p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1796
Prepped by Keeia Richards

Document

Number: 

# 13 ) FE D RE G VO L 6 3 N O 142 JULY 24,199 8

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37

PM Sheet 13 of 107

### P. 2

Federa l Register/Vol
. 63
. No . 142/Friday
. July 24
. 1998/N o 3985 7
Offic e o f Informatio

n an d Regulator

y Affairs
. Offic

e o f Managemen

tan d Budget

. Attention : Des k Office r fo r EPA

. 72 5 17t hStreet

. NW

. Washington

. D C 20503

. Dated : Jul y 20 , 1998

. Josep hRetzer

. Director, Regulatory Information Division. (F RDoc

. 98-1984 0 File d7-23-98 ; 8:45 am i
BILLINGCOD E6560-60- P

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [FRL-6128-5 ] 

# A 

# 4o- 2rt

Notic e o f Availability ; Alternative s fo r Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Applicabilit y fo r Majo r Modifications ; Solicitatio n o f Commen t AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. ACTION : Notic e o f

availability

. SUMMARY

: Th e EP A i s solicitin g mment s o n aspecifi c alternativ e fo r determinin g th e applicabilit y o f NS Rt o modification s o f

majo r static s sources , unde r

th e Preventio n o f Significan t

Deterioratio n (PSD ) an dth e nonattainmen t

provision s o f

th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (Act)

. Thi s alternativ e woul d allo w an y sourc e t o legall y avoi dmajo r NS Rrevie w for

aphysica l o r

operationa l chang e t o a n existin g emission s uni t b y takin g a n enforceabl e temporar y limi t o n emission s fro mtha t uni t for aperio d o f at leas t 1 0 year s afte r

th e change

. I n addition , th e Agenc y i s seekin g commen t upo n whe n an dunde r wha t circumstance s permittin g authoritie s shoul dhav e t o revis e th e emission s leve l se t unde r aplantwid e applicabilit y limitatio n (PAL ) fo

r an y give n source
. DATES : Writte n comment s mus t b e i o n o r befor e Augus t

24

. 199.0

. ADDRESSES : Comment s mus t b e identifie db y th e docke t numberJA-90

- 37] , $n dshoul db e submitte d(i n duplicate , if

possible ) to : Ai r

an d Radiatio n Do

t Informatio n Cente r (6102) , Attentio n Docke t Numbe r A-90-36 , Roo mM-1500 , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Street

. S.W.

. Washington

. D.C

. 20460

. Th e EP A request s aseparat e cop y als o b e sen t t o th e contac t

perso n liste d belo w (se e FO

RFURTHE RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT)

. Comment s ma y als o b e submitte d ironicall y b y sendin g electro ] mai l (e-mail ) to : a-and-r

docket@epamail.epa.gov

. Submi t comment s a s a n ASCI I File avoidin g th e us e o f specia l c hi m i o f encryption

. Comment s an ddat awil l als o b e accepte do n adiskett e i n WordPerfec t 5. 1 o r 6. 1 o r ASCI I fil e format

. Identif

y al l comment s an ddat a i n electroni c formb y docke t numbo r A

90-37

. N o Confidentia l Busines s Informatio n (CBI ) shoul db e submitte d throug he-mail

. Informatio n submitte da s acommen t nin g thi s documen t

ma y b e claime dconfidentia l b y markin g an y par t o r al l o f tha t informatio n a s CBI

. Informatio n s o marke dwil l not b e ose dexcep t

i n accordanc e wit h procedure s se t

fort hi n 4 0 CFRpar t

2

. A cop y o f

th e commen t

tha t doe s no t contai n CB I n ihmitle dfo r inclusio n i n th e publi c record

. niatio n no t

marke dconfidentia l wil l b e include di n th e publi c docke t b y EP A withou t

prio r notice

. FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT

: B y mail : ilomoq

. Integrate d Implementatio n Group , Informal : Transfe r an dProgra mIntegratio n Division

. (MD-12)

. Environmenta l Protectio n Age : ugl e Park , N.C

. 27711

. telephon e 919-541

- 5375

. facsimile919-541-5509 , ore-mai l solomon.david@epamail.epa.gov

. Fo r informatio n o n th e sectio n o f thi s notic e addressin g PAL's

. contac t Mik e Sewel l a t th e abov e address , telephon e 919

- 541-0873

. facsimil e 919-541-5509

. o r e
rnai l sewell.mike@epamail.epa.gov

. Electroni c Availability : Interne t Electroni c copie s o f

thi s documen t als o ar e availabl e fro mth e EP A h < pag e at Jh e Federa l Register — Environmenta l Document s entr y for thi s men t unde r "Law s an d Regulations " (http://www.epa.gov / fedrgstr/ ) o r

fro mtin >

f Ai r an d Radiatio n hom e pag e a t http:/ / www.epa.gov.ttn/oarpg

. I

. Purpos e Th e firs t purpos e o f

thi s notic e i s t o solici t commen t

fro mth e intereste d publi c o n aspecifi c polic y optio n fo r determinin g th e applicabilit y o f NS Rt o modification s at

existi h •Mrr.es

. Althoug hth on e o f man y propose di n a n ear ! Notic e o f Prop ' making , EP A no w mu mI o n niter ; >rde

r t o ensur e tha t

th e publi c ha s ful l opportu n luat e it s merit

. Second , th e
. in g commen t o n awit h regar dt o PAL's

. Previousl y EP A severa l hundre d com n propose d rev s onsiderii.

- comments

. Fo r

o l thi s N 

### variabilit y shoul d limi t thei r ue s

. e o f th e opportunit y provi. i fo r 

### comro

e tho a conside n II . Background O n ful j mak ' 

### m" ) (See 6 1 F R applicab i requirement s < solicite dcommen

l o n anum b methodologie s Fo

i

mo d

furthe r comn
. 

### methodol o I n tl : 

### author ! ti i PA L publi c conn s 

### woul d n e u . limits
. Sev

i

consi s 

### latio n o f the PA L limit
. III

. Applicability Methodolog y fo r Modification s to Existing Majo rSo n A. Cm MajorAf , 1

. I n I

no n
. "majo r m o

sli d resul t i n ; t o I I wo n d t

SOU: ' o r par t ol

•

## P. 3

3985 8 Federa l Registe r/Vol

. 63

. No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s
Vital , then , t o determinin g NS R applicabilit y i s evaluatin g asource' s "actua l emissions " bot hbefor e an dafte r aphysica l o r

operationa l chang e t o determin e whethe r

i t constitute s amajo r modification

. Pre-chang e actua l emission s fo r

th e variou s emission s unit s a t th e sourc e constitut e th e "baseline " fo r

thi s evaluation

. Unde r curren t regulations , th e baselin e i s calculate dbase do n th e averag e annua l emission s durin g th e 2-yea r perio d precedin g th e chang e (or , wher e th e permittin g authorit y determine s tha t anothe r perio di s mor e representativ e o f norma l sourc e operations , i t use s tha t period)

. Eg., 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(21)(ii)

. Onc e th e baselin e i s determine di t mus t b e compare dt o emission s afte r th e change

. Sinc e NS Rapplicabilit y i s determine dprio r

t o construction , som e projectio n of

post-chang e emission s mus t b e mad e fo r

th e comparison

. Existin g emission s unit s tha t ar e no t undergoing , o r

otherwis e affecte dby

. a physica l o r

operationa l chang e ar e deeme dt o hav e "begu n norma l operations, " an dbaselin e actua l emission s ar e simpl y projecte dforwar d t o th e post-chang e timeframe ; thus , thes e unit s fal l ou t

o f th e applicabilit y calculus

. Unde r

EPA' s curren t regulations , post-chang e actua l emission s fo r

unit s whic hhav e "no t begu n norma l operation s * * * equa l th e potentia l t o emi t

(PTE ) o f th e uni t o n tha t date. " Eg., 4 0 CFR 52.2 1 (b)(21)(iv)

. Fo r

ne w units , whic h obviousl y hav e no t

begu n norma l operations , th e pre-chang e baselin e i s zero , an dth e post-chang e emission s equa l th e units ' PTE

. Determinin g post

chang e emission s for

existin g unit s tha t are modifie do r

otherwis e affecte db y th e chang e ca n b e mor e complex

. Th e regulator y tes t

fo r thes e situation s ha s com e t o b e know n a s th e "actual-to

potential " methodology

. I n brief, unde r

th e curren t

regulations , change s t o auni ta tamajo rstationar y sourc e tha t

ar e non-routin e o r

no t subjec t t o on e o f

th e othe r

majo r sourc e NS Rexemption s ar e deeme dt o b e o f suc hsignificanc e tha t

pre-chang e emission s fo r

th e affecte dunit s shoul d no t b e relie do n i n projectin g post

chang e emissions

. Fo r

suc hunits , "norma l operations " ar e deeme dpo t t o hav e begu n followin g th e change , an d ar e treate dlik e ne w units

. Pu t anothe r way
. th e regulator y provisio n fo r unit s whic hhav e "no t

begu n norma l operations " reflect s a n initia l presumptio n tha t

auni t tha t ha s undergon e anon-routin e physica l o r

operationa l chang e wil l operat e a t it s ful l capacit y year-round

. A sourc e owne r o r operato r ma y rebu t

th e presumptio n tha t

th e uni t wil l operat e a t it s ful l potentia l b y agreein g t o limi t it s PT Ethroug henforceabl e restriction s tha t limi t th e units ' abilit y t o emi t mor e tha n thei r

pre-modificalio n actua l emission s (plu s a n amoun t tha t i s les s tha n significant"). 2 Th e ter m"actual-to-potential " i s somewha t

o f amisnomer , becaus e i n practice , thi s methodolog y involve s a determinatio n of

futur e actual emission s t o th e atmosphere

. Tha t is , sourc e owner s an doperator s contemplatin g amodificatio n projec t asses s th e likel y utilizatio n o f th e affecte dunit s followin g th e change

. I f thos e level s o f

utilization , whe n combine dwit hth e hourl y emission s rate s (an dcontemporaneou s emission s increase s an ddecrease s elsewher e a t th e plant) , woul dresul t

i n futur e actua l emission s significantl y highe r tha n th e pre-chang e baseline , th e owne r o r operato r mus t obtai n amajo r

NS R permit

. I f

th e owne r

o r operato r project s tha t futur e actua l emission s wil l no t significantl y excee dth e baseline , th e owne r o r operato r instea dobtain s a minor NS Rpermi t

o r othe r devic e tha t legall y limit s th e affecte dunits ' emission s t o aleve l tha t i s no t significantl y abov e baseline

. Th e en d resul t unde r thi s secon dscenari o ar e individua l limit s o n th e emission s o f th e new , modified , an daffecte dunit s whic h assure s tha t

ne t emission s a t

th e plan t wil l iicantl y increas e a s aresul t

o f th e change

. Nevertheless , th e owne r o r operato r i s alway s fre e t o chang e plan s i n th e future

. If

, fo r example , a ne w assessmen t

indicate s tha t

i t woul d b e economicall y usefu l t o utiliz e th e affecte dunit s at

level s tha t

woul d excee dth e establishe dlimits , th e owne r

o f avoidin g NSRi s commonly referre dt o a s a "netting " analysis

. Th e alternativ e notic e onl y involve s modification s tha t d > trigger anettin g analysis

. t s th e "maximu m cap;. . sourc e t o emi t apollutan t

unde r m doperationa l desigi o

r operationa l limitatio n o

n mi t apollutant

. i g apermi t i s :reate da s par t o f it s desig n pri

. •
.n o r it s effec t o n emission s s abl e (e.g.

. se e existin g .n d51.166(b)(4))
. •iional Mining Ass'n v
. EPA. M 195 ) an dChemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA. No

. 89-1514

. sli p op
. o f Columbi a elate dt o EPA' s ishe s t o limi t it s limit

. Th e ligh t o f thes e cour

t so w i t wil l nplete dit s

, requirement s i n rh e Agency Isle r notic e its o r

operato r ma y obtai n amajo r

NS R permi t a t tha t futur e time

. See e.g.
. 4 0 CFR52.21(r)(4)

. Th e practica l working s o f th e curren t regulations , a s describe dabove , hav e lon g bee n controversial

. Industr y representative s maintai n tha t th e "actual-to-potential " methodolog y result s i n "confiscation " o f unuse d plan t capacit y followin g amodificatio n project

. Environmenta l group s respon d tha t plan t capacit y unaffecte db y th e modificatio n projec t

ca n continu e t o b e use da t an y desire dleve l o f

utilizatio n (subjec t t o an y prio r

limit s o n tha t

use) , an dtha t an y constraint s ar e impose d appropriately , i.e. , onl y wher e th e utilizatio n o f

pre-existin g plan t

capacit y i s likel y t o b e affecte db y th e modificatio n projec t

i n awa y tha t

wil l significantl y increas e actua l emission s ove r baselin e emissions

. 2

. Litigatio n Ove r

th e Actual-to

Potentia l Tes t Becaus e th e presumptio n discusse d abov e force s source s whos e post-chang e potentia l emission s excee dthei r pre
chang e actua l emission s t o underg o NS R o r tak e alimi t

o n th e affecte dunits ' potentia l emissions , industr y has , a s noted , lon g objecte dt o th e Agency' s us e o f th e "actual-to-potential " methodolog y fo r

existin g unit s undergoin g anon-routin e change

. Th e EPA' s interpretatio n o f it s regulation s consequentl y ha s bee n a t issu e i n tw o cases , Puerto Rican Cement Co. v
. EPA, 88 9 F.2 d 29 2 (1s tCir
. 1989) , an d Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v
. Reilly. 89 3 F.2 d90 1 (7t hCir

. 1990 ) V'WEPCO"). Specifically , eac ho f thes e case s addresse dwhethe r th e Agenc y acte dreasonabl y i n treatin g unit s whic h ha dundergon e anon-routin e physica l o r operationa l chang e a s no t havin g "begu n norma l operations. " I n Puerto Rican Cement, th e cour t foun dreasonabl e EPA' s presumptio n tha t aphysica l o r

operationa l chang e (i n thi s case , th e conversio n o f acem i plan t fro mawe t

proces s t o amor e efficien t dr y process ) coul denabl e a modifie duni t

t o b e use da t

ahighe r capacit y tha n prio r

t o th e change , an d endorse dth e Agency' s us e o f th e actual

to-potentia l tes t

i n suc hcircumstances

. Se e 88 9 F.2 dat

297

. I n particular , th e cour t note dtha t

th e compan y "operate d it s ol dkiln s at

lo w level s i n th e past ; it s new , mor e efficien t

kil n migh t

gi \ th e economi c abilit y t o increas e production ; consequently , EP A coul d plausibl y fear

a n increas e i n actua l emissions. * * '"Id. a t 298

. B y contrast , i n WEPCO, th e cour t hel d tha t EP A acte dunreasonabl y i n applyin g th e actual-to-potentia l methodolog y i n th e cas e o f WEPCO' sP. 4



### Federa l Register/Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s
life-extensio n project , i n whic hWEPC O sough t t o replac e numerou s component s o f th e steamgeneratin g unit s at th e facility

. Th e court

objecte dt o EPA' s refusal t o conside r

th e pas t operatin g condition s of

asourc e i n evaluatin g th e likel y post-chang e emissions

. It coine d th e term"like-kin dreplacement, " an d rule dtha t th e applicatio n o

f th e actual

to-potentia l tes t

t o like-kin d replacement s o

f component s o

f a n existin g emission s uni t

wa s no t a reasonabl e interpretatio n o f the regulations

. Accordingly , upo n reman d fro mth e court , EP

A assesse dth e change s at

WEPC O basedo n a compariso n o

f it s pre-chang e actua l emission s an dit s predicte dpost-chang e actua l emissions

. Thi s approac hha s com e t o b e know n a s th e "actual-to

future-actual " methodology

. 3

. Electri c Utilit y SteamGeneratin g Unit s I n Jul y 1992 , th e Agenc y promulgate d limite damendment s t o th e existin g major NS Rregulations , i n par t t o respon dt o th e WEPCO decision

. Th e "WEPC O rule " extende dadifferent applicabilit y test—an actual-to-future

actua l approach—solel y t o electri c utilit y steamgeneratin g units. 3 

### Unde r thi s ne w system , autilit y unit' s pre
chang e actua l emission s ar e compare d t o it s post-chang e "representativ e actua l emissions, " define da s "th e averag e rate , i n ton s pe r

year , at whic hth e sourc e i s projecte dt o emi t

apollutan t

fo r th e 2

- yea r perio dafte

r aphysica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho dof

operatio n of

a unit. * * * " T o guardagains t th e possibilit y tha t

significan t

unreviewe d increase s i n actua l emission s woul d occu r unde r thi s methodology , th e regulation s provid e tha t

source s wit h utilit y unit s usin g th e actual-to-future

actua l approac hmus t

submi t t o th e permittin g authorit y sufficien t record s annuall y fo

r 5 year s afte

r th e chang e whic hdemonstrat e tha t

th e chang e ha s no t resulte di n a n increas e abov e th e baselin e levels

. Unde r EPA' s regulations , unles s a chang e "result s in " a n increas e i n actua l emissions , i t

nee dno t underg o major NSR

. In th e WEPCO rule , th e Agenc y

3 For NSRpurposes , th e definitio n o f "electri c utility steamgeneratin g unit " mean s an y steam electri c generatin g uni t

that i s constructe dfo

r th e purpos e o f supplyin g more tha n one-thir do f it s potentia l electri c outpu t

capacity an dmore tha n 2 5 M Welectrical outpu t

t o an y utilit y power distributio n systemfo

r sale

. An y steamsupplie dt o asteamdistributio n syste mfo r th e purpos e of providin g stea

mt o asteam-electri c generato r tha t woul dproduc e electrical energ y fo r sal e i s als o considere di n determinin g th e electrical energ y outpu t capacity o

f th e affectedfacility

. See e.g. , 40 CF R52.21(b)(31)

. Reference s i n thi s notic e to utility unit s i s mean t

to includ e al l unit s covere db y this definition

. 

### attempte dt o defin e asituatio n i n whic h EP A woul dassum e tha t

ther e wa s n o causa l lin k

betwee n apost-chang e emission s increas e an daparticula r physica l chang e or

chang e i n th e metho dof

operatio n fo

r electri c utilit y steamgeneratin g units

. Th e EP A reasone dtha t

increase dutilizatio n du e t o deman dgrowthat

autilit y uni t

di d no t resul t fro mparticula r

physica l o r operationa l changes , bu t

rathe r fro m marke t force s unrelate dt o th e change

. Consequently , th e regulation s no w provid e that , i n projectin g future actua l emissions , electri c utilit y steam generatin g unit s may exclud e fro mth e estimat e an y emissio n increas e whic h result s fromincrease dcapacit y utilizatio n a s aconsequenc e o f "independen t

factors, " suc ha s deman d growth

. Th e WEPC O rul e applie s onl y t o th e modificatio n o f

existin g electri c utilit y steamgeneratin g unit s fo r severa l reasons
. Th e Agenc y note dtha t local publi c utilit y commission s (PUC) requir e utilit y source s t o make reliabl e estimate s o

f nature capacit y utilization , an dtha t utilities ' histori c experienc e i n doin g s o woul dmak e th e applicatio n of a n actual-to-future-actua l methodolog y reasonabl e fo

r utilit y units

. I n addition , EP A conclude dtha t

it s pas t regulatory experienc e wit hth e electri c utilit y industry , especiall y th e requiremen t fromtitl e I

V o f th e Ac t tha t generator s instal l highl y accurat e monitoring , mad e unit s i n th e electri c powe r industr y mor e amenabl e t o th e sophisticate d trackin g essentia l t o mak e sur e tha t th e future actua l emissio n prediction s o f a sourc e ar e accurate

. Th e Agenc y committe dt o conside r

i n adifferent rulemakin g th e propriet y o f extendin g th e actual-to-future-actua l methodolog y t o othe r sourc e categories

. 4

. Proposa l t o Chang e NS RApplicabilit y In th e Jul y 199 6 NS RRefor mpackage , EP A proposed , amon g othe r things , t o expan dth e us e o

f th e actual-to-future

actua l approach

. Th e Agenc y note dthat , i n general , source s potentiall y subjec t t o major NS Rwoul db e require dt o instal l highl y accurat e monitorin g device s unde r othe r provision s o

f th e Act

. Consequently , suc hsource s coul db e similar t o th e utilit y unit s tha t

currentl y ar e permitte dt o us e an actual-to-future

actua l test

. Nonetheless , othe r industrie s als o diffe r fromth e electri c powe r

secto r insofa r a s electri c utilitie s ar e th e onl y source s whos e estimate s o f deman dan d' capacity utilizatio n are subjecte dt o independen t

revie w an dhav e bee n historicall y limite dt o aclearl y define d loca l marke t

area
. Th e Agenc y reasone d Uia t permittin g authorities , thus , coul d rel y upo n th e prediction s o f post-chang e utilizatio n i n th e electri c powe r secto r mor e comfortabl y tha n i n othe r industries

. T o ensur e th e reliabilit y o f future prediction s fo

r non-utilit y units , EP A solicite dcommen t

o n th e adequac y of th e curren t

5-yea r trackin g requiremen t

(whic hrequire s source s t o report annuall y thei r

emission s t o th e permittin g authorit y fo

r 5 years ) an d sough t suggestion s fo

r improvin g it. 4 

### B. Comments Received

and Changed Circumstances I n weighin g th e desirabilit y o f expandin g th e actual-to-future-actua l tes t t o othe r sourc e categories , EP

A ha s considere danumbe r

of issues

. First , ar e ther e principle dreason s fo r treatin g non-electri c utilit y source s differently ? Second , hav e intervenin g event s o r further reflectio n calle dint o question an y o f th e base s upo n whic hth e Agenc y relie di n adoptin g th e test , an dar e change s therefor e necessary ? Int he prio r

NPRM,'th e Agenc y specificall y solicite dcommen t o n whethe r sufficien t safeguard s exis t

suc h tha t othe r industrie s shoul db e abl e t o tak e advantag e o

f th e actual-to-future

actua l methodology

. Th e EP A receive d several publi c comment s (se e EP A Ai r Docke tA-90—37 ) claimin g tha tnon 

### utilit y unit s ar e situate dsimilarl y enoug ht o utilit y unit s tha t i t make s sens e t o exten dth e actual-to-future

actua l tes t

beyon dth e limite dscop e o f electri c steamgeneratin g unit s t o othe r sectors

. Thes e commenter s observe d tha t th e Act' s monitorin g requirements , a s embodie di n di e Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g rul e an dit s titl e V reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirements , bot hwoul densur e tha t sources ' future actua l emissio n prediction s woul db e verifiable

. See ,

4 A s aresul t

o f th e NSRRefor

mproposal , th o Agency receive dcomment fromcertai n non-utility industria l stakeholder s wh o claime dtha t th e flexibilit y given t o utilitie s i

n th e WEPC

O rul o wa s no t limite dto th e utilit y sector

. Specifically , thos o commenter s argue dtha

t source s genorally wer

o entitle dt o emplo y th e actual-to-future-actual methodolog y fo

r many physical o

r operational changes , becaus e th e change s were no t o f suc h significanc e (suc ha s "like-kind " replacements ) tha t i t coul dreasonabl y b e claime dthat th e sourc o had "no t begun normal operations. " Th e EP A disagree s wit hth e commenters

. Th e NSRregulation s contai n onl y tw o applicability test s fo

r modifie dunits

. On e o

f thoso , th e actual-to-future-actual approach , i s limite dto electri c utility steamgeneratin g units

. Soo , o.g. , 4 0 CF Rsectio n 51.165(a)(l)(xli)(E)

. Tho othor alternativ e i s th e actual ; to-potentia l methodology , applicabl e whe n th e sourc e ha s "no t bogun norma

l operations. " Thi s approac happlie s to al l change s a t majo r source s tha

t are no t otherwis e exclude d fro mbein g considere daphysical or operational change , suc ha s routin e maintenance , ropair , an d replacement

. Under

th o curren t

rules , thoroforo , i

t i s imprope r

fo r anon-utility sourc e t o emplo y anythin g bu t

a n actual-to-potentia l tos t

fo r examinin g physical o

r operational changes

.P. 5

Bgiste/Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s

e.g. , comment s IV-D-11 2 an d-121

. I n addition , commenter s note dtha t othe r industr y sector s routinel y projec t marke t deman dand , consequently , capacit y utilization , an dthes e commenter s argue dtha t suc h prediction s ar e a s reliabl e a s thos e • submitte dt o PUC s b y electri c companies

. See , e.g. , commen t IV—D — 146

. Take n together , thes e comment s sugges t t o EP A tha t

th e actual-to-future

actua l tes t

shoul db e expande dbeyon d utilit y units

. However , th e Agenc y als o receive danumbe r

o f comment s tha t recommende dlimitin g th e methodolog y t o utilit y units , reasonin g tha t ther e stil l exist s adisparit y betwee n utilit y an d non-utilit y unit s i n term s o f thei r abilit y t o predic t

an dtrac k

thei r futur e

. emission s accurately

. See , e.g. , comment s IV-D-10 9 an d-125

. Give n thes e divergen t

views , EP A agai n request s commen t

upo n th e adequac y o f existin g emissio n projectio n an d trackin g capabilitie s a t non-utilit y industria l source s fo r

purpose s o f applyin g th e actual-to-future-actua l test

. Notwithstandin g stron g suppor t fro m industr y fo r

th e expansio n o f

th e actual

to-future-actua l test , EP A believe s tha t it s experienc e wit hth e methodolog y give s caus e fo r

cautio n i n continuin g thi s tes t in its present

form. Th e regulation s provid e tha t source s wit h utilit y unit s employin g th e actual-to

future-actua l approac hmus t maintai n an dsubmi t

t o th e permittin g authorit y "informatio n demonstratin g tha t th e physica l o r

operationa l chang e di dno t resul t i n a n emission s increase " fo r a5

- yea r period

. However , th e rule s d o no t specificall y detai l eithe r th e mean s fo r conductin g suc hverificatio n o r th e consequence s o f

asource' s failur e t o mee t it s projecte demission s level

. Fo r example , sinc e th e issuanc e o f th e WEPC O rule , i t

appear s tha t

although " ther e ar e asubstantia l numbe r o f change s t o existin g units , a s wel l a s a n increas e i n th e amoun t o f electricit y bein g generate dfo r

us e outsid e o f

th e loca l servic e district , change s t o utilit y unit s a s wel l a s post-chang e emission s estimate s ar e no t

bein g reporte dt o permittin g agencies

. Moreover , di e Agenc y i s concerne d tha t a5-yea r overvie w o f

emission s i s to o shor t aperio dt o encompas s al l increase s i n capacit y utilizatio n tha t coul dresul t

fro maparticula r

change

. A s EP A note di n th e NS RRefor m proposal' s discussio n o f th e baselin e fo r establishin g pre-chang e actua l emissions , se e 6 1 F Ra t 38258 , numerou s industr y commenter s clai m tha t 1 0 year s i s afai r

an drepresentativ e tim e perio dfo r

encompassin g asource' s norma l busines s cycle , an di n th e Refor mproposa l EP A ha s propose dt o adop t a10-yea r

lookbac k

perio dfo r establishin g pre-chang e baselin e emissions

. I f

EP A ultimatel y promulgate s a10-yea r

perio dfor baselin e purposes , th e rational e fo r doin g s o woul dsugges t tha t 1 0 year s i s likewis e appropriat e fo r trackin g futur e actua l emission s afte r

achange

. Accordingly , th e Agenc y requeste d commen t

o n extendin g and/o r strengthenin g th e existin g 5-yea r trackin g requiremen t

fo r futur e actua l emissions

. Se e id. a t

38268

. On e particula r

circumstanc e wher e EP A ha s bee n dissatisfie dwit hth e WEPC O rul e i s i n th e exclusio n o f deman dgrowt hfromprediction s o f utilit y units ' futur e actua l emissions

. - Th e Agency' s promulgatio n o f th e WEPC O rul e represente dadepartur e fromlongstandin g practic e unde r whic h emission s increase s tha t followe dnon
routin e an dotherwis e nonexemp t change s a t

asourc e wer e presume dt o resul t fro mth e change

. A t

th e time , EP A believe dtha t

ther e wa s awa y t o disassociat e utilit y units ' post-chang e emissio n increase s whic hwoul dhav e otherwis e occurre ddu e t o deman d growt ha s apurel y independen t facto r fromthos e tha t

resulte ddirectl y fro m th e physica l o r

operationa l change

. Th e EP A ha s reconsidere dtha t departure , an dha s tentativel y conclude dtha t it s 199 2 departur e i s no t

appropriat e an d shoul dno t

b e continued , bot ha s a genera l matte r

an despeciall y i n vie w o f recen t development s i n th e electri c powe r sector

. Th e EPA' s experienc e lead s t o th e conclusio n tha t

source s generall y mak e non-routin e physica l o r operationa l • change s whic har e substantia l enoug h• tha t the y migh t

trigge r NS Ri n orde r

t o increas e reliability , lowe r operatin g costs , o r improv e operationa l characteristic s o f

th e uni t an dd o s o i n orde r tha t the y ma y improv e thei r marke t position

. A proximat e caus e fo r makin g suc hchange s ma y b e t o respon d t o increase ddemand , o r t o mor e efficientl y compet e fo r shar e o f amarke t tha t ha s flat , o r

eve n decreasing , demand

. Fo r

thes e reasons , EP A no w seriousl y question s whethe r marke t deman dshoul deve r

b e viewe da s a significan t

facto r i n answerin g th e relevan t regulator y questio n o f whethe r a n emission s increas e result s from a physica l o r

operationa l chang e a t

a n existin g source , sinc e i n amarke t economy , al l change s i n utilization — an dhence , emissions—migh t b e characterize da s arespons e t o marke t demand

. Accordingly , aconclusio n tha t a n emission s increas e a t aplan t i s i n respons e t o marke t

deman ddoe s littl e t o determin e whethe r

th e increas e result s fromachang e a t

th e plant ; a n affirmativ e answe r t o th e firs t

questio n i s consisten t

wit ha n affirmativ e answe r t o th e latter

. Th e generatio n o f

electricit y i s currentl y bein g transforme dfrom a highl y regulate dmonopol y t o a competitiv e market

. Mor e tha n adoze n state s ar e implementin g retai l electricit y competitio n wher e consumer s ma y choos e thei r

electricit y supplier , an d mos t remainin g state s hav e suc h policie s unde r

consideration

. Moreover , th e Administratio n i n Marc h199 8 propose daComprehensiv e Electricit y Competitio n Pla n i n orde r t o facilitat e mor e competitiv e electricit y market s an dsevera l similatproposal s hav e bee n introduce di n Congress

. A s m e electricit y industr y i s
' restructured , generatio n plannin g decision s wil l b e mad e no t b y stat e publi c utilit y commissions , bu t b y th e force s o f acompetitiv e market

. Stat e utilit y regulator s ar e dierefor e eliminatin g requirement s fo r electri c companie s t o repor t

generation-relate d informatio n suc ha s projection s o f futur e capacit y utilization

. Consequently , wit hrespec t t o th e electri c powe r

industr y i n particular , eve n acceptin g th e viabilit y o f di e 199 2 decisionmakin g framework, attemptin g t o discer n whethe r

increase dutilizatio n an demission s shoul db e attribute dt o
. physica l o r

operationa l change s versu s purel y independen t

demand-satisfyin g increase dcapacit y utilizatio n wil l b e muc hmor e difficul t

i n di e future , a s restructurin g i n th e electri c powe r industr y allow s electri c generatin g companie s t o compet e for retai l customers

. A s aresult , th e marketplac e wil l driv e electri c generator s t o functio n a s an y othe r

consumer-drive n industry , tha t is , t o ensur e thei r

abilit y t o suppl y th e marke t

an dcollaterall y t o increas e thei r revenues
. I n addition , a s utilitie s respon dt o acompetitiv e marke t for di e generatio n o f

electri c powe r

the y ca n n o longe r b e expecte dt o accuratel y predic t diei r leve l o f operation s an dpost

chang e emissions

. Eac hphysica l o r operationa l chang e dia t make s i t possibl e for

asourc e t o efficientl y increas e it s leve l o f

utilization , then , wil l likel y b e pursue dan dturne dint o electricit y fo r

sale

. On e ca n therefor e predic t dia t an y physica l o r

operationa l chang e wil l resul t

i n a n emission s increas e t o th e exten t

tha t ther e i s marke t deman dfo r

additiona l power
. Fo r th e sam e reaso n tha t

th e deman d growd i exclusio n woul dignor e th e realitie s o f

aderegulate delectri c powe r sector , EP A believe s tha t i t shoul dno t b e extende dt o non-utilit y units

. Fo r consumer-drive n industries , deman di s inextricabl y intertwine dwit hchange s tha t improv e asource' s abilit y t o utiliz eP. 6



### Federa l Register/Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s 3986 1
it s capacity ; thus , i t

canno t b e sai dtha t deman dgrowd i i s an "independen t factor, " separabl e from agive n physica l o r operationa l change

. Modification s whic haffect

operationa l characteristic s of auni t ar e no t mad e withou t

reason , an dth e mos t

likel y reaso n fo

r an economicall y competitiv e sourc e t o undertak e suc hchange s i s t o enabl e i t t o creat e or

respon dt o increase d demand. 5 

### I n short , ther e i s adirec t causa l lin k

betwee n mos t

physica l o r operationa l change s tha t

enabl e asourc e t o us e existin g capacity an dth e us e o f suc hcapacity

. I n addition , th e deman dgrowd i exclusio n i s problemati c becaus e i t i s self-implementin g an dself-policing

. Becaus e ther e i s n o specifi c tes t availabl e fo

r determinin g whethe r

a n emission s increas e indee dresult s from a n independen t

factor suc ha s deman d growth , versu s factor s relatin g t o th e chang e at di e unit , eac hcompan y wit h autilit y uni t

presentl y adopt s it s ow n interpretation

. Interpretation s may vary fromsourc e t o source , a s wel l a s from wha t apermittin g agenc y woul daccep t a s appropriate

. Moreover , suc h companie s ar e no t

necessaril y require d t o provid e thei r

interpretatio n o

f deman dgrowth-relate demission s t o th e permittin g agency
. Thus , wit hminimal , if any , explanation , asourc e may merel y deduc t th e emission s increase s i t believe s ar e attributabl e t o deman d growthfromth e tota l emission s dat ait s supplie s t o di e permittin g agenc y demonstratin g tha t

i t i s belo w it s projecte dfuture actuals

. Vestin g suc h unrestricte ddiscretio n i n di e regulate d entit y inevitabl y lead s t o enforcemen t problems

. Finally , th e deman dgrowt hexclusio n may make les s sens e i n th e near future i n vie w o f th e fact diat , a s propose di n th e NS RRefor

mpackage , the

. Agenc y i s considerin g adoptin g aregulatory provisio n tha t

base s th e calculatio n o

f pre-chang e actua l emission s upo n a source' s highes t

capacity utilizatio n i n di e pas t te n years
. I

f an emissio n uni t undergoe s aphysica l o

r operationa l

3 Th e EP A believe s tha

t th e rulemakin g recordfo

r NSRRefor

msupport s th e conclusio n tha t marke t deman dan dsourc e modification s ar e highl y intertwined

. Industria l commenter s generall y were strongl y supportive , fo

r instance , o

f th e concep t

o f PAL's

. Man

y industria l interest s argue dtha t PAL's , becaus e the y allo w change s a t existin g facilitie s to occur withou t NSRs o lon g a s a

n emissio n ca

p i s maintained , are neede di n order t o giv e companie s flexibilit y t o make physical or

operational change s quickl y to maintai n o

r acquire acompetitiv e advantag e i

n a n eve r changin g globa

l marketplace

. Th e Agency believe s that

thes e claim s regardin g PAL' s d o no t

support th e argument

that change s a

t facilitie s are independent

fro mmarket demand

. Rather , the y illustrat e tha

t source s frequently undertak e modification s to enabl e the mbetter to compet e i n an ope n market

. 

### change , or i s affecte db y suc hchange , an ddi e sourc e project s utilizatio n i n exces s of it s historica l hig hi n th e precedin g te n years , suc hutilizatio n i s likel y no t attributabl e t o marke t variabilit y (whic hi s accounte dfo r b y a 10-yea r baseline) , bu t

rathe r result s from th e chang e itself

. C. NSR Applicability Test for All Major Modifications 1

. I n General Th e EP A i s presentl y considering , an d b y thi s Notic e i s seekin g commen t upon , amendin g th e curren t

applicabilit y tes t fo r modification s o

f electri c steam generatin g unit s an dextendin g i t t o al l sourc e categories

. Specifically , th e major modificatio n applicabilit y methodolog y woul db e t o retai n di e actual-to-future-actua l componen t fo r utilit y unit s an dappl y i t

t o al l sourc e categories , t o make enforceabl e fo r a10

- year perio demission s level s use db y th e sourc e i n projectin g future actua l emission s fo

r al l sourc e categories , an d eliminat e th e deman dgrowthexclusio n fo r al l sourc e categories

. Th e way tha t

th e methodolog y woul d wor k i n practic e i s tha t

owner s o r operator s of

unit s whic hunderg o anon
routin e physica l or

operationa l chang e wil l determin e th e applicabilit y o f NS R solel y b y referenc e t o actua l emissions

. First , owner s or

operator s mus t determin e whic hemission s unit s ar e bein g change do r

may b e affecte db y th e change , the n calculat e eac hunit' s baselin e actua l emission s (EP A ha s propose dat

6 1 F R38258-6 0 t o allo w source s generall y t o se t

thei r baselin e i n relianc e o n di e highes t

emission s i n th e pas t te n year s adjuste dt o reflec t curren t emissio n factors)

. Second , post-chang e actua l emission s fromth e affecte dunit s mus t b e forecast

. Th e su mo

f th e pre
chang e actua l emission s i s the n compare dt o th e su mo

f th e post-chang e actua l emissions

. I

f th e differenc e betwee n thes e tw o figures exceed s th e significanc e threshol dfo

r apollutant , major NS Ri s triggere d(unles s th e sourc e i s otherwis e abl e t o ne t th e chang e ou t

o f review). 6 

### I

f th e differenc e i s les s tha n significant , th e sourc e avoid s major

NSR

. In di e latte r

case , fo r eac huni t tha t i s change dor

affecte db y th e change , th e sourc e mus t incorporat e tha t unit' s future emission s projectio n int o atemporary , practicall y an dlegall y enforceabl e conditio n o

f a preconstructio n permi t

(mos t likel y a mino r

NS Rpermit)

. Th e limi t

mus t appl y fo r a t leas t 1 0 year s afte

r th e sourc e recommence s norma l operatio n o f th e affectedunit. 7 

### EP

A believe s that asourc e woul dno t

purposefully modif

y auni t an dthe n no t

us e i t at it s intende d capacit y fo

r 1 0 year s merel y t o avoi d major NS Rpermitting

. Therefore , EP A believe s 1 0 year s represent s arealisti c perio dfo r applyin g an enforceabl e temporary emissio n limit

. B y adherin g ' t o suc halimit , th e sourc e demonstrate s t o th e permittin g authorit y tha t th e physica l or

operationa l chang e di dno t resul t i n asignifican t

emissio n increase

. Consequently , subsequen t t o th e expiratio n o

f th e limit , EP

A will presum e tha t

any increase s i n capacity utilizatio n an demission s ar e no t th e resul t o f th e physica l o r

operationa l chang e tha t

necessitate dth e temporary limit. 8 

### Finally , sourc e owner s or operator s ma

y no t exclud e predicte d capacit y utilizatio n increase s du e t o deman dgrowd i fromthei r prediction s o f future emissions

. Underlying thi s ne w approac hi s a n attemp t t o mitigat e th e concern s raise d b y industr y that

th e actual-to-potentia l methodolog y unfairl y ignore s pas t operatio n o

f auni t an dassume s tha t

i t wil l operat e at

full capacit y followin g a non-routin e change

. At

th e sam e time , th e methodolog y addresse s environmenta l groups ' legitimat e claim s tha t source s wh o seek

t o avoi drevie w base do n projecte dactua l emission s mus t als o b e prepare dt o b e accountabl e fo r adherin g t o dios e projections

. Finally , th e tes t

recognize s tha t

i n a marke t economy , source s often make physica l or

operationa l change s i n orde r t o respon dt o marke t

force s and , consequently , ther e i s n o plausibl e distinctio n betwee n emission s increase s du e solel y t o deman dgrowtha s a n independen t

factor an dthos e change s at asourc e tha t

respon dto , or

creat e new , deman dgrowt

hwhic hdie n resul t

i n increase dcapacity utilization

. Thi s temporary emission s cap approac hals o addres s certai n complianc e assuranc e an denforcemen t concerns
. Specifically , unde r th e curren t regulations , acompan y nee dno t discus s it s determinatio n tha t projecte d future emission s fro

mautilit y uni t

wil l b e belo w acertai n leve l wit ha permittin g agenc y prio r

t o undertakin g

'Althoug hth e sourc e ma

y stil l avoi dmajo

r NSR b y nettin g out

o f review , th e actual-to-enforceable

future-actual tes t

woul dno t

appl y i n calculatin g th e increas e fro

mth e propose dchang e o

r an y othe r emission s level fo

r us e i n th e nettin g analysis

. Pos t chang e emission s fo

r nettin g purpose s woul d continu e to equa

l potentia l emissions

. 7 Unit s tha t hav e atemporar

y limi t ma y subsequentl y underg o o

r b e affectedb

y a modification

. I

n suc hcase s ane w temporary limi t o f a t leas t 1 0 year s wil l nee dto b e established

. "Thi s limi t

i s solely fo

r th e purpos e o

f demonstratin g tha

t th e physical chang o or

chang e i n th e metho do

f operatio n di dno t

resul t i n a significant emissio n increase

. Th e impositio n or expiratio n o

f this limit doe s no t reliov e th o sourc e o f it s obligatio n t

o compl y withal l requiromont s otherwis e applicabl e to th e unit

.P. 7

2 Federa l Register/Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s
th e modification

. Rather , i t merel y need s t o suppl y "information " demonstratin g tha t

th e futur e actua l emission s di dno t

excee dth e 

### significanc e level fo

r th e 5-yea r perio d followin g th e modification

. Thus , a permittin g agenc y i s unabl e t o determin e i f

th e chang e wil l resul t

i n a n emission s increas e an drequir e amajo r NS Rpermi t

befor e constructio n a t th e utilit y unit ; i t

ca n onl y examin e dat a submitte dafter-the-fac t b y th e source
. Th e NS Rprogram , however , i s apre
constructio n progra mtha t require s a n applicabilit y determinatio n prio r t o commencin g constructio n t o avoi d equity-in-the-groun dissue s an d retroactiv e contro l technolog y costs

. 2

. Limitation s o n Methodolog y an d Solicitatio n o f

Comment s I t i s importan t

t o recogniz e th e •limite dnatur e o f

th e propose d methodology

. Th e actual-to-enforceable

future-actua l tes t

woul dno t

appl y whe n determinin g a n emissio n leve l (i.e. , increas e o r

decrease ) for

us e i n anettin g analysi s o r

fo r th e purpos e o f

complyin g wit han y majo r

NS Rpermittin g requirement , suc ha s BACT , LAER , offset s o r

a n ambien t

ai r impac t analysis

. Specifically , th e tes t woul d appl y onl y t o modification s t o existin g unit s fo r th e sol e purpos e o f determinin g i f

apropose dchang e t o tha t unit , o r achang e a t

th e facilit y whic h otherwis e woul daffec t th e unit , wil l resul t i n a n emission s increas e a t th e source
. Ne w unit s hav e n o operatin g histor y upo n whic hareliabl e predictio n o f futur e utilizatio n ca n b e made

. Thus , unde r th e regulations , suc hunit s hav e no t "begu n norma l operations, " an d permittin g authoritie s mus t asses s NS R applicabilit y base do n di e ne w unit' s potentia l emissions

. I n addition , th e Agenc y seek s commen t o n th e appropriatenes s o f

applyin g a n actual

to-enforceable-future-actua l tes t wher e a physica l o r

operationa l chang e increase s th e desig n capacit y o r

PT Eo f agive n unit

. Suc hchange s resul t i n alternativ e mode s o f

operatio n (an demission s levels ) whic har e no t

currentl y achievabl e i n practic e fo r di e unit

. I n suc hcircumstances , di e unit' s pas t utilizatio n arguabl y i s apoo r prox y fo r it s futur e operatio n and , therefore , "norma l operations " ar e impossibl e t o identify

. Furthermore , emission s level s whic hca n no t

b e achieve di n practic e bu t fo r aphysica l o r

operatio n chang e ar e clearl y connecte dt o th e change

. Consequently , th e Agenc y i s seekin g commen t

o n whethe r

an y increas e i n emission s resultin g fro mamod e o f operatio n whic hcoul donl y hav e bee n achieve dthroug haphysica l o r operationa l chang e mus t b e presume dt o hav e resulte dfromth e change , eve n i f

suc hincreas e wer e t o occu r late r tha n te n year s afte r

th e change

. IV

. A. Background 1

. Introductio n I n th e Jul y 23,199 6 Refor mpackage , EP A propose dane w metho dfo r determinin g majo r

NS Rapplicabilit y fo r existin g source s i n attainmen t o r unclassifiabl e area s an dexistin g an d propose dsource s i n nonattainmen t areas
. Unde r

thi s proposal , a n existin g majo r source , i f

th e State' s SI P provides , ma y appl y fo r

apermi t whic hbase s th e source' s majo r

NS Rapplicabilit y o n a pollutant-specifi c plantwid e emission s cap , terme daPAL

. Th e EP A propose d tha t afacility' s allowabl e emission s unde r aPA Lwoul dgenerall y b e base d o n plantwid e "actua l emissions" , a s tha t ter mwoul db e define dunde r th e proposal , plu s a n additiona l amoun t o f emission s les s tha n th e applicabl e significan t

emission s rate

. Th e voluntar y 9 source-specifi c PA Li s a straightforward , flexibl e approac ht o determinin g whethe r

change s a t

existin g majo r stationar y source s resul t i n emission s increase s whic htrigge r majo r NSR

. S o lon g a s sourc e activitie s d o no t resul t i n emission s abov e th e ca p level , th e sourc e wil l no t

b e subjec t

t o majo r NSR

. I t als o contain s propose d regulator y languag e fo r PAL' s fo r

th e PS D rule s a t

4 0 CF R51.16 6 an d52.21 , an dth e nonattainmen t

NS Rrule s a t 51.165

. Th e Jul y 23,199 6 proposa l contain s athoroug hdiscussio n o f th e propose dPA Lconcep t an dth e backgroun dinformatio n use dt o develo p th e proposal

. B. PAL Advantages Th e EP A ha s determine dtha t th e voluntar y source-specifi c PA Li s a practica l medio dt o provid e bot h flexibilit y an dregulator y certaint y t o man y existin g sources , a s wel l a s benefit s t o permittin g authorities , whil e maintainin g ai r

quality

. Fo r

example , PAL' s provid e th e abilit y t o mak e timel y change s t o reac t

t o marke t

demand , certaint y regardin g th e leve l o f emission s a t

whic hastationar y sourc e wil l b e require dt o underg o majo r NSR , an dadecrease dpermittin g burde n fo r th e sourc e an dth e permittin g authority

. I n addition , becaus e asourc e wit ha PA Lwil l hav e mor e flexibilit y t o mak e reduction s t o creat e roo mfo r growth , PAL' s shoul dlea dt o innovativ e contro l technologies , pollutio n preventio n an d emission s reduction s concurren t wit h economi c expansion

. C

. PAL Adjustment

Issues Th e EP A propose dtha t PAL's , onc e include di n a.permit , ma y b e adjuste d fo r anumbe r

o f reasons
. I n particular , th e Agenc y solicite d"commen t o n why , how , an dwhe n aPA Lshoul db e lowere do r

increase dwithou t

bein g subjec t t o majo r NSR. " 6 1 F Ra t

38266

. Moreover , th e rul e languag e permittin g PAL' s provide s fo r

periodi c adjustmen t t o reflect , amon g othe r

things , "appropriat e considerations. " Se e id. a t 38327

. Th e hee dfo r

adjustment s woul daris e i n anumbe r

o f scenarios : (1 ) Wher e technica l error s hav e bee n made ; (2 ) whe n ne w requirement s appl y t o th e PA Lpollutant , suc ha s RACT , NSP S o r SIP-require dreductions; 1 0 (3 ) wher e emission s reduction s belo w PA Llevel s ar e use dfo r

offsets ; (4 ) fo r

permanen t shutdown s wher e th e Stat e ha s th e authorit y t o remov e permanen t shutdown s fromth e emission s inventor y afte r

acertai n tim e period ; an d(5 ) whe n an y change s (thoug h consisten t

wit hth e PAL ) migh t

caus e o r contribut e t o aviolatio n o f an y NAAQ S o r PS D incremen t

o r woul dhav e a n advers e impac t

o n ai r qualit y relate d values

. Th e EP A receive dman y comment s regardin g th e appropriat e consideration s fo r PA Ladjustment

. Base do n thes e comment s an dfurthe r

deliberation , EP A i s considerin g whethe r i t i s appropriat e t o reevaluat e PA Llevel s an dadjus t the mt o reflec t

actua l emission s t o addres s lega l concern s associate dwit h th e Court' s decisio n i n Alabama Power Co. v Costle, 63 6 F.2 d32 3 (D.C

. Cir

. 1979 ) an dbecaus e o f

environmenta l polic y reasons
. 1

. Lega l Concern s A s stated , wher e afacilit y wit haPA L add s ane w emittin g uni t o r modifie s a n

'Thi s Notic e use s th e ter

m"voluntary " t o mean no t require db y th e regulation s or aSIP , rathe r

tha n no t enforceabl e by aState , local , o r Federal agenc y or th e public

. '"I n th e July 199 6 NSRRefor mpackage , EP

A propose dthat

emission s reduction s o

f HA P to mee t MAC T a t emission s unit s unde r

aPA Lwoul d generall y no t

necessitat e adownwardadjustmen t t o th e PA Lbecaus e th e PA

Li s no t designe dt o limi t HAP

. However , i

f MAC T reduction s are relie don i n th e ST P (e.g. , VO

C reduction s i n nonattainmen t area s use dfo

r RF P or attainmen t

demonstrations ) the n th e PA

Lrule s woul drequire adjustmen t downward

. Thi s positio n i s consisten t wit hEPA' s polic y that

emission s reduction s fro

mmeetin g MAC T requirement s ar

e generall y no t

preclude d frombein g creditabl e fo

r NSRnettin g provide dth e reduction s are otherwis e creditabl e unde r majo r NSR

. Th e EP

A i s concerne dtha

t th e benefit s o

f HA P reduction s t o meet

MAC T a t unit s unde r

th e PA Lma y b e diminishe dsinc e th e HA Preductio n ma y b e use dindefinitely , rathe r than fo r ashorte r contemporaneou s tim e period , t o ad dne w o r modifie dunit s unde r

th e PAL

. Therefore , EP

A i s seekin g additiona l comment o n th e proposal to no t adjus t PAL' s fo r MAC T purposes
.P. 8

Federa l Register /Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s 3986 3

existin g unit , th e uni t

woul dno t underg o majo r

NS R(nonattainmen t

o r PSD ) i f th e PA Li s no t

exceeded

. Tha t is , i f th e sourc e generate s sufficien t emissio n reductions , i t ma y ad d equivalen t

emissio n increase s u p t o th e PA Lleve l withou t

triggerin g NSR

. Unde r presen t regulations , asourc e tha t add s o r modifie s auni t

tha t woul d resul t i n asignifican t

emission s increas e ma y "net " tha t

particula r

chang e ou t

o f revie w i f th e ne w emissio n increas e plu s th e su mo f

al l othe r contemporaneou s increase s an d decrease s elsewher e a t

th e sourc e ar e les s tha n significant

. Whe n th e nettin g calculu s i s triggere d(tha t is , ther e i s a significan t

emissio n increas e a s aresul t o f th e additio n o f

ane w uni t

o r th e modificatio n o f

a n existin g unit) , th e sourc e mus t

als o conside r

thos e emissio n increase s an ddecrease s tha t hav e occurre da t

di e facilit y durin g a "contemporaneous " period

. I n th e federa l PS D regulations , thi s perio di s 5 years
. Se e 4 0 CFRsectio n 52.21(b)(3)(ii)

. State s implementin g th e PS D progra m o r th e nonattainmen t

progra munde r

a n EPA-approve dSI P ma y defin e a differen t reasonabl e contemporaneou s period

. Th e curren t

regulations ' requiremen t o f contemporaneit y derive s fromth e interpretatio n o f

th e Act' s provision s governin g modification s se t fort hi n Alabama Power

Co. v
. Costle. I n tha t case , th e cour t

hel dtha t

EPA' s 197 8 regulation s limitin g nettin g t o ales s tha n plantwid e scop e conflicte dwit h th e languag e an dpurpos e o f th e Ac t an d rule dtha t

EP A mus t

permi t source s t o ne t o n aplantwid e basis

. Accordin g t o th e court , plantwid e nettin g wa s implici t i n th e statutor y ter m "modification " an dth e purpose s o f th e Act

. A t th e sam e tim e tha t

i t require d EP A t o expan dth e scop e o f th e nettin g concept , th e cour t

als o interprete dth e statut e a s imposin g alimi t o n plantwid e netting : contemporaneity

. Th e cour t stated , "[t]h e Agenc y retain s substantia l discretio n i n applyin g th e bubbl e concept

. First , an y offse t change s claime db y industr y mus t b e substantiall y contemporaneous

. Th e Agenc y ha s discretion , withi n reason , t o defin e whic hchange s ar e substantiall y contemporaneous. " Id. a t 402 ; se e als o id. a t 40 3 ("Wher e ther e i s n o ne t increas e fro mcontemporaneou s change s withi n asource , w e hol dtha t PS D review , whethe r

procedura l o r substantive , canno t

apply.")

. Thereafter , EP A codifie dcontemporaneit y a s a regulator y requirement

. See 4 5 F R 52676 , 52700-0 2 (Augus t 7 , 1980)

. A s stated , EP A solicite dcommen t o n wha t "appropriat e considerations " • migh t necessitat e revision s t o th e PA L allowabl e level

. Havin g agai n reviewe d Alabama Power

an dth e Agency' s subsequen t

interpretation s o f

th e case , th e Agenc y i s concerne dthat , becaus e PAL' s ma y b e characterize da s afor mo f nettin g an dresul t

i n th e avoidanc e o f majo r NSR , th e contemporaneit y requiremen t

fo r nettin g se t

fort hi n Alabama Power

ma y als o nee dt o b e applie dt o PAL's

. Therefore , EP A i s solicitin g commen t

o n whethe r

an d whe n t o provid e for

subsequen t adjustmen t

of PAL' s t o addres s contemporaneit y issue s associate dwit h Alabama Power. 2. Environmenta l Concern s Severa l commenter s encourage dth e Agenc y t o provid e fo r

periodi c revisio n t o th e PA Lallowabl e leve l t o reflec t a source' s actua l emission s i n recen t years ; I n th e main , thes e commenter s represente dStat e pollutio n contro l agencies , th e entitie s whic hwil l b e charge dwit himplementin g individua l PAL's

. See , e.g. , comment s IV-D-5 2 an d -137

. Base do n thes e comment s an d interna l deliberations , th e Agenc y i s considerin g severa l option s tha t woul d provid e fo r

periodi c reevaluatio n o f PA L level s t o ensur e tha t

the y reflec t

actua l emission s an dmaintai n o r enhanc e environmenta l protection

. Unde r th e curren t

majo r NS R regulations , emission s decrease s ar e creditabl e onl y i f

the y ar e contemporaneou s wit haprospectiv e modificatio n projec t

tha t would , standin g alone , increas e emission s a t th e source
. Th e EP A i s solicitin g commen t o n whethe r

th e PA L alternativ e t o traditiona l majo r NS R applicabilit y ca n achiev e equivalen t o r bette r environmenta l results , whil e employin g adifferen t

approach

. Th e EP A believe s tha t

ther e ar e a numbe r o f polic y reason s wh y th e fina l PA Lrule s migh t

provid e fo r

periodi c reassessmen t

an dadjustmen t

o f PA L levels

. First , a s agenera l matter , aPA L operate s a s afor mo f

allowable-to

allowabl e test , insofa r

a s asourc e ma y avoi dmajo r

NS Rrevie w i f

it s emission s afte r aparticula r

constructio n activit y d o no t excee dth e pre-chang e allowables

. O f

course , unde r

di e propose drule s PAL' s woul densur e tha t th e allowabl e emission s ar e base do n histori c actua l emissions

. Nevertheless , a s a n allowable-to-allowabl e scheme , PAL' s rais e som e o f

di e sam e concern s a s di dth e CM A Exhibi t B tes t discusse d i n th e NS RRefor mpreamble

. Specifically , absen t

arequiremen t

fo r periodi c adjustmen t

th e PA Lwoul d allo w asourc e t o indefinitel y keep , radie r tha n eventuall y forfei t t o di e environment , emissio n reduction s a t th e source , suc ha s thos e achieve db y th e replacemen t o f existing , an dofte n higher-polluting , equipmen t wit hmor e efficient , an dthu s lower-polluting , equipment

. Second , arul e whic hprovide s for th e periodi c revie w o f

PAL' s ma y ensur e tha t individua l source s d o no t indefinitel y retai n unuse demission s credit s t o th e detrimen t o f othe r source s i n th e are awishin g t o us e them

. Fo r example , wher e aStat e treat s sources ' PA Lallowabl e level s a s "actual " emissions , arul e whic hi n som e instance s require s adownwar d adjustmen t

of PAL' s wil l therefor e reduc e th e area' s inventor y o f actua l emissions

. Suc hadjustment s woul d "fre e up " aportio n o f

th e PS D increment s i n attainmen t area s fo r

us e b y othe r source s i n th e area
. Third , a n indefinit e PA Lma y hinde r aState' s abilit y t o pla n effectivel y fo r attainment

. If

aStat e doe s it s attainmen t plannin g base dexclusivel y o n source' s actua l emission s t o th e atmosphere , an d doe s no t trea t aPA Lallowabl e limi t a s th e PA Lsource' s "actual " emissions , the n a n emissio n credi t create dlon g i n th e pas t ma y reappea r

i n th e futur e a s rea l emission s t o th e air , withou t bein g par t o f th e State' s attainmen t

planning

. Fo r example , i f

aPAL-covere dsourc e replace s a n oi l boile r

toda y wit hamor e moder n an defficien t

ga s turbin e an dth e State , i n it s nex t

inventory , calculate s th e source' s emission s a t th e ne w lowe r level , the n base s it s attainmen t plannin g o n th e assumptio n tha t di e sourc e wil l continu e t o emi t

a t th e lowe r

level , th e Stat e ma y no t

mee t it s attainmen t

goal s (or , perhaps , fal l ou t

o f attainment ) i f th e PA Lsourc e decide s t o utiliz e it s ful l PA Lallowabl e a t

som e poin t

inth e future

. V . PA L Revie w an d Adjustmen tOption s Th e EP A i s seekin g commen t o n ho w th e PA Lconcep t

ca n b e reconcile dwit h th e lega l an denvironmenta l polic y concern s articulate dabove

. Specifically , th e Agenc y solicit s inpu t o n th e usefulnes s o f

anumbe r

o f differen t option s fo r

periodicall y reviewin g PA L allowabl e level s an do n whethe r suc h option s adequatel y addres s th e lega l issue s associate dwid i Alabama Power an denvironmenta l concern s pose db y th e long-ter mretentio n o f unuse d allowabl e emissions

. I t shoul db e note dtha t

EP A ha s no t mad e afina l decisio n o n th e frequenc y o f apermittin g authority' s revie w o f a PA Lo r th e methodolog y use dt o establis haPA Lbaseline

. Th e Agenc y i s givin g seriou s though t

t o 1 0 year s a s a n approach

. Therefore , th e option s discusse di n thi s Notic e assum e aPA L wit hater mof

1 0 year s wit hth e PA L baselin e establishe dusin g th e highes t 1P. 9



### 3986 4 Federa l Register /Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s
year i n th e las t

te n year s o

f historica l emission s fo

r th e source
. Th e Agenc y solicit s commen t

o n th e appropriatenes s of reviewin g PA

Llevel s every 1 0 year s an dwhethe r

anothe r perio di s mor e reasonable

. Th e EP A i s considerin g severa l option s t o periodicall y revisi t th e appropriat e PA

Lemissio n level

. First , permittin g authoritie s ma y adjus t th e PA Lt o accoun t

fo r emission s reduction s fro mpermitte dunit s unde r

th e PA Ltha t ar e shutdow n or

dismantle dan dth e associate demissio n reduction s remai n unuse dfo r aperio dof

at leas t 1 0 years
. Second , th e PA

Lmay b e reevaluate dt o accoun t fo r emission s reduction s wher e a n emission s uni t

unde r th e PA L operate dfo

r at leas t 1 0 year s belo w th e capacit y leve l fo

r tha t uni t whic hwa s use dt o establis hdi e previou s PA L level

. Third , th e Agenc y i s considerin g an optio n tha t

woul drequir e PAL' s t o expir e afte

r 1 0 year s or

b e renewe dt o reflec t curren t actua l emissions

. Finally , EP A i s solicitin g commen t

o n whethe r i t i s appropriat e t o adjus t

aPA L downwar dat

al l wher e al l of

th e emissio n unit s subjec t

t o th e PA

Lhav e goo dcontrol s alread y i n plac e (i.e. , BACT , LAER

) o r wher e asourc e voluntaril y implemente dpollutio n preventio n strategie s whic hresulte di n emission s reductions

. Th e followin g discussio n set s fort

hadditiona l informatio n o n eac ho

f th e PA L adjustmen t

options

. A. PAL Adjustments for

Shutdown or Dismantled

Units Th e first situatio n i n whic ha * downwar dPA

Ladjustmen t

migh t b e warrante di s wher e emissio n reduction s resulte dfromemissio n unit s unde r th e PA Lma t wer e shutdow n or

dismantled

. A shutdow n uni t

woul db e on e lha t

th e sourc e di dno t

operat e at

al l durin g th e 10-yea r lif e o f th e existin g PAL

. A dismantle duni t

woul db e on e tha t

wa s remove dprio r

t o th e establishmen t

o f th e curren t

PA Lleve l an dth e emission s capacit y associate dwit hsuc huni t wa s no t use db y th e sourc e fo

r te n years
. Thus , di e PA

Lleve l woul db e adjuste d t o remov e onl y thos e emission s dia t coul dhav e potentiall y bee n emitte d froman y shutdow n or

dismantle dunits

. Th e PA Lwoul dno t

b e adjuste d downwar dif

th e sourc e ha dutilize d thos e emissio n reduction s fromdi e shutdow n or

dismantle dunit s elsewher e a t

th e sourc e (e.g. , adde dne w unit s o r capacit y or

increase dcapacity utilizatio n a

t existin g units ) durin g th e perio dsinc e th e uni t

shu t dow n or wa s removed

. Nor

woul dth e PA

Lb e adjuste ddownwar ddu e t o underutilizatio n o

f an y unit s stil l i n operatio n t o an y exten t

unde r th e PAL

. Fo r

example , a n initia l PA

Lse t i n th e year 200 0 include s 60 0 tp y o

f VO C from uni t A ; uni t A i s shutdow n i n 2005

. Periodi c revie w occur s i n 2010

. I n 2010 , becaus e uni t

A wa s use ddurin g th e te n year s prio r

t o readjustment , th e adjuste d PA Lleve l woul dassum e tha t uni t A wa s stil l operating. I

f b y 2020 , th e nex t periodi c review , th e 60 0 tp y o f emission s associate dwit hth e shutdow n wa s no t use db y th e sourc e t o make changes , di e PA

Lleve l woul db e adjuste ddownwar db y 60 0 tpy

. However , if

betwee n 201 0 an d202 0 th e sourc e use daportio n of

th e shutdow n emission s t o ad dne w unit s o r make modification s unde r

th e PAL , the n th e PA Lwoul db e adjuste ddownwar donl y fo r th e emission s lha t

remai n unused

. Th e EP A believe s tha t

th e periodi c downwar dadjustmen t

o f PAL' s fo r th e failur e t o us e emission s associate dwid i shutdow n or

dismantle dunit s i s appropriat e fo

r ai r qualit y plannin g purposes
. However , EP

A i s concerne d tha t i t may b e difficul t

t o determin e whethe r an emission s increas e unde r th e PA Lrelie dupo n previou s decrease s at ashutdow n or

dismantle duni t

a s oppose dt o othe r

activitie s at

th e source
. Th e Agenc y solicit s commen t o n whethe r limitin g th e PA

Ladjustmen t

t o di e situatio n o

f shutdow n or

dismantle d unit s addresse s di e legal an dpolic y concern s raise dabov e an dwelcome s comment s an dsuggestion s o n ho w t o implemen t

a n adjustmen t

optio n tha t woul dadjus t

downwar donl y fo

r thos e emission s fromshutdow n or dismantle d unit s whic hth e sourc e faile dt o utiliz e fo r 1 0 years
. B. PAL Adjustments for

Unused Capacity Th e EP A i s als o considerin g periodi c adjustment s t o aPA

Lwher e th e emission s unit s unde r

th e PA Loperat e fo r aperio do

f te n year s belo w th e capacity use dinitiall y t o establis hth e PAL

. Th e adjustmen t

woul db e base do n arevie w o

f th e utilizatio n o

f al l emissio n unit s use dt o establis hth e PA L baseline , no t

jus t thos e tha t

wer e shutdow n o r

dismantled

. Unde r

thi s option , an di n th e exampl e below , PA L adjustmen t

woul db e base do n th e highes t capacity utilizatio n o

f eac huni t durin g an y 1 2 mont hperio di n th e pas t 1 0 years
. Alternatively , EP A als o solicit s commen t o n whethe r

th e PA L adjustmen t

shoul db e base do n th e highes t capacity utilizatio n at

th e entir e sourc e durin g asingl e 12-mont hperio d withi n th e pas t

1 0 years
. Th e followin g exampl e illustrate s ho w a n initia l revie w o

f th e PA Lan d subsequen t

adjustment s t o th e PA

L coul db e handle dunde r

dii s option

. A s a n example , uni t

A ha doperate dat

8 0 percen t

durin g a12-mond i perio di n th e te n year s prio r

t o initia l PA

L establishmen t

i n 2000

. I n 2005 , di e sourc e lower s uni t

A' s utilizatio n from 8 0 percen t

t o 5 percent

. A

t PA Lrevie w i n 2010 , becaus e uni t

A' s utilizatio n i n th e pas t te n year s (e.g. , 2004 ) ha d reache d8 0 percent , th e adjuste dPA L leve l woul dassum e acapacit y utilizatio n n o lowe r

tha n 8 0 percent

. Unde r th e alternativ e t o thi s optio n th e PA Ladjustmen t

woul db e base do n th e highes t capacit y fo

r al l unit s a

t th e sourc e durin g asingl e 12-mont hperio d withi n th e pas t

1 0 years
. I

f year 200 5 i s chose n a s th e singl e 12-mont hperio d fo r capacit y revie w Ihe n th e adjuste d PA Lleve l fo r uni t A woul dassum e a capacit y utilizatio n o

f 5 percent

. Wher e PAL' s ar e adjuste dbecaus e of long-termunderutilizatio n o f capacity , EP A i s als o considerin g an dseekin g comment s o n th e followin g alternative s an dsafeguard s t o ensur e tha t a n operatin g cushio n exists : (1 ) Includin g i n th e adjuste dPA

Lleve l an operatin g cushio n tha t

equal s afixedpercentag e (e.g. , 1 0 percent , 1 5 percent , or 20 percent ) o

f th e curren t

PAL , provide d th e adjuste dPA

Lleve l doe s no t

excee d th e curren t

PA Llevel ; (2

) requirin g n o PA Ladjustmen t

du e t o underutilizatio n of capacit y if

th e emission s unde r

th e PA Lar e withi n afixedpercentag e (e.g. , 1 0 percent , 1 5 percen t

or 2 0 percent ) o

f th e curren t

PA Lbaseline ; (3 ) adjustin g th e PA Ldownwar dfo

r unuse dcapacity , bu t limi t th e potentia l downwar dPA L adjustmen t

t o afixe dpercentag e (e.g. , 1 0 percent ) o

f th e curren t

PA Llevel ; an d(4) re-settin g th e PA

La s thoug hi t wer e bein g se t

initiall y (e.g. , plantwid e actua l emission s plu s a n operatin g margi n lowe r

ma n th e applicabl e significanc e threshold)

. Th e Agenc y seek s commen t

o n whethe r

thes e safeguards , i

f include di n th e final regulations , woul dbothpreserv e sources ' operationa l flexibility an d addres s th e specifi c lega

l an dpolic y concern s raise dabove

. C. Capacity Adjustments for PAL Expiration and

Renewal Th e EP A i s seekin g commen t

o n a n optio n wher e th e PA

Lexpire s a s amajor NS Rapplicabilit y tes t

fo r subsequen t ne w unit s o

r subsequen t

modification s unles s di e sourc e decide s t o rene w th e PAL

. Unde r

thi s option , aPA

Lwoul d expir e afte

r te n years
. Whe n i t

expires , th e PA Lcease s t o serv e a s th e emission s baselin e agains t

whic hal l sourc e addition s an dmodification s are measure dfo

r purpose s o

f major NS R applicability

. Instead , asourc e mus t revert t o th e traditiona l nettin g analysi s t o determin e major

NS Rapplicabilit y fo r ne w o r modifie dunits

.P.1 0



### Federa l Register /Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s 3986 5
At th e tim e o

f PA Lexpiration , di e sourc e woul dchoos e eithe r t o re
establis hm e PA

Lfo r th e entir e facilit

y afte r th e expiratio n o

f th e initia l 10-yea

r termor t o allo w i t

t o expire

. Th e sourc e coul dals o re-establish' aPA Lat som e late r date

. I f di e renewa l optio n i s chose n b y di e source , th e PA Lbaselin e woul db e adjuste dt o reflec t actua l operatin g condition s an demission s fo r th e 1 0 year s prio r

t o renewal , consisten t wit hth e procedure s fo

r settin g aPAL

. I f th e sourc e elect s no t

t o rene w th e PAL , the n subsequen t

ne w unit s an d subsequen t

modification s ar e subjec t t o m e traditiona l nettin g analysi s t o determin e major

NS Rapplicabilit y fo

r thos e units

. I n addition , wher e th e sourc e elect s no t

t o rene w th e PA

Lfo r major NS Rapplicabilit y purposes , th e former PA Lallowabl e limi t

woul dstil l remai n i n effec

t a s an enforceabl e limi t o n tota l allowabl e emission s fo r thos e unit s previousl y covere dunde r th e PAL , notwithstandin g it s expiratio n a s a n applicabilit y test

. Th e unit s previousl y subjec t t o th e PA Lwoul dremai n free t o increas e emission s ii p t o th e former allowabl e PA Llevel , provide dth e increas e i s no t th e resul t o f aphysica l o r

operationa l chang e at th e source
. Th e sourc e retain s th e optio n to : (1 ) Reestablis ha n expire d PA Lt o avoi dmajor

NS Rfo r an y subsequen t

physica l or

operationa l chang e at th e sourc e tha t

i s consisten t wid i th e reestablishe dPA Llevel , or

(2) no t t o reestablishdi e PA

Lfo r th e facility an dproces s an y ne w uni t a s a modificatio n unde r

th e traditiona l major NS Rapplicabilit y criteri at o determin e if asignifican t

ne t emission s increas e wil l result

. In th e latte r

case , emission s increase s an ddecrease s whic hhav e occurre ddurin g th e termof th e PA La s an applicabilit y trigger

woul dno t

coun t fo r nettin g purposes
. A s a n example , assum e tha t i n Ih e year 200 0 asourc e wit hfive unit s establishe s aPA

Lo f 100 0 tp y o

f pollutan t X basedo n actua l operation s an demission s fromth e prio r 1 0 years
. Durin g th e perio dfrom2000-201 0 th e sourc e modifie s thre e existin g unit s an d construct s tw o ne w unit s (Unit s 6 an d 7) , bu t widii n thos e 1 0 year s operate s th e facility s o a s onl y t o emi t 70 0 ton s o f X pe r year
. I n 2010 , th e PA

L(a s a n alternativ e applicabilit y tes t fo r major NSR ) mus t expire

. I f th e sourc e choose s t o re-establis hth e PAL , basedo n th e las t 1 0 year s o f actua l operatin g dat ath e PA Lbaselin e woul db e adjuste d downwar dt o reflec t

th e 70 0 tp y level

. Th e sourc e coul dchoos e t o continu e th e PA Lat di e adjuste d70 0 tp y level , o r le t di e curren t

PA Llaps e fo r applicabilit y purposes
. If

. th e sourc e let s th e PA

L lapse , th e origina l 100 0 tp y cap woul d stil l remai n fo r Unit s 1- 7 t o ensur e tha t physica l an doperationa l change s whic h occurre ddurin g th e lif

e o f th e PA Ld o no t resul t i n actua l emissio n increase s tha t excee dth e 100 0 tp y cap withou t bein g subjec t

t o major NSR

. Suppos e furthe r

tha t th e PA Li s no t renewe dan dma t

i n 2014 , th e actua l plantwid e emission s o

f pollutan t X wer e 80 0 tpy , th e highes t

actua l emission s leve l fo r th e previou s te n year s an dthat , i n 2015 , th e sourc e propose s t o construc t ane w Uni t

8 tha t emit s 20 0 tp y o f pollutan t X

. Ne w Uni t

8 woul d otherwis e b e subjec t

t o di e traditiona l major NS Rapplicabilit y test

. Th e previou s 100 0 tp y PA

Llapse di n 201 0 an dcanno t

includ e ne w unit s sinc e 2010

. A s a n alternative , th e sourc e may avoi dmajor

NS Rfo r th e ne w uni t

b y establishin g ane w PA

Lat 80 0 tp y an d includ e th e ne w uni t

consisten t

wid i th e newl y establishe d80 0 tp y limit

. I n addition , onc e di e PA

Llimi t expire s a s amajor NS Rapplicabilit y limi t complianc e wit hth e PA

La s a n allowabl e limi t

woul dstil l b e required

. Th e EP A believe s tha t

th e foregoin g optio n provide s sufficient flexibility t o asourc e becaus e i t

maintain s di e abilit y o f di e sourc e t o operat e th e unit s previousl y covere dunde r th e PA Lat thei r ful l rate dcapacity

. Additionally , i t allow s asourc e t o ad dne w unit s afte r di e expiratio n o

f th e PA Li n accordanc e wit hdi e traditiona l NS Rapplicabilit y determination , includin g th e establishmen t

o f ane w PA

Lat suc h tim e a s i t may b e advantageou s t o th e sourc e t o d o so
. Nevertheless , EP A solicit s commen t

o n whethe r

thi s optio n sufficientl y addresse s th e legal an d polic y concern s associate dwit hPA L adjustments

. D. PAL Adjustments Where Sources Implement

Good Controls or

Pollution Prevention Initiatives Th e EP A i s als o seekin g commen t o n whethe r i t i s appropriat e t o adjust aPA L downward , eve n wher e unuse dcapacit y exists , if al l o f th e emission s unit s subjec t t o th e PA

Lalread y hav e goo d control s i n plac e (e.g , BACT , LAER) , di e sourc e ha s installe dinnovativ e controls , or if th e sourc e create dth e emissio n reduction s usin g pollutio n preventio n strategies

. Th e EP

A believe s tha t

source s whic hvoluntaril y achiev e emission s reduction s mroug hth e installatio n o f goo dand/o r

innovativ e control s throughou t

th e facilit

y or throug h pollutio n preventio n initiative s shoul d b e encourage dt o d o so
. B y th e term s "good " control s an d"innovative " technolog y th e Agenc y i s referrin g t o th e type s o f control s an dtechnolog y discusse dpreviousl y i n th e Jul y 199 6 NS RRefor

mproposa l fo

r th e "clea n unit " an d"clea n facility " exclusio n an d

undemonstrate dcontro l technology , respectively

. See 6 1 F

Rat 3825 5 an d 3828 1 (July 23,1996)

. Additionally , th e type s o f pollutio n preventio n activitie s ma t woul dqualif

y ar e thos e consisten t withth e activitie s describe di n th e Jul y 199 6 proposa l an dpreviou s EP A policies

. In ligh t

of th e Agency' s prio r guidanc e an ddiscussion s concernin g goo dcontrols , innovativ e technology , an dpollutio n preventio n initiatives , EP A seek s commen t

o n whethe r

th e term s "goo dcontrols" , "innovativ e controls" , an d"pollutio n preventio n initiatives " ar e appropriatel y use dan d clearl y define dfo

r purpose s o

f thi s option

. T o requir e aPA

Ladjustmen t

unde r thes e circumstance s coul dcreat e a disincentiv e t o engag e i n thes e initiatives

. However , thi s optio n raise s certai n enforcemen t

concern s fo

r th e Agency

. I n particular , widiou t additiona l clarificatio n i t may b e difficul t t o determin e if

a n emission s uni t ha s goo dcontrols , utilize s innovativ e technology , o r ha s reduce d emission s becaus e o

f pollutio n preventio n initiatives , a s oppose dt o othe r factors

. Furthermore , EP A i s concerne dtha t

if ther e i s ambiguity abou t th e meanin g o

f thes e term s th e public , sources , an dpermittin g agencies ma y disagre e abou t

whethe r PA L adjustmen t

i s needed

. Notwithstandin g th e Agency' s interes t

i n promotin g innovativ e an dvoluntar y pollutio n contro l an dpreventio n initiatives , EP A doe s no t believ e voluntar y emission s reduction s achieve dthroug hth e implementatio n o

f goo dcontrols , innovativ e technolog y an dpollutio n preventio n initiative s shoul d necessaril y reliev e th e sourc e fro mothe r regulatory requirements

. Accordingly , EP A seek s commen t

o n thes e concern s a s wel l a s th e type s o

f circumstance s tha t migh t b e appropriat e fo

r asourc e tha t engage s i n innovativ e an dpositiv e environmenta l stewardshi p t o avoi dan y downwar dadjustmen t

t o it s PAL

. Th e EP A als o solicit s comment s o n whethe r an dho w th e polic y an dlegal concern s se t fort hi n thi s notic e concernin g PA L adjustment s fo

r source s whic hutiliz e innovativ e or

goo dtechnolog y or

engag e i n pollutio n preventio n initiative s coul d otherwis e b e addressed

. Finally , give n th e flexibility an d significan t

opportunitie s t o utiliz e emission s reduction s unde r th e option s describe di n thi s Notice , EP A solicit s commen t o n whethe r

additiona l PA

L adjustmen t

consideration s ar e appropriate

.P.1 1



### 3986 6 Federa l Register /Vol

. 63 , No

. 142/Friday , Jul y 24 , 1998/Notice s
Dated : July 16,1998

. Richar dD

. Wilson , Acting Assistant

Administrator. (F RDoc

. 98-1983 2 File d7-23-98 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILLIN GCOD E 6560-60- P

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [ER-FRL-5494-1 ] Environmenta l Impac t Statement s an d Regulations ; Availabilit y of EP A Comment s Availabilit y o f

EP A comment s prepare dJul y 6,199 8 Throug hJul y 10 , 199 8 pursuan t

t o th e Environmenta l Revie w Proces s (ERP) , unde r Sectio n 30 9 o f th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t an dSectio n 102(2)(c ) o f

di e Nationa l Environmenta l Polic y Ac t

a s amended

. Request s fo r copie s o f EP A comment s ca n b e directe d t o m e Offic e o f

Federa l Activitie s A T (202 ) 564-5076

. A n explanatio n o f th e rating s assigne dt o draf t environmenta l impac t statement s (EISs ) wa s publishe d i n F Rdate dApri l 10,199 8 (6 3 FR 17856)

. Draf tEIS s ER PNo

. D-FRC-J05078-M T Ratin g E02 , Missouri-Madiso n Hydroelectri c (FER C No

. 2188 ) Project , Issuin g aNe w licenc e (Relicense ) fo r

Nin e Dam s an d Associate dFacilities , MT

. Summary: EP A expresse d environmenta l objection s regardin g FERC' s rejectio n o f

Sectio n 1 0 (j ) recommendations ; inadequacie s i n th e analysi s o f

therma l issues ; th e potentia l fo r impairmen t

t o th e beneficia l uses ; an dth e rejectio n o f

som e Stat e Clea n Wate r Ac t 40 1 conditions

. EP A believe s FER C shoul densur e licens e condition s tha t requir e hydropowe r

operation s b e don e i n th e bes t

practicabl e manne r

t o minimiz e har mt o beneficia l uses
. Licens e condition s als o nee dt o incorporat e therma l succes s criteri aan d appropriat e languag e t o reope n th e licens e i f succes s criteri aar e no t adequatel y attaine db y propose d mitigation

. EP A believe s additiona l informatio n i s neede dt o full y asses s an dmitigat e al l potentia l impact s o f th e managemen t

actions

. ER PNo

. D-IBR-J28020-U T Ratin g E02 , Narrow s Da man dReservoi r Project , Constructio n o f Supplementa l Wate r Suppl y fo r

Agricultura l an d Municipa l Wate r

Use , Gooseberr y Creek , Sanpet e an dCarbo n Counties , UT

. Summary: EP A expresse d environmenta l objection s t o th e propose dproject , an dstate dma t i t believe s additional , les s damagin g

. alternative s ar e availabl e whic hwoul d reduc e th e projec t

relate dimpacts

. EP A requeste dadditiona l detai l o n mitigation , projec t

impacts , an d alternatives

. ER PNo

. D-IBR-K39045-C A Ratin g EC2 , Programmati c EIS—Centra l Valle y 

### Projec t Improvemen t

Ac t (CVPIA ) o f 199 2 Implementation , Centra l Valley , Trinity , Contr aCosta , Alameda , Sant a Clar aan dSa n Benit o Counties , CA

. Summary: EP A expresse dstron g suppor t fo r th e overal l inten t

o f CVPI A implementation ; alternative s whic h provid e astron g two-pronge d commitmen t

t o ecosyste mrestoratio n an dflexible , efficien t

us e o f develope d wate r supplies ; an dus e o f

CVPI A tool s t o provid e efficien t

managemen t

o f existing , develope dwate r supplies

. EP A requeste dadditiona l informatio n an d explanatio n o n th e rang e o f implementation , relationshi p betwee n PEI S an dsubsequen t

rule s an d regulations , an dt o th e relationshi p o f th e PEI S t o interi mimplementatio n program s an dth e "Garamend i process " ER PNo

. DR-DOI-K40222-T T Ratin g E02 , Pala u Compac t

Roa dConstruction , Revisio n t o Majo r

Transportatio n an d Communicatio n Lin k

o n th e Islan do f Babeldaob , Implementation , Funding , Republi c o f

Palau , Babeldao b Island , Trus t Territor y o f

di e Pacifi c Islands

. Summary: EP A expresse d environmenta l objection s becaus e th e RDEI S di dno t

pro/id e sufficien t documentatio n tha t

al l practicabl e mean s hav e bee n undertake n b y th e Corp s an dth e Republi c o f Pala u t o avoi dan dminimiz e advers e impact s associate dwit hplacin g dredge do r fill materia l i n wetland s an dothe r aquati c resource s protecte dunde r CW A Sectio n 404

. Fina l EIS s ER PNo

. F-AFS-L65285-AK , Chasin a Timbe r Sale , Harvestin g Timbe r an d Roa dConstruction , Tongas s Nationa l Forest , Crai g Range r

District , Ketchika n Administrativ e Area , AK

. Summary: Revie w o f

th e Fina l EI S ' wa s no t deeme dnecessary
. N o forma l commen t

lette r wa s sen t

t o th e preparin g agency
. ER PNo

. F-AFS-L65300-AK , Cana l Hoy aTimbe r

Sale , Implementation , Stikin e Area , Tongas s Nationa l Forest , Valu e Compariso n Uni t (VCU) , AK

. Summary: Revie w o f

th e Fina l EI S wa s no t deeme dnecessary
. N o forma l commen t

lette r wa s sen t

t o th e preparin g agency
. Dated : July 21,1998

. Willia mD

. Dickerson , Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [F RDoc

. 98-1988 4 File d7-23-98 ; 8:4 5 ami BILLIN G COD E 6560-60- U ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [ER-FRL-5493-8 ] Environmenta l Impac t Statements ; Notic e of Availabilit y Responsible Agency: Offic e o f Federa l Activities , Genera l Informatio n (202 ) 564-716 7 O R(202 ) 564-7153

. Weekl y receip t

o f Environmenta l Impac t Statement s File dJul y 13,199 8 Throug hJul y 17 , 199 8 Pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R1506. 9 EI S No

. 980269 , Draf

t EIS , AFS , ID , Eagl e Bir dProjec t

Area , Timbe r Harvestin g an dRoa dConstruction , Idah o Panhandl e Nationa l Forests , St

. Jo e Range r

District , Shoshon e County , ID , Due : Septembe r

07,1998 , Contact : Came o Floo d(208 ) 245-4517

. EI S No

. 980270 , Fina l EIS , FHW , NC , U S 7 0 Improvement s Project , 1-4 0 t o th e Intersectio n o f

U S 7 0 an dU S 7 0 Business , Fundin g an dCO ESectio n 40 4 Permit , Wak e an dJohnsto n Counties , NC , Due : Augus t 24,1998 , Contact : Nichola s L

. Graf , P.E

. (919 ) 733-784 2 ext

. 260

. EI S No

. 980271 , Draf

t EIS , FHW , IN , U S 23 1 Transportatio n Project , Ne w Constructio n fromCR-20 0 N t o CR

1150'1 , Funding , Right-of-Wa y Permi t an dCO ESectio n 40 4 Permit , Spence r an dDuboi s Counties , IN , Due : Octobe r 15,1998 , Contact : Dougla s N

. Hea d(317 ) 226-7487

. EI S No

. 980272 , Draf

t EIS , NOA , MS , Gran dBa y Nationa l Estuarin e Researc hReserv e (NERR) , Designation , T o Conduc t Research , Educationa l Projec t

an dConstruction , Eas t o f th e Cit y o f

Biloxi , Jackso n County , MS , Due : Septembe r 07 , 1998 , Contact : Stephani e Thornto n (301 ) 713-312 5 ext

. 11 0 EI S No

. 980273 , Draf

t Supplement , FTA , PR , Tre n Urban o Transi t Project , Update dInformatio n fo r th e Minilla s Extension , Constructio n an d

. Operation , Sa n Jua n Metropolita n Area , Funding , NPDE S Permit , U S Coas t Guar dBridg e Permi t

an dCO E Sectio n 1 0 an d40 4 Permits , PR , Due : Septembe r

07,1998 , Contact : Ale x McNei l (404 ) 562-3511

. EI S No

. 980274 , Fina l EIS , FRC , NB , Kingsle y Da mProjec t

(FERC

. No

. 1417 ) an dNort hPlatte/Keyston e Diversio n Da m(FERC

. No

. 1835 ) Hydroelectri c Project , Applicatio n fo r Licenses , Nea r

th e confluenc e o f

th e North/Sout hPlatt e Rivers,

. Keith , Lincoln , Garden , Dawso n an dGaspe r

. Counties , NB , Augus t

24,1998 , Contact : Franki e Gree n (202 ) 501

- 7704

.