f th&probesspequipmen

tsuc h tha tthe potenffiffeftissfon s from tli e change d emi88ionu8hx> r emissio n unit s woul d b e signifieS'fBu tles s tha n 10 0 ton s pe r yearfojcatafomar y source s Uste d unde r p^^ph(b)(l)(i ) o

r 25 0 ton s pe r yea r for drtherstationar

y sources . . r.^'iSjU^i.'-.••.. •;-.;••• • • y. . (iii ) After obtainiiig a permi tunderg o CF R5£2 1 (1978 ) Wfifc

h Intuit s th e hour s o f operatidn^th^JjfiSijtf-b

f operato r ; propose s t

o ihcreas^& e hours o

f operation . . l.^H-^lH^*.'••'• ' .'L (2 ) Th e ownero f

ojpfiratoro

f a major stationary sourc e or a majo r J .-.•?•'••••--.. modificatio n Wh

o obtain s a permi tunder thi s sectio n shal l obtain s ne w permi t' prior t o beginning an

y constructio n not : audibrized'b^ffi e eiist^penhifl f pribf • t o commencemen

to f operation , th

e owne r o r operator proposes : (i) An increas e in desig n capacit y o f on e o r mor e emissio n unit

s whic h would increas e netpotentia

l emission s o

f the stationar y sourc e b y 10 0 tons o r mor e pe r year fo r stationar

y source s liste d i

n paragrap h (b)(l)(i ) o

r b y 25 0 tons o r mor e pe r year fo r other stationar

y sources ; o r (ii) Fundamenta

l change s i

n di e natur

e o f the proces s equipmen

tuse d such tha

t th e potential emission s fro

m the changed emissio n uni

to r emissio n unit

s woul d b e 100 ton s pe r yea r o r mor e fo r stationar y source s liste d in paragrap h (b)(l)(i ) o r 25 0 ton s o r mor e pe r yea r fo r other stationar

y sources . (3 ) The applicatio n fo

r permi t modificatio n shal l include : (i) A demonstration tha

tthe requirement

s o f paragrap h (j ) woul d b e met . and (ii) A demonstration tha

tthe increas e in allowabl e emission s woul d notcaus e o r contribut

e t o a violatio n o

f an y maximu m allowabl e concentratio n o r maximu m allowabl e increase . (4 ) Th e Administrato r ma

y approve the applicatio n if

: (i ) He finds tiiatth

e proposed constructio n wil l satisf

y the requirement

s of paragraphs (j ) throug

h . (u ) ar e me tand (ii ) N o demonstratio n i s mad e b y a Federa l Lan d Manage r o f a n advers e impac to n the af r qualit y relate d value s (includin g visibility ) o

f a Clas s I are a t

o whic h h e i s charged wit

h direc t responsibilit

y fo r management, unles s the constructio n woul d b e approved unde r procedures substantiall y equivalentt

o thos e o f paragrap h (q)(4) , (5) , (6) . o r (7) . (5 ) Th e Administrato r shal l approve o r deny a complet

e applicatio n withi n 90 day s of it s receip t (u ) Innovative Control

Technology. [1] A n owne r o

r operato r o

f a propose d major stationar

y sourc e o r majo

r modificatio n ma

y requesto

f the Administrato r t

o employ a syste m o

f . innovativ e control technology . (2) Th e Administrato r shal l wit h the. , consentjp f

th e Governors) of

the.",.'. . affecte d state(s ) determine tha ta , stationary source ma

y emplo y a syste m o f innovativ e contro

l technology , if

: (i ) The propose d control syste m has ' no tbee n demonstrated aii d wil l no t* : caus e o r contribut

e t o a n unreasonabl e risk t o publi c health . Welfare

, of safety , j in it s operation , function , or . malfunction ; (u ) The owne r o r operato r agree s t o - achieve s leve l o f

continuou s emissio n %

^ reductio n equivalen tt o tha twhic h . ~ ~ woul d hav e bee n required unde r p.: / paragrap h Q){2 ) b y Vdaj e specifie d b y / th e AdMinistr

a to tSdic h date shal l pot, . be greater tha n 4 years fro

m th e tim e o f startu p unies s a

n extensio n unde

r paragrap h (u)(4) woui d b e obtained : (iii ) Th e proposed construction woul d meetal l requirement

s unde r thi s sectio n base d o n the emissio n rat

e tha tth e stationar y source employing the syste m o f innovativ e control technology woul d . meeto n the dat

e specifie d b y the Administrator ; (iv) Th e propose d construction'woul d notcaus e o

r contribut

e t o th e violatio n o f applicabl e nationa

l ambien tai r ' qualit y standard befor

e the dat e • '/ ' specifie d b y th e Administrator . : ' (v) Al l other appUcable requirements including thos e fo

r publi c participation. . hav e bee n me t,".". ' '. ' ; \ (3) The Administrato r shal l disallo w '." ' any approva

l t o employ a syste m o f

• ' innovativ e control technologj.mad e unde r thi s section , if

: . (i ) The propose d syste m fail s b y tft e specifie d dat

e t o achiev e the required;' continuou s emissio n reductio n rate , e r (ii ) Th e propose d syste m fail s befor e the specifie d dat

e s o a s t o contribut

e to . a n unreasonabl e risk t

o publi c health , ".

' welfare , o r safet y i n it s operation . v function , o r malfunction . (4 ) I f a stationar

y sourc e fail s t

o mee t th e required leve l o

f continuous-. . ' emissio n reduction withi n th e specified * time perio d o r the

" approval'1$"'

- \ '. ' ''"; ' withdrawn i n accordanc e With; " : '\^ '•'; ^ paragrap h fu)(3) , th e Adrnmldtfatornia y ; gran ta h extensio n of

the . requirements - p o f thi s paragrap

h fo r such minimu

m r p : perio d a s ma

y b e necessary td

i cdmpiy p v . wit h th e requiremen

ti n paragrap

h (J) . • ' ' Suc h period shal l notexten d beyon d th e ' dat e three year s after termination of th e tim e perio d specifie d in paragrap h (u)(2)(ii ) o r (u)(3) , whicheve r is' , applicable . ,'•..•;'.'.' • (v ) Preconstruction Notice, (l ) Th e •' . owne r o r operato r o

f a proposed - ; ^ • %

- ?\ constructio n activity subjec tt o 40CFR?* . 52.2 1 shal l notif

y th e Administrato r in ) " j writin g o f the-date o n ; site<autttfoctioa ) A->Cv^ f wil l begi n avle^.ao-daytihBMtt^^^AA^r. begins . •:.-.- ; • .>''2»&&^tfr^AA:j$' (2 ) Theowne r or

. -jopem^i^iii'i^.y^^. propose d constructio n iacti^rttjt^Bto^'.k^ p believes4ha tth e activity-f a rnillrftjijjjMft

i ffi-* t o 4 0 CIFRB2i^shaUiaatitf^*d^^J?| | Administrator , tt*udfcxqaotl&Hw woddbe•con8ideredb••:-..;^'^3T^i^rtb^iJ,>^J'' • (i ) A major modification-^"" * tM * r '"B ^ ' sufficientco n tea ' reducn"»mttt«!^.>y«p-a'^.'s : »fit ; (ii ) A majbrjBtationary.i reduction s i n th e potential < th e 8ouree

f throughithe: e poUunonoontro l eq

u , . _ . _ generall y required under^hai S Implementatio n Plan^ u 8tandards^,fie^-fprd> i an d 61 . •-•rW'^V.^^iKc.i&.iseWSSi s :•.'-•*,<? •

• •".!'.'• » •j^A ; :,-.*.'V , f-'. , y'-\

J i*. -.!«•- »5195 6 Federa l Reciste r / W Wednesday . Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule s

, p i Th e notic e require d b v paraarap n p . p,:: | shai l contain : i Th e nam e an d addres s o f th e .•wne r o f operator : iii ) Th e natur e an d locatio n o f th e stationar y sourc e o r modification ; (iii ) Th e potentia l to emi tan d allowabl e emissio n rate s o f an y poilutan treeuiate d unde r th e Ac tfo r ai l emissio n unit s withi n th e ne w o r modifie d stationar y source ; (iv ) A schedul e o f

whe n eac h chang e i n th e emissio n o f

an y pollutan t regulate d unde r th e Ac twoul d occur ; (v ) Calculation s o f

ho w an y contemporaneou s emissio n reductions identifie d pursuan tt o paragrap h (v)(4 ) woul d adequatel y offse tan y emissio n increase s fo r an y pollutan tregulate d unde r th e Act ; (vi ) A demonstratio n tiiateac h suc h emissio n reductio n identifie d pursuan t to paragrap h (v)(4 ) woul d b e enforceabl e unde r th e Stat e Implementatio n Plan : an d (vii ) An y othe r informatio n th e Administrato r reasonabl y need s t o determin e whethe r di e requirement s o f paragraph s (j ) throug h (u ) o f this sectio n woul d apply . (4 ) Th e owne r o r operato r wh o woul d accomplis h contemporaneou s emissio n reduction s shal l notif

y th e Administrato r a tth e tim e suc h reduction s woul d occur , i f credi ti s t o b e take n fo r suc h reductions pursuan tt o paragrap h (v)(2)(i) . (5 ) Th e notic e required b y paragrap h (v)(4 ) shal l contain : (i ) Th e nam e an d addres s o f th e owne r o r operator ; (ii ) Th e typ e an d amoun to f eac h contemporaneou s emissio n decreas e an d th e affecte d emissio n unit . ...(iii ) A schedul e o f

whe n eac h emissio n reductio n woul d occu r o r ha s occurred ; "ri'i'^^^lfiv ) An y othe r informatio n tha tth e i.'^^Administrato r reasonabl y need s t o _/~pa'determin e i f

th e propose d emissio n H|lliKS rease 8 woul d b e acceptable . '•-"•' , '^^P-st? } Permit

rescission. (1 ) An y permi t '-^H.issue d unde r 4 0 CF R52.2 1 (1978) , o r an y p -,^..amendmen to f

thos e regulations, shal l Hfeplr&miEd n i n effec tunles s an d unti l i t< P-p;-V | p-expireninde r paragraph(s ) o f thi s pj '-.'-'ffTA sectio n o r i s rescinded. Hi^HI^Th e owne r o r operato r o f a . * tetionary sourc e issue d a permi tunde r J ";CFR52:2 1 (1978 ) ma y requestthat , th e ttin g authorit y rescind th e permi t- p (i ) Th e applicatio n fo r rescission i s /complet e withi n 9 0 day s afte r thi s paragrap h i s i n effec tan d (ii ) Th e owne r o r operato r believe s tha tthi s sectio n woul d no tappl y t o th e stationar y sourc e o r modification . • j j Th e permittin g authorit y ma y approve a reques tsubmitte d i n accordanc e wit h paragrap h (w)(2 ) i f h o

• irf'-ermine

s o n tn e b.isi s o f

th e •jpncatio n tha tthi s sectio n woul d no t r.ppi y to th e stationar y sourc e o r nodification . (4) An y authorit y whic h rescind s a permi tunde r this paragrap h shal l giv e ih e publi c adequat e notic e o f th e rescission . Publicatio n o f a n announcemen to f

a rescissio n i n a newspape r o f

genera l circulatio n i n th e affecte d regio n withi n 6 0 day s o f th e rescissio n shal l b e considere d adequat e notice . 2(b) . I n § 52.6 0 (AL) . § 52.9 6 (AK) , § 52.14 4 (AZ) , § 52.18 1 (AR) , § 52.27 0 (CA) , § 52.34 3 (CO) , § 52.38 3 (CT) . § 52.43 2 (DE) , § 52.49 9 (DC) , § 52.53 0 (FL) , § 52.58 1 (GA) , § 52.63 2 (HI) , § 52.68 3 (ID) , § 52.73 8 (IL) , § 52.79 3 (IN) , § 52.83 3 (IA) , § 52.88 4 (KS) , § 52.93 1 (KY) , § 52.98 6 (LA) , § 52.102 9 (ME1 . § 52.111 6 (MD) . § 52.116 5 (MA) , § 52.118 0 (MI) , § 52.123 4 (MN) . § 52.128 0 (MS) , § 52.133 9 (MO) , § 52.138 2 (MT) , § 52.143 6 (NB) . § 52.148 5 (NV) , § 52.152 9 (NH) . § 52.160 3 (NJ) , § 52.163 4 (NM) . § 52.168 9 (NY) , § 52.177 8 (NC) , § 52.182 9 (ND) , § 52.188 4 (OH) , § 52.192 9 (OK) , § 52.198 7 (OR) , § 52.205 8 (PA) . 52.208 3 (RI) . § 52.213 1 (SC) , § 52.217 8 (SD) , § 52.223 3 (TN) , § 52.230 3 (TX) , § 52.234 6 (UT) , § 52.238 0 (VT) , § 52.245 1 (VA) , § 52.249 7 (WA) , § 52.252 8 (WV) , § 52.258 1 (WI) , § 52.263 0 (WY) , § 52.267 6 (GU) , § 52.272 9 (PR) , § 52.277 9 (VI) , an d § 52.282 7 (AmS) , paragrap h (b ) i s revise d t o rea d a s follows : § ' Significan t deterioratio n o f ai r quality

. **** * (b ) Regulation s fo r preventin g . significan tdeterioratio n o f ai r quality . Th e provision s o f

52.2 1 (b ) throug h (z ) ar e hereb y incorporate d an d mad e a par to f th e applicabl e stat e pla n fo r th e Stat e o f . Emissio n Offse tInterpretativ e Rulin g 3 . Sectio n I

I o f th e Emissio n Offse t Interpretativ e Ruling . 4 0 CF RPar t51 . Appendi x Appendi x S , a s revise d 4 4 F R 328 3 (Januar y 16,1979) , i s propose d t o b e amende d a s follows : 3.a . B y revising sectio n 13 , subsectio n A , subsection s (1 ) throug h (9 ) an d (11 ) an d b y addin g a ne w subsectio n 1 3 t o rea d a s follows : I L Initia l screenin g analyseran d p ..... . . determination o

f applicabl e reguirements . A. Definitions. Fo

r purpose * e f

thi s ruling : 1 . "Stationar

y source' * mean s an y structure , building , faciltt

y o r installatio n which emits o r ma y emi tan y ai r pollutantregulate d unde r the Ac t 2 . '"Structure

, building , o r facility"' means , any grouping o f

poUtitanfcemittin

g activitie s which are locate d o n on e o r mor e contiguou s o

r adjacen tpropertie

s an d whic h ar e owne d o r operated b

y th e same perso

n (o r b y persons unde

r commo n controi) . o . "Installation " mean

s a n identifiabl e piec e o f proces s equipment

. Thi s definition doe s no tappl y t o 4 0 CF R51.2 4 o r 52.21 . 4. "Potentia

l t o emit " means th

e capabilit

y a tmaximu m design capacit

y t o emi ta pullutan talte r th e applicatio n o

f ai r pollution contro l equipment

. Annua l potentia l shall b e base d o n th e maximu m annua l rate d capacit y o f th e stationar

y source assuming continuous year roun d operation . Enforceable permi t condition s o

n the typ e o

f material s combusted o

r processe d ma

y b e use d in determin g the annua

l potential : Secondar

y emission s do no

tcoun ti n determinin

g annua l potential . Fugitiv

e emission s als o do no

t count , excep twit

h respectt

o th e following stationar y source s and the

n onl y t o th e extentquantifiable : (i ) Coa l cleanin g plants : (ii) Kraf tpul p mills ; (iii ) Portlan

d cemen tplants : (iv ) Primar y zin c smeiters ; (v ) Iro n and stee l mil

l plants : (vi) Primar

y aluminu m or e reductio n plants ; (vii ) Primar

y copper smelters ; (viii ) Municipa

l incinerators ; (ix) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric , o r nitric aci d plants ; (x ) Petroleu m refineries : (xi ) Lim e plants ; (xii ) Phosphat

e roc k processin g plants ; (xiii ) Cok e ove n batteries ; (xiv) Sulfu r recover y plants ; (xv) Carbo

n blac k plants ; (xvi ) Primar

y lea d smelters ; (xvii ) Fue l conversio n piants ; (xviii ) Sintering plants ; j",'. ' (xix ) Secondar

y meta l productio

n plants ; (xx ) Chemica

l proces s plants : (xxi ) Fossi l fuel-fire

d boilers ; (xxii ) Petroleu

m storage an

d transfe r units ; ( .xiii ) Taconit

e or e processin g plants ; •

• (xxiv ) Glas s fibe

r processin g plants ; (.xxv ) Charcoa l productio

n plantB;.. . (xxvi ) Fossi l fuel-fire

d stea m electri c . plants ; (xxvii ) An

y other stationar

y sourc e categor y which , a

tth e Um e o f the applicabilit

y determination , i s bein

g , --•-•* - regulate d under sectio n 11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e Act . . 7 5. "Majo r stationarysouTce' ' meina«^^^ ^ stationar y sourc e which emits.'o r has-lhis<^fijjf e potential to emit, 10

0 ton s peryeaiT " ^^- L

- rm:

-- an y ai r pollutantregulated underthe p 6.(i) "Majo

r modification'- ' means any ^ physical chang e i n or chang e i n tha i operatio n o

f a majo r stationar

y Muh-el J serie s o f contemporaneous physical*" ' in o r change s i n th e metho d o f t p '"** " majo r stationar y source ; that^v o a significantnetincreas e i n tha tstat i source' s potential to emitth e f which tb e itationar y srauwisauf o woul d "mak

e th e ft \ " " taking into account. ! ^ increase s i n potential emission s i t th e stadooary Sfprcf

tJBclndinga

i construction , sinc e Dt?«mbef21< 1 ter m "majo r mad&Baatim^Mffp* * definitio n rfrmedifitatioB^ora? whe n use d i n th e Ac ti n reference;! stationary somaM%|^^^^ j (fl ) A phystn d rtisnge i routine maintenance , repai r an d I 

## '4 1P.3 7

'dfrs i K»*«••*

• t«* r i.i;-ios(i;i\

. S'.'Dtcmbr r 5

. 197 9 /

ProDOse

d Rule s 5195 7



## 4

35ft?** "

?"*e*-"- ,. j ' . Sr - O T -"- n ij:itrr,n:i^r : :*j.t**. \*,< j- w

• - . v.".:. . :>•. .-a.jso n a ; ni l oruei ' i n v-ijj raj:':.-..- i -'•••••.Ki:;s d. ,'-,1 tind jb l o i ih e tr.ers v iupj. y :: u Environmenta l Coordinatio n Ac tof itT- t > ran y supersedin g legislatio n j . a prui;'j,-<-.: - iinde r th e Powe r Plan tan d industria l Fue l L's c Ac tof 1978 (o r an y supersedin g U'«islation) . o r b y reaso n o f a natura l ea s curtailmen tpla n pursuan tto th e Federa i Powe r Act : \b) Us e o f

a n alternativ e fue l o r ra w material , i

f prio r t o Decembe r 21.1976 . th e sourc e wa s capabl e of

accommodatin g suc h fue l o r material : [c\ Us e o f

a n alternativ e fue l b y reaso n o f a n orde r n

r rul e unde r sectio n 12

5 of th e Act : [d] Chang e i n ownershi p of th e stationar y source : o r [rA Us e o f

refus e derive d fue l generate d fro m municipa l soli d waste . !iv | Chanye s ar e "contemporaneous " onl v J reduction s occu r afte r a notic e i s file d ".irsua m to paragrap h 1.4

. an d befor e j-'eratio n of

th e emissio n uni to r unit s that •.vii i resul ti n emissio n increases . Also , to b e "contemporaneous " al l o f th e emissio n rt'duction s mus tb e complete d an d -'ntorceabi e unde r th e stat e pla n befor e operatio n of

th e emissio n uni to r unit s tha t wil l resul ti n an y emissio n increase . Wher e ;h e ne w emissio n uni ti s a replacemen tfo r a n emissio n unr

tthati s bein g shu tdow n in orde r to provid e th e necessar y reductions , th e reviewin g authorit y ma y allo w u p t o 18 0 day s for shakedow n o f

th e ne w emissio n uni t befor e th e emissio n uni ti s require d to ceas e operation . (v ) Fo r a serie s o f

change s i n a stationar y sourc e t o satisf

y th e requiremen to f

"no ne t increase." ' al l o f

th e followin g mus tb e satisfied : (a) Al l reduction s an d al l increase s mus tb e for th e sam e poilutant : (£ ) Th e su m o f

al l decrease s mus tb e greate r tha n o r equa l t o th e su m o f ai l increases : an d Ic) O n balanc e th e ai r qualit y o f th e affecte d are a mus tno tb e adversel y impacted . (vi ) I n performin g th e calculatio n i n paragrap h (v ) (t o determin e whethe r th e su m o f al l decrease s i s greate r tha n o r equa l t o th e su m o f al l increases ) th e followin g rule s shal l appiy : (a ) Subjec tt o th e followin g adjustments . th e siz e o f

a n increas e o r decreas e i s determine d b y th e differenc e betwee n di e potentia l t o emi to f

th e change d emissio n uni t befor e an d afte r th e change . (b) I f potentia l t o emi tfo r a change d emissio n uni twa s initiall y highe r thai * allowabl e emissions , the n n o offse tcredi t may b e take n fo r decreasin g potentia l to emi t dow n t o allowabl e emissions . (c ) Th e requirement s o f section s IV.C. 2 an d 4 of thi s rulin g shal l appl y involvin g th e amoun to f

credi tpermissibl e fo r changin g fuel s an d fo r replacin g on e hydrocarbo n compoun d wit h anothe r o f lese r reactivity . 7 . "Lowes tachievabl e emissio n rate " means , fo r an y source , tha trat e o f emission s base d o n th e following , whicheve r i s mor e stringen t -••;". ?!"inaep.tRr:::!a.ai.7 J :,:'i;.._. n ::j:::i' C :C. ch

e irnp-iT-j c :;•..<••.

•

. -••:,;L*-ri' r s'.ii'i'.'.'1,1' S n

r • .;<"•:•' " •

- • •

• •*- •..:*..:;- source . cnic-s s :." c oivr.n r I' T ••.i.n:'---.-j. r-i:*.: -j-.-.i'ocsi-J stationar y st•••.•-{.. •

- .-..J

. 7.:ol.",:'..; S -J.;; : -.Ui:. " iliTillbUC'-. o aiC UU t •"jr . :.:*•-: i-.:r.**ii'.r.: t.-.y.ission limitatio n • A '•.-.r.n . 3 cii~n:sved i n prucl.e e b y suc h class o r .•:.:tecor v o f staiionnr y source . Tni s term , appiie d t o a modification , mean s th e iowes tachievabl e emissio n rat e lo r th e ne w o r modifie d emissio n unit s withi n th e stationar y source , i n n o even tshal l th e applicatio n o f

thi s term permi ta propose d ne w o r modifie d stationar y sourc e t o emi t an y pollutan ti n exces s o f th e amoun t allowabl e unde r applicabl e ne w sourc e standard s o f

performance . 8 . "Emissio n unit " mean s an y parto f a stationar y source , whic h emit s o r ha s th e potentia l t o em u an y pollutan tregulate d unde r th e Act . 9 . "Reconstruction' ' wil l b e presume d to hav e take n plac e wher e th e fixe d capita l cos t of th e ne w component s exceed s 5 0 percen to f th e fixe d capita l o f

a comparaol e entirel y ne w stationar y source . However , an y final decisio n a s t o whethe r reconstructio n ha s occurre d shal l b e mad e i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s of

4 0 CF R60.15(f)(lH3) . A reconstructe d stationar y sourc e wil l b e treate d a s a ne w stationar y sourc e fo r purpose s o f

thi s ruling , excep ttha tus e of a n alternativ e fue l o r ra w materia l b y reaso n o f a n orde r i n effec tunde r sectio n 2(a ) an d (b ) of th e Energ y Suppl y an d Environmenta l Coordinatio n Ac to f

197 4 (o r an y supersedin g legislation) , b y reaso n o f a natura l ga s curtailmen tpla n i n effec tpursuan tt o th e Federa l Powe r Act . o r b y reaso n o f a n orde r o r rul e unde r sectio n 12 5 o f th e Act . shal l no t b e considere d reconstruction . In determinin g lowes tachievabl e emissio n rat e fo r a reconstructe d stationar y source , th e provision s o f

4 0 CF R60.15(f)(4 ) shal l b e take n int o accoun ti n assessin g whethe r a ne w sourc e performanc e standar d i s applicabl e t o suc h stationar y source . 11 . "Secondar y emissions' " mean s emission s whic h occu r o r woul d occu r a s a resul to f di e constructio n o r operatio n o f a majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modification , bu td o no tnecessaril y com e from th e majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n itself

. Fo r purpose s o f

thi s ruling , secondar y emission s mus tb e specifi c an d wel l defined , mus tb e quantifiable , an d mus timpac tth e sam e genera l nonattainmen t are a a s th e stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n whic h cause s th e secondar y emission . Secondar y emission s ma y include , bu tno t limite d to : (i ) Emission s iro m ship s o r train s comin g t o o r fro m die . stationar y sourc e o r modifications : an d (ii ) Emission s fro m an y off-sit e suppor t sourc e whic h woul d b e constructe d o r woul d no totherwis e increas e it s emissions . 13 . "Fugitiv e emissions " mea n thos e whic h d o no tpas s throug h a stack , chimney , vent , o r other , functionall y equivalen topening . 3.b . B y amendin g sectio n II . subsectio n C b y deletin g footnot e 2 an d th e secon d paragraph , an d revisin g th e firs t paragrap h t o read a s follows : -*,-view nf Specified

Sources for Ama :<:-jvtit-.-r. orAir

Quality Impact. I

n .u:::uti . , •••» . reviewin g authorit y mus t ".P I mint * wnetne r th e maio r stationar y • i ••..;•(.(. • o r main r modihratio n woul d eithe r (i )

. c tionstiucte d i

n a n <ire a designate d i

n 4 0 Cr R8!.300-81.35 6 a s nonattainmen tfo r a pollutan tlo r whic h th e stationar y sourc e o r •modificatio n i s maior . o r (ii ) caus e o r contribut e i n an y are a t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S fo r a pollutan tfo r whic h th e stationar y sourc e o r modificatio n i s major . A majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n tha ti s majo r fo r volatil e organi c compound s i s als o majo r fo r ozone . 3.c . B y addin g t o sectio n II . a ne w subsectio n H a s follows : H. Modified

Permits. (1 ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f

a majo r stationar y sourc e o r a majo r modificatio n wh o obtain s a permi t unde r thi s rulin g shal l obtai n a modifie d permi tprio r t o beginnin g constructio n of an y emissio n uni tno tauthorize d b y th e existin g fiermitif ; li ) Prio r t o commencemen to f operation , th e owne r o r operato r propose s a chang e i n desig n capacit y of

a n emissio n uni to r f missio n unit s whic h woui d significantl y increas e ne tpotentia l emission s bu tno ta s much a s 10 0 ton s pe r yea r o r , (ii ) Afte r obtainin g a permi tunde r 4 0 CF R 52.2 1 (1978 ) whic h limit s th e hour s o f operation , th e owne r o r operato r propose s t o increas e th e hour s o f

operation . (2) Th e owne r o r operato r of a majo r stationar y sourc e o r a majo r modificatio n wh o obtain s a permi tunde r thi s rulin g shal l obtai n a ne w permi tprio r t o beginnin g an y constructio n no tauthorize d b y th e existin g permi tif , prio r to commencemen to f operation , th e owne r o r operato r proposes . (i ) A n increas e i n desig n capacit y o f on e o r mor e emissio n unit s whic h woul d increas e ne tpotentia l emission s o f th e stationar y sourc e b y 10 0 ton s o r mor e pe r year : o r (ii ) Fundamenta l change s i n th e natur e o f th e proces s equipmen tuse d suc h tha tth e potentia l emission s fro m di e change d emissio n uni to r emissio n unit s woul d b e 10 0 ton s o r mor e pe r year . (3 ) Th e applicatio n fo r permi tmodificatio n shal l include : (i ) A demonstratio n tiiatth e requirement s o f condition s 1 o f

sectio n I

V woul d b e met , an d (ii ) A demonstratio n tha tth e Increas e i n allowabl e emission s woui d no tcaus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f an y NAAQ S i n an y ai r Qualit y Contro l Region . (4 ) Th e reviewin g authorit y shal l approv e o r den y th e applicatio n withi n 8 0 day s afte r requirement s substantivel y equivalen tt o • paragraph s (c) , (g) , an d (h ) o f 4 0 CF R51.1 1 an d sectio n V o f

thi s ruling , hav e bee n met . 3.e . By adding t

o sectio n II

, a new . subsectio n I a s follows : . . 1 . Preconstruction Notice. 1 . Th e owne r o r operato r o f

a propose d constructio n activit y subjec tt o thi s rulin g shal l notif y th e reviewin g authorit y i n writin g o f th e dat e on sit e constructio n wil l begi n a tleas tB O day- r befor e i tbegins . • - 2 . Th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose d constructio n activity , wh o believe s tha tth e activit y i s no tsubjec tt o thi s ruling.shal l also.. . notif y th e reviewin g authority. - i f suc h constructio n woul d b e considered : -

p.ry .195 8 r edera tRegiste r 44 . No . 

### " 3 / Wednesuav . i-eotembe r5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rules "

• A maio r modificatio

n bu tfo r suificient TunmDoraneou

s emissio n reuuctions : o

r .' ; A muio r stationar

v sourc e Ou tto r •uuction s i n th e ootentm l emission s o

tth e jurce inroue

n th e application o

f air poliution .-ntro i eauipmen

tno tsenerail y reauire

d :nae r tn e Stat e Implementatio

n Pla n o r an y ppucaoi e standaras a s se

tfort h i n 4 0 CF R Part s 6 0 an a 61 . P . Th e notice require

d b y paragrap

h 1.2 . shall contain : '*'*) Th e nam e an d addres s o

f th e owner o r operator ; (ii) Th e natur e an d locatio n o

f th e stationar y sourc e o r modification : (iii ) Th e potentia l t o emi tan d allowabl e emissio n rates o

f an y applicabl e pollutan

tfo r al l emissio n unit

s within th

e ne w or modifie

d stationar y source : (iv ) A schedul e o

f whe n each change i

n th e emissio n rat

e o f an y applicabl e pollutan

t woul d occur : iv) Calculation s o

f ho w an y contemporaneous emissio n reductions identified pursuan

tt o paragrap

h 1. 4 would adequately offse

tan v emissio n increase s fo

r an y poilutan treeuiated unde

r the Act : [vi ) A demonstration tha

teach suc h -•missio n reduction identified pursuan tt o paragrap h 1. 4 would b e enforceabl e unde r th e Stat e implementation Plan : and (vii ) An y oine r informatio

n the reviewin g authorit y reasonabl y need s t

o determine whedie r the requirement

s o f thi s rulin g woui d apply . 4. Th e owne r o r operator wh o woul d accomplis h contemporaneous emissio n reduction s shall notif

y the reviewin g authorit y a tth e time suc

h reductions woui d

. occu r i f crediti s t o b e take n fo r such reduction s pursuan

tto paragrap

h 1.2 . ' 5 : Th e notic e require

d by paragrap

h 1. 4 shall contain : (i)Th e nam e and addres s o

f th e -wner or operato r ;i: ) the typ e and amoun

to f each -ontemporaneou

s emissio n decreas e an

d th e affected emissio n unit ; (iii) A schedul e o

f when eac h emissio n reduction woui d occur or ha s occurred : and (iv) Any other infonnaUo

n tha tth e reviewin g authorit

y reasonabl y need s to determin e u di e propose d emissio n reduction woul d be.acceptable. . 

### ^&&B y revisin g th e firstparagrap h o f sectio n IV A t

o read a s follows : A. Conditions forApproval. I f th e i allegin g authorit

y finds tha

tth e majo r stationar y source o r majo

r modificatio n wouiiffcither (i) b e constructe d i n a n area designate d in 40 CF

R81.300-81.35 6 a s nonattainmentfor a pollutantfo r whic h th e stationar y source or modification i s majo r o r (iftWotri d caus e o r contribut

e i n an y area t o a violatio n o

f a NAAQ S for a pollutantfo r wirfdrth e stationar

y sonic * o r modificatio n - ia major, approva

l ma y b e granted onl y i f

th e fe^g^faCondiUons ar

e me t



### • 3.g , B y deletin g tha secon d sentenc e o f

of sectioB'ILC-p . State-Plan s fo rNonattainmao tAreas . 4 4 0 CF R51.1 8 I s propose d t o B e amende d b y addin g th e followin g subsectio n (J): . " ' - 51.1 8 Revie w of ne wstationar v source s :n a modifications

. Stat e ImDietnentatio n Pla n revision s satisfyin g section s 172 ! bill' I .iv.a 17 3 o f th e Ac tmus tmee ttn e fallowin g conditions : (1 ) Definitions . Al l suc h pian s shal l us e th e followin g definitions . Deviation s fro m th e followin g wordin g wil l b e approve d onl y i

f th e stat e specificall y demonstrate s tiiatth e submitte d definitio n i s mor e stringen to r a tleas t a s stringent , i n al l respect s a s th e correspondin g definitio n below : (i ) "Stationar y source"—th e definitio n se tfort h i n sectio n 1I.A.1 . o f

appendi x S t o thi s par t(th e Emissio n Offse t Interpretativ e Ruling) . (ii)(a ) Plan s tha tsho w attainmen tb y th e deadlin e unde r sectio n 172 , an d reasonabl e furthe r progres s i n th e interim , base d exclusivel y o n currentl y adopted , approved , an d enforceabl e requirements , wii l b e referre a t o a s "complete. " Non e o f

th e followin g plan s qualif y a s complete : an y pla n wher e approva l unde r PartD o f Titl e I o f

di e Ac ti s conditione d o n submissio n o f additiona l materia l b y th e state ; an y pla n containin g state-adopte d schedule s fo r submissio n o f

additiona l materia l require d unde r Part0 : an d an y pia n wher e additiona l submission s ar e neede d b y Jul y 1,1982 . a s require d b y sectio n 129(c ) o f

th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Ac t(not e unde r 4 2 US C 7502) . Complet e plan s mus tus e eithe r th e definitio n o f

"building , structure , facilit y o r installation " se tfort h i n sectio n 51.24(b)(5) , o r (a tth e optio n o f th e state ) th e mor e stringen tdefinition s require d i n subsectio n (ii)(6 ) fo r plan s tha tar e no tcomplete . [b] Plan s tha tar e no tcomplet e mus t us e th e definition s o f

"building , structure , o r facility, " an d o f "installation. " sa tfort h i n section s 11A. 2 an d 3 . respectively , o f appendi x S t o thi s point . (iii ) "Potentia l t o emit"—th e definitio n se tforth i n sectio n ILA4.-o f appendi x S t o thi s par t (iv ) "Majo r stationar y source"—th e definitio n se tforth i n sectio n ILA.5 . o f appendi x S t o thi s part . (v ) "Modification - o r "modified, " w whe n referrin g t o a majo r stationar y source—th e definitio n se tfort h i n 

### sectio n JL^^^^^adixS- W thi s part . [vi ) "ft . :«uid"Exe d •viii ) "Fugitiv e emissions"—th e

,. : bfinitio n se tfort

h i n sectio n 1I.A.13 . o f

• ppendi x S t

o thi s part . px i Emissio n unit"—th e definitio n -H I fort h in sectio n II.A.8 . o f

aopendi x S :n thi s part . ix ) "Allowabl e emissions'—th e definitio n se tfort

h i n sectio n II.A.6 . o f appendi x S to this part . (2) Preconstuctio n Notice . Th e pla n shal l provid e that : (i ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n shal l notif

y th e reviewin g authorit y i n writin g o f

th e dat e on-sit e constructio n wil l begi n a tleas t9 0 day s befor e i t begins . (ii ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose d constructio n activity , wh o believe s tha tth e activit y i s no tsubjec t t o regulation s develope d pursuan tto . section s 172(b)(8 ) an d 17 3 o f th e Ac tan d thi s sectio n 51.18(j ) shal l als o s o notif y th e reviewin g authority , i f suc h constructio n woul d b e considered : [a) A majo r modificatio n bu tfo r sufficien tcontemporaneou s emission , reductions : o r [b)A majo r stationar y sourc e bu tfor - . reduction s i n th e potentia l emission s o f th e sourc e throug h th e applicatio n o f ai r - pollutio n contro l equipmen tno t generall y require d unde r th e Stated Implementatio n Pla n o r an y applicabl e standard s £ 8 se tfort h i n 4 0 CF RPart s W • an d 81 . (iii ) Th e notic e require d b y paragrap h 7 (j).2)(ii ) shal l contain : (a ) Th e nam e an d addres s o f th e owne r o r operato r (o ) Th e natur e an d locatio n o f th e sourc e o r modification ; [c ) Th e potentia l o f

th e ne w o r modifie d stationar y sourc e an d allowabl e emissio n rate s o f th e applicabl e pollutan tfo r al l emissio n unit s withi n di e stationar y source : [d) A schedul e o f

whe n eac h chang e 

### i n th e emission s o f

th e nonattainment.. - pollutan twoul d occur: . 2-.2i-L*k [e) Calculation s o f

ho w any . ; 

### ; .r'-iiLL. contemporaneou s amissio n reductions--—p : identifie d pursuantt o paragrap h > p - ^ (j)(2)(iv ) woul d adetrrtatelyoffsettey'r- - emissio n increase s forth * •.- ' .".'.". • ••:--**.?<:>•.-- ' . ;.pj ; 

### , nonattainmen tpoltetant:* : •'-•"'• v5 

### * ft

### *-' , 

### ^ ; 

### " f •-•••; • ?*r^ i (/ ) A demonstratioBthateachsut* * ' "'-"MA-Si emissio n redaeHatfldfetifMd 1 

### ?**^ t o paragr^flpfwy ^ P^is g enforraabfofinaiS-teBtate.^^ ^ Implemimiin^ ^ ' ' ' iJ 5



### Where v capita l tx»t''--th»jdefinitioe » se tfort h i n whethe rtlto;is^twa*:rtf , •PffnllRi'if f

'"a^LLBB-^A^fe^V , W r ^fe v •va^VA^a^VT^^ " % a v^% - -i** 1

- - _^.*_*__

_- *tf

a ^r*^a-T*i M

MBV ^ * •****•

• v 

### sectioirff , A . ft*and tOo f

appendi x S t o thispart-^^^ iiw 

### *"'p-: ; (vif ) "Secondary emissions"—th a definitio n sa tfort

h i n sectio n HA.11 . o f appendi x 3 t o thi s par t, i: 

### . . • [Py)'iiie,own«r ( -^.-^-^-r--. . accomplish-oantonporBneaaaeiiBi^ ^ reductionaahal l notif

y tha'nvaHnv^g^*^^^ ' authorifrjaitotiawagcfcraduE ^

Pt'- " : 

### :-£$£tf%

t- •••'•'s : v*« •••i'aJ'fW SP.3 9

'edera i Registe r " 3 / Wednesday , Septembe r 5 . 197 9 / Propose d Rule

9 5195 9

§?*• < W*2.-. .voui a occur . : : creai t:< • t o b e latee n to r i.ic.r i reduction s pursuan tt o paraarapr t '.:*2){2i\ri). •••' j Th e notic e require a b y paragrap h ;:i(2)(iv ) snai l contain : ,a": j Th e nam e an d addres s o f th e owne ro r operator ; ;ip ) Th e typ e an d amoun to f eac h .ontemporaneou s emissio n decreas e i n a th e affecte d emissio n unit : *c) A schedul e o f

whe n eac h emissio n reductio n woul d occu ro r ha s occurred ; an d [d) An y othe rinfonnatio n tha tth e reviewin g authorit y reasonabl y need s t o determin e i f

th e propose d emissio n decrease s woul d b e acceptable . [3 ) A preconstructio n revie w program , adopte d t o satisf y th e requirement s o f section s 172(b)(6 ) an d 17 3 fo r an y are a designated'a s nonattainmen tfo r an y nationa l ambien tai r qualit y standar d ar.de r4 0 CF R81.30O-81.356 . shal l appi y t o an y ne w o r modifie d majo rstationar y sourc e tha ti s majo rfo r th e poilutan tfo r whic h th e are a i s designate d nonattainment . i f

di e stationar y sourc e o rmodificatio n woul d eithe r(i ) locat e i n th e designate d nonattainmen tarea ; o r ; ii ) caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e ambien tstandar d withi n th e designate d nonattainmen tarea . A ne w o rmodifie d majo rstationar y sourc e tha t i s majo rfo rvolatil e organi c compound s i s als o majo rfo r ozone . Restriction s o n Constructio n fo r Nonattainmen tArea s 5 . I ti s propose d tiiat4 0 CF R52.24(e) , whic h wa s propose d a t4 4 F R3858 5 (Jul y 2.1979) , b e adde d t o rea d a s se tfort h i n th e earlie rproposal , excep ttha tth e firs t sentenc e woul d rea d a s follows : § 52.2 4 Statutor y restrictio n o n ne w stationar y sources . **** * (e ) Fo ran y are a designate d a s - • nonattainmen tfo r an y nationa l ambien t ai rqualit y standard , th e restriction s in ' paragraph s (a ) an d (b ) shal l appl y t o an y fg-^ne w o r modifie d majo rstationar y sourc e "" " tha ti s majo rfo rth e pollutan tfo r whic h th e are a i s designate d nonattainment , il --th e stationar y sourc e o r modification , : woul d eithe r(1 ) b e constructe d i n th e — ; designate d nonattainmen tarea ; o r (2 ) caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e c ' ambien tstandar d withi n th e designated " nonattainmen tarea . A ne w o rmodifie d ajo rstationar y sourc e tha ti s majo rfo r "Volatil e organi c compound s i s als o ... . majo rfo rozone . H 6 . I ti s propose d die t4 0 CF R52.24.a s . adde d a t4 4 F R3847 3 (Jul y 2.1879) , b e ..^amende d by addingnewparagraphs (f) . an d (g ) t o rea d a s follows : it ] Th e followin g definition s shal l •.opi y unde rthi s snction : ! I "Stationar y sourc e '—'h e definitio n .se tfort h i n sectio n II.A. l o f 4 0 CF RPar t 31 , appendi x S (th e "offse truling) . !2 ) "Building , structure , o r facility, " an d "installation"—<h e definition s se t fort h i n section s II.A. 2 an d 3 . respectively , o f

th e offse truling . (3 ) "Potentia l t o emit"—th e definitio n se tfort h i n sectio n II.A. 4 o f th e offse t ruling . (4 ) "Majo rstationar y source"—(h e definitio n se tfort h i n sectio n II.A. 5 o f th e offse truling . (5 ) "Modification " o r "modified" , a s use d i n thi s sectio n wit h referenc e t o a majo rstationar y source , mean s an y physica l chang e i n o r chang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n of a majo r stationar y sourc e tha twoul d resul ti n a significan tincreas e i n tha tstationar y source' s potentia l t o emi tth e poilutan t fo rwhic h th e stationar y sourc e i s major , withou tregar d t o an y othe rchange s i n o rchange s i n th e metho d o f operatio n o f th e majo rstationar y sourc e (o r tha t woui d mak e th e stationar y sourc e major , takin g int o accoun tal l accumulate d ne tincrease s i n potentia l emission s occurrin g a tth e stationar y source , includin g an y initia l construction , sinc e Decembe r21,1976) . Th e additiona l condition s se tfort h i n section s II.A.6(ii ) an d (iii ) o f th e offse t rulin g shal l appl y unde rthi s definition . (6 ) "Reconstruction " an d "fixe d capita l cost"—th e definition s se tfort h i n section s II.A. 9 an d 1 0 o f th e offse truling . (7 ) "Fugitiv e emissions"—th e definitio n se tfort h i n sectio n II.A.1 3 o f th e offse truling . (8 ) "Emissio n unit"—th e definitio n se t fort h i n sectio n D.A. 8 o f th e offse truling . (9 ) "Allowabl e emissions"—th e

. definitio n se tfort h i n sectio n II.A. 6 o f th e offse truling . (g ) Preconstruction Notice. (1 ) Th e owne ro r operato ro f

a propose d constructio n activity , wh o believe s tha t th e activit y i s no tsubjec tt o paragraph s (a ) o r (b ) o f

thi s section , shal l notif y th e Administrator , i f

suc h constructio n woul d b e considered : (i ) A majo rstationar y sourc e bu tfo r reduction s i n th e potential , emission s o f the.sourc e throug h th e applicatio n o f ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen tno t generall y require d unde rth e £tat e - Implementatio n Pla n o r an y applicabl e standard s a s se tfort h i n 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 .and61 . • • . . / ' 'rAiy- (2 ) Th e notic e required b y paragrap h __; ' (g)(1 ) shal l contain : (i j Th e nam e an d addres s o f di e owne ro n operator ; • (ii ) Th e natur e an d locatio n o f di e stationar y sourc e o rmodification ; : di ) Th e potentia l t o emi tan d allowabl e emissio n rate s o f th e nonattainmen tpollutant(s ) fo r al l omissio n unit s withi n th e ne w o r modifie d stationar y source : (iv ) A schedul e o f

whe n suc h chang e i n th e emissio n o f

th e nonattainmen t pollutant(s ) woul d occur ; (v ) An y othe rinformatio n th e Administrato rreasonabl y need s t o determin e whethe rth e restriction s of - - paragraph s (a ) o r (b ) o f thi s sectio n woul d apply . [F RDo c 79-2718 0 File d 9-4-78 : 8:4 5 «m | aituN o COD

E eseo-oi- M

' "•'•'•'•K'^.' ; *g »

• • - .".i*y«\(*.'' • 05 3 v.- . • •py' v eSijyu.'ii/a&S^t

i

.• : •. . • V.aP.i*<!aa^ J

> v..:..;,'" - •'-.•.--s.-fe-V} ; 

# HHH-« ^