P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

243) ll-F-33 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17 PM Sheet 243 of 250 
OS/25/95' 14:14 ®20 2 .208 4620 

P.2 

WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> OGC AIR DIVISION ©001 

rt-%>-57* 

UnitWStates Department ofthe Interior 

INREUVREreRTO: 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. Box 37127 

Washington, D.C. 20013.7127 

LmmmOr-K 

NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLQH: 

SUBJECT : frV^fc- ^^CoS^ 

"7-5* 

fi. 

REMARKS: •• 0<^S T IS^EWY^V, prei J^tUJW C^yx^cfr? 

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

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON UHON YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

DENNIS, JOHN 

EADY, C0LLETTE 

JOHNSTON. GARY 

KLIHIHSKI, SHARON 

NA1XIN, KAREN 

NCCLEUAND, LINDSAY 

MILLER, ABBY 

PECK, DEBBY 

SOUKUP, HIKE 

202-208-5193 

202-208-4640 

202-208-5886 

202-208-4639 

202-219-3384 

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-208-4624 

202-208-3884 

HAUER, BILL 

MATKINS, HILMA 

WILSON, RITA 

202-219-3386 

202-208-4913 

202-208-3884 

,-4^ a3-

'• i: \- r: 1,1 ' 

... 
P.3 

08/25/95 14:14 ®202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS +++ OGC AIR DIVISION ©002 

« 

178 

the' lOO-kilome-ter distance. Neverthelesi^trlie EPA will consider 

a more inclusive cutoff, e.g., 200 kilometers', for mandatory preapplication notification, if f-nr mmr' rrnnnn it is unable to 

implement the database that is intended to inform FLMs about the 

A, 

more distant proposed new major sources and major modifications. 

The EPA requests public comments on all aspects of these 

proposed regulatory revisions addressing advance notification, 

including the appropriate type of notification,- the mandatory 

notification within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I area, and 

the 30-day timeframe for providing such notification to the FLM. 

Tto-KEPA is interested in the public's views about the need for 

r J ^u-these ckainges in light of the other regulatory revisions, 

,,.-,<^ described btl^ow, that the EPA is proposing to improve FLM 

coordination, ihc^uding the proposed requirement that permit 

applications for all PSSa^sources and modifications proposing to 

locate within 100 kilometersof a Federal Class I area must 

automatically be transmitted to the.*FLMs. 

b. Coordination of the Permit Application. 

Several of the CAAAC recommendations addressed improving 

coordination between the permitting authority and the FLM once a 

permit application has been received. Similar to the 

recommendations for pre-application coordination addressed 

previously, such coordination was considered important in helping 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 ••* [file name: Masters.29] *** 
PA. 

08/25/95 14:15 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS -»-.-• OGC AIR DI VIS IPN ©003 

179 

to avoid disputes and delays in carrying out the permit review 

process. ^"^ . 

The EPA is proposing to revise the notification requirements 

that apply when the permitting authority receives a PSD permit 

application The proposed requirements are to apply on the basis 

of the proximity of the proposed source or modification to a 

Federal Class I area, with the proposed revisions, the FLM is 

afforded an opportunity to review the contents of any PSD permit 

application to determine whether sufficient information is 

available to assess the potential impacts on a Federal Class I 

area. As described earlier, in section IV.Q..1.. of this preamble, 

the EPA has proposed to require that the FLM (or"other n•a^twd•"," 

officials) file a notice alleging potential Class I impacts in 

order to trigger specific Class I informational needs in the 

permit application. The proposed 100 kilometer cutoff applies 

only to the automatic notification (including forwarding of 

permit application) of the FLM that such source has applied for a 

PSD permit. ' Thaue lb iiu iiUmit-iiL assumption thag^such- sourcewti-1 aSfcut- tlit-i Ffeaeral Class I area. f 

(1) Notification to FLM for sources located within 100 

kilometers. Because sources located within a 100-kilometer range 

of Federal Class I areas generally have the greatest potential 

for affecting the air quality in those areas, EPA is proposing to 

require notification of the affected FLM when a PSD permit 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Masters.29] ••* 
P.5 

T87T5/95 14:15 ,g2,02 208 4620 ~ ,^ASP_NRMQJjPS_, - PGC AIR DIVISION^ _a004 _ 

,18 1 

The Act, section 165(d)(1). in moving the existing provision to 

the new location in the part 51 regulations, its intended 

coverage of all PSD permit applications will be better 

understood. Sge. redesignated section 51.166 (q) (1) . 

(2) Notification to FLM for sources locating more. 100 

kilometers from a Federal Class I area. The EPA recognizes that 

the FLM will have an interest in reviewing the potential, effects 

associated with emissions from certain sources proposing to 

locate more than 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area. It' 

emphatically is not the EPA's intention to enable such sources to 

be automatically exempted from consideration as to their, 

potential impacts on Class I areas. However, a general 

requirement to transmit copies of all permit applications to the 

FLM-would be quite burdensome and overly inclusive. Accordingly, 

the EPA is proposing a different approach for providing . 

notification to the FLM for applications proposing sources more 

than 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area. The EPA is 

developing a special electronic database and proposing to require 

that a summary of each PSD permit application be entered into 

this database." 

56 Under the part 51 PSD regulations, the proposed 

requirement does not specify whether the applicant or the 

permitting authority must enter the data summary. The EPA . 

believes that it is appropriate in this situation to allow 

permitting authorities to exercise their discretion in 

determining what specific procedures they will adopt and 

implement to ensure that the required data is entered into the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMSNT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOSS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**« June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Masters.29] *** 

5 
P.6 

08/25/95 14:15 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©005 

*•£*• -

X 

182 

The proposed informational requirements include the name and 

type of source, the nature of the project, source location and 

proximity to Class I area's (i.e., within 250 kilometers), the 

proposed emission rates (or emissions increases) of air 

pollutants to be emitted by the source, and key mailing 

addresses. The FLM, as well as the general public, will have 

access to this information. The administration of this 

electronic database is addressed in more detail in section 

IV.C.6., "Information Clearinghouse." See proposed 

section 51.166(n)(4) and section 52.21(n)(4). 

Once relevant information pertaining rc a proposedhntajoar . . 

source or major modification is registered in the EPA database, 

the FLM will be able to check the Bulletin Board, determine 

whether such source represents a potential concern to air quality 

or air quality related values in the Class I area (based on the 

summary information contained therein), ,and request a copy of the 

. entire permit application. In order to ensure that the FLM is 

given a reasonable opportunity to request a copy of any specific 

application (for sources that would locate beyond the 

100-kilometer range) , the EPA is proposing that the FLM will be 

afforded at least 7 days from the date of registration of 

information on the electronic database to review such information 

. : i^oi-rJ-i, w 

EPA electronic database.( ffifi ^ii &*aLiL V^- Jwrthax-l. ^clcfa-.-^UL 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR 0FPIC8 OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• June 29,.1995 --- [file nanet Masters.29] **• 

z\ 

I. 

_I_ 
Ei 

08/25/95 14:16 ®202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •*•-»-. PGC AIR DIVISION ©006 

183 

and' request the entire permit application. ££g proposed section 

51.166(p) (4) (ii) and section 52.21(p) (4) (ii) . 

The EPA requests.public comments on its proposed 

requirements to improve the notification procedures which inform 

the FLM about incoming permit applications. In particular, the 

EPA requests, public comments addressing the proposed requirement 

to transmit a permit application to the FLM when the proposed 

source is within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I area. 

c. ' Coordination of the Completeness Determination. 

The EPA is also proposing to revise both sets of PSD 

regulations by adding a requirement that the FLM be given at .. 

least 3 0 days (starting from receipt of the application by the 

FLM) to review the application prior to any completeness 

determination issued by the permitting authority. The 30-day 

review is required only when the FLM is to receive the permit 

application as provided under today's proposal [See e.g., 

proposed section 51.166(p)(4) ] where the proposed source is 

V located within 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area or ~

 ] 

*h J*. where it is located beyond 100—kilometers but the FLM requests "7^;vs"<. 

/K • fa \ ,X *V* 

the entire application within\7 days, from the inclusion of ' f^O, the entire application within\^ 

summary information in EPA's electronic data base. See proposed 

section 51.166 (p) (5) (ii) and section 52.21 (p) (5) (ii) .«' 

x<A 

if 

57 For proposed sources more than 100 kilometers from a 

Federal Class I area, the permitting authority may proceed to 

issue its completeness determination any time after theVf-day . 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [filename: Masters.29] *** 

^ 
P.8 

08/25/95 14:16 ®202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •»•»•» PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©007 

185 

request for additional information has been satisfied by the 

applicanfr7-*nd 'the FLM has had an opportunity to file a notice 

alleging potential Class I impacts, if such notice has not 

already been filed. In some cases, however, the permitting 

authority may question the request made by the FLM or disagree 

with it completely. When this occurs, the EPA is proposing that 

the permitting authority must consult with the FLM and try to 

resolve whatever problems may exist prior to issuing a 

completeness determination. See proposed section 

51.166(p)(5)(iv) and section 52.21(p)(5)(iv). Nevertheless, 

while the permitting authority muj^givar^feayonable consideration 

to the FLM's concej3w*""Gnder the proposed_cJfenges. the permitting 

authorlty-iBresponsible for making the igdtimate decision 

The proposed 

provisions allow the permitting authority to issue its 

completeness determination any time (either before or after the 

30-day period has ended) after any comments from the FLM have 

been received and consultation with the FLM has occurred about 

any inconsistency between the permitting authority's views and 

the FLM's recommendations. 

The CAAAC recommended that the EPA consider establishing a 

formal dispute resolution process as a part of the completeness 

review. The EPA has declined to propose any specific 

requirements focusing on the resolution of potential problems 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *•* 

la 
P.9 

08/25/95 14:17 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS «-> OGC AIR DIVISIPN ©008_ 

189 

The EPA believes that it is important to the permitting 

process trhSTtr^The FLM's demonstration be submitted before a 

preliminary determination is made and that sufficient time be 

allowed to complete the demonstration. Thirty days is generally 

not a sufficient amount of time for the FLM to complete a 

demonstration of an adverse impact on AQRVs. Instead,, the EPA 

proposes that the FLM be allowed at least 60 days to make the 

' _ - •—- -f^y. 

required demonstration. :Moreover, the proposed regulations 

provide that the 60-day period occur prior to a preliminary 

determination so that any demonstration submitted by'the FLM may . 

be adequately considered by the permitting authority and 

addressed as part of the preliminary determination, gee proposed 

section 51.166(p)(6)(i) and section 52.21(p)(6)(i). 

The EPA also believes that a 60-day period (beginning on the 

date that the.permitting authority formally issues its 

determination that the application is complete), taken together 

with the improvements addressed above to facilitate earlier FLM 

and permitting authority coordination, provides the FLM with a 

more reasonable period of time. During this period, the FLM may 

fy /need to iximduefe a variety of technical analyses or perhaps 

request (via the permitting authority) that the applicant provide 

additional analyses to provide sufficient basis for the 

demonstratipn to be developed. This will, of course, depend on A the amount information already contained in the application as a 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *** 

1 
P.10 

08/25/95 14:17 ©20 2 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©009 

tr^m-m. 

195 

contribute to a violation of a Class I increment. £eg. section 

165(d)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act. There have been several instances 

over the past few years where, in such circumstances, the FLM has 

submitted a demonstration of an adverse impact on AQRVs in a 

Class I area. In some cases, the FLM's concerns have been 

addressed through successful negotiations between the FLM and the 

permit applicant, where the source obtained emissions reductions 

(offsets) from an existing source, adopted more stringent control 

measures or some combination of both.60 In other instances, 

similar demonstrations of an adverse impact on AQRVs have been 

the subject of contentious administrative litigation.61 

b. General Policy for Mitigating Class I Area Impacts 

The CAAAC recommended requiring offsets for any proposed 

source that would have an adverse impact on AQRVs. Specifically, 

the CAAAC recommended that where the emission offset ratio was 

less than 1:1, a net air quality benefit analysis should be made 

to support the specific offset ratio proposed.. The CAAAC 

" See- e.g.• Multitrade Limited Partnership. PSD Appeal 

Nos. 91-2 et alia (January 21, 1992). In Multitrade the proposed 

source agreed to mitigate its impact through a combination of 

reduced emissions from the new source as originally proposed and 

emission offsets from a nearby existing source, resulting in an 

offset ratio substantially greater than one-co-one. Based on 

these changes, the FLM concluded that the emissions from the 

proposed source, if modified, would not have an adverse impact on 

the Shenandoah National Park. X£. at 5. 

" See Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. PSD Appeal No. 

91-39 (January 29, 1992); Hadson Power 14--Buena Vista. PSD 

Appeal Nos. 92-3, 92-4 & 92-5 (October 5, 1992). 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *** 

7 
p. 11 

08/25/95 14:18 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •»•>•> PGC AIR DIVISION ©010 

197 

there will be no net adverse impact as a result of the proposed . 

source's-emiaaions. The proposed provision specifically 

acknowledges offsets as a mitigation option where the owner or 

operator of a proposed source obtains enforceable and permanent 

emissions reductions of sufficient amount and in such location 

that the reductions will offset the change in air quality iri the 

Federal Class I area that would have resulted from the proposed 

source. See proposed section 51.166(p)(7) and 52.21(p)(7). The 

quantitative amount of the offsetting emissions should, 

therefore, be shown to be sufficient to in fact mitigate the 

adverse impact on AQRVs that would otherwise be caused by the/0\ 

proposed emissions increase. This will involvt^eonsiderar^oa^j&he 

location of the offsetting source relative to the Class I area; 

a«7^^Hr^asr the meteorological and topographical conditions which 

affect dispersion of the offsetting emissions. tfUfll' H^-ft. 1/.-US (v «>^ Q+w 

Another possible consideration in evaluating whether any I 

potential emission reductions identified at existing sources can 

be used to mitigate the adverse impact on AQRVs is whether the 

reductions are already required by some other Act-mandated 

program. In nonattainment areas, section 173(c)(2) of the Act 

plainly prohibits emission reductions otherwise required- under 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•• June 29, 1995 •-- [file name: Masters.29). •** 
P.12 

08/25/95 14:18 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •»•»•» PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©Oil 

198 

the- Act from being credited as offsets for new source review • 

purposes.

 Iy~ ^*-'cUnlike the nonattainment NSR program, offsets under the PSD 

program are.not expressly addressed by the Act. The EPA is 

interested in the public's views about the crediting of those 

emission reductions already required for other purposes as 

offsets for mitigating a proposed source's adverse impact on an 

AORV,.«-S i^jtf 0\ ho w Qc* ^ ^ O-olvV^ Qfi-UpA Crmr^^^r 

t y 

emission limitation than the limitation that would otherwise be . r^vC'v 

required by BACT may be established to mitigate an adverse impact 

. , t < t*jL, s-ofUs <Lr*d&\r& -*» t>c Crrriis&sJt wJL r f^-t Opts, /4^1,-ri 

\ \V\. "^^-As an alternative to emissions offsets, a more strmgenr ' "» 

on AQRVs in a Federal Class I area. Depending upon the remaining 

emissions released and the sensitivity of the AQRVs of a Class I 

area, an emissions limitation that would otherwise be required by 

BACT, if an adverse impact on AQRVs was not considered, may be 

inadequate to entirely mitigate the adverse impact. Thus, 

„ emission offsets, a stricter emission limitation, or some 

y^\ 

X ./combination of both, may be appropriate to mitigate an adverse 

impact on AQRVs. 

The EPA believes that measures such as emission offsets from 

existing sources represent a reasonable approach which enables 

63 Incidental emission reductions not otherwise required by 

the Act are to be creditable under section 173(c)(2) of the Act. 

See also 57 FR 13553 (April IS, 1992) (guidance on creditable 

reductions under the nonattainment NSR program). 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Masters.29] *** 

10 
P.13 

08/25/95 14:18 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> PGC AIR DIVISION ©012 

-*ri—. 

200 

have, or are having, on AQRVs in a Federal Class I area. See 

proposed section 51.166(m)(2) and 52.21{m)(2). The existing PSD 

regulations at section 51.166(m)(2) and 52.21(m)(2) currently 

require the owner or operator of a new major eource or major 

modification to conduct such post-construction ambient 

monitoring, as the permitting authority determines to be 

necessary, to determine the effect emissions may have, or are 

having, on air quality in any area. However, the current EPA 

regulations do not specify that such ambient monitoring may 

include the monitoring of air quality-related impacts in Federal 

Class I areas. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to amend .the. PSD 

regulations to specifically state that post-construction ambient/-~\ 

y? Monitoring may be required in Class I areas. Ihti EVA lequusts—H--/ 

^ ^^geimuuiiLb uu liuii ytojjosod regulatory ohango. 

4. Class I Significant Impact Levels. 

Some members of the NSR Reform Subcommittee recommended that 

the EPA provide criteria indicating the circumstances in which a 

proposed source's projected contribution to ambient 

concentrations in a Class I area may be considered de minimis for 

certain planning.requirements. These members recommended that 

the EPA identify a level of contribution (ambient concentration) 

that is de minimis, or insignificant, so that, a proposed source 

having a contribution less than that concentration will know with 

certainty that it will not be subject to the full requirements 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING. DRAFT ?OR OFFICE OF MANAGEMSNT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *•* 

/ / 
P.14 

08/25/95 14:19 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •>->-> PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©013 

f 

202 

eignifieanjt JeBipjict' levels would apply to the existing Class I 

increments for PM-10, SOa, and N02 in the PSD regulations. The 

significant impact levels would be used.to determine whether a 

new major source or major modification, due to the predicted 

ambient concentration from its own emissions, would be required 

to conduct a comprehensive Class I increment analysis for a given 

pollutant. A de minimis impact resulting from the emissions from 

a proposed source would serve as the basis for.a determination 

that such emissions will not contribute to a violation of the 

applicable Class I increments. 

The proposed significant impact levels for Class I . 

increments were derived by taking four percent of the 

concentration defined for the existing Class I increment for each 

applicable pollutant and averaging period. The EPA believes that 

where a proposed source contributes less than, four percent to the 

Class I increment, concentrations =*££ sufficiently low so as not 

to warrant a costly and detailed analysis of the combined effects 

of the proposed source and all other increment-consuming 

emissions. The EPA previously used a similar rationale to 

establish the significant emissions rates for PSD applicability 

purposes, concluding in part that emissions rates which resulted 

in ambient impacts less .than four percent of the 24-hour 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *** 

lb 
P.15 

08/25/95 14:19 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->-•-> OGC AIR DIVISIPN ©014 

- V ^"Hi . • " 'r """ "/ •"'•'••*•'•"' 

** "' 'J 2©5 r (*••'' 

significant impact levels for the AQRVs should rest with the FLM. 

Any significant impact levels for AQRVs may necessarily be sitespecif ic; since each AQRV and its associated critical pollutant 

loadings may be different from area to area and even within 

individual Federal Class I areas. y i, TM '0 

y^7 

As described in section IV.C.i.e., the FLM's/fcole in ' f"f

 J 

i Triggering a Class I Increment Analysis, the EPA/ is proposing; 

regulations that call for the filing of a notice.by the FLM, the 

Federal official with direct land management responsibility, the 

Administrator or the Governor of an adjacent State containing a. 

Federal Class I area to trigger the duty 'o£^ptepur.ee to conduct a 

"Class I increment and Class I1 impact analysis'.^ The notice would 

allege that emissions from a proposed source^ cause or contribute 

to a change in the air quality in a Federal Class I.area and 

would identify the potential effects of such change. 

Sources not receiving the notice are not required to conduct 

a^CTass I increment analysis. Thus, the significant impact 

iffA 

levels that EPA is proposing for class I increments would apply ^ \ 

to proposed sources that have received this notice. A ^ -

determination that a proposed source receiving a Class Jsnotice Qs* 

has an insignificant impact on Class I increments VHHUCT exclude G^^* r 

it from further increment analysis, but not from a class I area S?^ ^ -

impacts assessment. The EPA requests public comments on its ^yZ/C^^ 

y^>_ 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ^sj" ^ 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY

 U7^ 

**• June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Master6.29] *** 

lb 
P.16 

08/25/95 14:20 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS •>•*-> PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©015_ 

«i.-... 

"Hv 

V 

206 

proposal to establish significant impact levels for Class I 

increments in general and the proposed levels, specifically. 

5. Clarification of Miscellaneous Issues. 

The discussion which follows addresses several relatively 

discrete issues. The EPA is clarifying current policy in areas 

where there is potential for significant confusion or uncertainty 

and, in some instances, is proposing conforming changes to the 

implementing regulations. The EPA is also proposing changes that 

largely codify existing policy. 

a. Significant Impact Levels for NAAQS and Class II and 

III Increments 

The EPA is proposing several changes to the PSD regulations 

at both section 51.166. and section 52.21 to make the rules 

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

t, \ revise the provisions of existing section 51.166 (k) and section 

u / 

f 

,7 J 

?• f 

52.2l(k) to clarify that a source, itself, must make a 

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

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

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

'* _jr ' PSD regulations the significant impact levels currently, set forth 

^ a, ^ 

v if/v.

 a t section 51.165(b) (2)--which are being used to determine 

* J7 y whether major new source or major modification contributes to a 

J^. violation-of a NAAQS--SO that they may be directly applied to the 

4i7)f. jf \" A . PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAOEMENT AND 

y^ \ 7 BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

S

7

 \w". / ""••V June *29, 19*95" ---""[file^name*: Masters.29] *•• 
P.17 

08/25/95 14:20 ©20 2 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©016 

/ i 

— v » •••-•*• • ' '• 7 ' - ' '-(• -

/ v " 7 " 

^ 1 . L_ t_ .. .- r-^-^. .:';>•.•'. i. . i . ' r-a . ' 

significant impact levels for the AQRVs should rest with the FLM. 

.Any significant impact levels for AQRVs may necessarily be sitespecific^ since each AQRV and its associated critical pollutant 

loadings may be different from area to area and even within 

individual Federal Class I areas. 

.,y As described in section IV.C.i.e., the FLM's Role in 

Triggering a Class I Increment Analysis, the EPA is proposing 

i 

i regulations that call for the filing of a notice by the FLM, the 

i 

Federal official with direct land management responsibility, the 

Administrator or the Governor of an adjacent State containing a 

Federal Class I area to trigger the duty of a source to conduct--a. 

^ Class I increment and Class I impact analysis. The notice would 

CcsJiJy 

allege that emissions from a proposed source cause or contribute 

to a change in the air quality in a Federal Class I area and 

would identify the potential effects of such change. 

y 

Sources not receiving the notice are not required to conduct 

a^Class I increment analysis. Thus, the significant impact 

,-- rfi& 

levels that EPA is proposing for class I increments would apply -t-^" 

to proposed sources that have received this notice. A -^ t 

determination that a proposed source receiving a Class j-f^notice ^*s 

has an insignificant impact on Class I increments **<I>-SIQ exclude (y*^ 

it from further increment analysis but not from a class I area 

impacts assessment. The EPA requests public comments on its ^y 

c^>_ 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND v^u" ^ 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY . V^ " 

*•* JUne 29, 1995 --- [file name: Masters.29] **• 
P.18 

08/25/95 14:20 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->->-> OGC AIR DIVISION ©017 

"si** - • 

207 

"significant contribution" test in the PSD regulations. See 

proposed section 51.166(b) (23) (iv) and section 52,2Kb) (23) (iv) . 

The EPA has long interpreted the "significant contribution" test 

set forth in existing sectio».5l.l65(b)(2) to apply to PSD 

Cpr ^.w-w-cf puff'*-' -(fly) 

sources, as well, 'since thtr-provision applies to major new 

sources and major modifications located in attainment and. CAJ>A^ 

U^y$ri^$&^*Jr (WVof UvjLol u^-v-^—t\*&--LsuT f's—Tz£rTZ3Zr~£ttvJ -irrKHjid 

unca.assifiable areas. _A / 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to add significant impact r^^J* ^ 

levels for the Class II and Class III increments, gee proposed fri^r 

section Si.166(b) (23) (v) and section 52.21 (b) (23) (v) . The Hr©/ \ 

proposed levels are the same as those levels at existing section 

51.165(b)(2), which define a significant contribution to a 

violation of the NAAQS, and simply codify current EPA policy ^ 

which allows the significant impact levels from section 51.165(b) 

to be directly applied to the PSD program to determine a 

significant contribution to either the NAAQS or PSD increments. 

The EPA requests comment on the need to include these significant 

impact levels in the PLD regulations and the need for significant 

impact levels for Class II and Class III increments. 

Furthermore, the EPA requests comment on the proposed significant 

impact levels for the "lass II and Class III increments, 

specifically whether they should be lower than the levels usedfor NAAQS compliance. 

b. Analysis of Impacts on Federal Class II Areas 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMSNT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: Masters.29] *•• 
P.19 

08/25/95 14:21 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS ->*-> OGC AIR DIVISIPN ©018 

•**- , 

208 

Today" s-proposal also clarifies the requirement for the 

"additional impact analysis" under-existing sections 51.l66(o) 

and 52.21(o). In addition to the central requirements that each 

PSD source must demonstrate that its allowable emissions will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment, 

each such source is generally required to prepare an additional 

analysis for the pollutants that it will emit. This additional 

analysis is consistent with the statutory provisions under 

section 165(e)(3)(B) of the Act, and includes an assessment of 

the impairment of visibility, soils, and vegetation within the 

proposed source's impact area,\ including Federal Class I and 

II areas. In addition, the EPA is proposing more specific 

provisions for Federal Class I areas that require similar 

analysis where a Federal Land Manager alleges that an adverse 

impact on AQRVs may occur in Federal Class I area lands located 

beyond the area normally considered to be within the proposed 

source's impact area. See proposed section 51.166(p)(2)(i) and 

section 52.21(p) (2) (i), and related discussion in 

section IV.C.i.e. of this preamble. 

. w 67 The EPA considersNythe impact area to be the geographical 

\JLS \y area for which the proposed source must carry out the required 

r '• \ air quality analyses for the. NAAQS and PSD increments. The EPA's 

siC\ guidance provides that such\rea generally lies within 50 

J

 ^wV kilometers of the proposed so\irce--the accepted range of Gaussian 

lytT. dispersion modeling techniques^ See the EPA's "New Source Review 

Lvc Workshop Manual," Office of Air\Quality Planning and Standards, 

rT- October 1990 (Draft) 

\jJ\\ PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

.w^V-M. *** June 29, 1995^ - [filename: Master6.29] ••• m h 

1

 it y \ f y <oxyA< \yM'jmZr *. town, i 
P.20 

08/25/95 14:21 ©202 208 4620 WASO NR/AQ NPS -»-»-• PGC AIR DIVISIPN ©019 

217 

and/or permit applicants. All FLMs will have access to the 

database. This segment'of the NSR. BB will provide very basic 

source information, such as the name and type of source, its 

location via UTM coordinates, the distance between the proposed 

source and all Federal Class I areas within 500 km, and the 

proposed emission rate or net emissions increase of each air 

pollutant associated with the project. It also will allow permit 

applicants and permitting authorities to present questions to the 

FLM regarding air quality issues relative to any Federal lands 

potentially affected by the proposed new or increased emissions, 

and, conversely, provide a contact to whom' the FLM may direct •-;--,• 

inquiries and information. See proposed section 51.166(n)(4) 

section 52.21(n)(4). 

Second, a database addressing Federal Class I areas will be 

available in which the FLM and the EPA will post the following 

information as it becomes available: 

- Boundaries and size of existing Federal Class I areas 

- Area-specific AQRV information, including sensitive 

receptors, critical loadings, current source inventory, current 

loadings from sources in the source inventory, and existing 

adverse conditions; ^ TlU s si^jd no\ C-tfcW ^ k 

- Source-specific information on increment consumption and -lp. J 

impacts on AQRVs in specific Federal Class I areas; $~ /""?_ C-e^e-f 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file•. name name:: Masters.29 n-»-«»4«]J *** ^ ^ — ,yi ^ x^,^.. 

X if -r ah. 
P.21 

08/25/95 14:22 ©202 208 4620 WASP NR/AQ NPS -»-»-• OGC AIR DIVISIPN ©020 

*;. V 

229 

few,' if any^mjjor NSR permits to process in a year. At this 

time there are no Tribal permitting authorities. Therefore the 

EPA does not expect a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. However, the EPA solicits 

comment on the possible impacts of this rulemaking proposal on 

small entities as required under section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Act 

Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995'("Unfunded 

Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

undertake various actions in association with proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. 

As shown in the economic impact analysis (EIA) for this rule 

(a copy of the EIA is available in the docket), the EPA has 

estimated the total annualized cost of .the NSR permitting program 

including the proposed reforms to be $35.5 million. The changes 

to the NSR rules proposed in this rulemaking are expected to 

decrease annual costs to industry by approximately $1.2 million, 

to State and local air pollution control agencies by 

••-"? ' ^ > 

approximately $1.4 million, and to EPA by $116,000. « EPA's 

proposed action would not impose any federal intergovernmental ' ~^> 

W i 4 ei.'Jt fi^7 , „ 

CE OF MANAGEMENT AND . ' r PRELIMINARY STAFF WORXING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 'h?Cr/ -«y 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ^< V / 

*** June 29, 1995 --- [file name: ipaster6.29] *** K 

/f