# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 18070 1992

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Oct 13 12:19:59 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

## 18070 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-4127-1]



### State Implementation Plans; General Preamble forthe Implementation of Title I ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990; Supplemental

AGENCY: 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: 

### General Preamble for future proposed rulemakings; Appendices.

SUMMARY: 

### The EPA published a General Preamble for the Implementation oftitle I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on April16, 1992 (57 FR 13498). This document describes EPA's preliminary views on how EPA should interpret various provisions oftitle I 

### ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of1990, primarily those concerning State implementation plan (SIP) revisions required for nonattainment areas. It 

### serves as advance notice ofhow EPA generally intends, in subsequent rulemakings. to take action on SIP submissions.

The appendices to the General Preamble were inadvertently omitted. The appendices containimportant support materials that are referenced throughout the General Preamble. Therefore, this notice, containing the aforementioned appendices, serves as a supplement to the General Preamble and ·should be considered as such.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Mr. Brock Nicholson, Chief, Policy Development Section, Ozone/CO Programs Branch (MD-15} at (919} 541- 5517, for issues related to ozone or carbon monoxide; Mr. Eric Ginsburg at (919) 541-0877, SulfurDioxide/ ParticulateMatterPrograms Branch (MD-15), for issues related to sulfur dioxide. particulate matter, orlead; Mr. GaryMcCutchen at (919} 541-5592, Permits Programs Branch (MD-15}. for issues related to new sourcereview, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Ms. Paula Van Lare at (202} 260- 3450 for issues related to mobile
sources, 401 MStreet, SW. Washington, DC 20460.
ADDRESSES: 

### The appendices are also in AirDocket A-91-35, at401 M Street, SW, Washington. DC.

Dated: April21. 1992.
Michael Shapiro, 

### ActingAssistantAam.nistrator forAirand Radiation. 

### Appendix A-Glossary
ACf=alternative control technique AVO=average vehicle occupancy BACM=best available control measures BACT"--best available control technology CAA=Ciean Air Act CAAA,=Ciean Air Act AmendmPnts CARB=California Air Resources Board CEMS=·conlinuous emission monitoring

system CO,-carbon monoxide CPM=condensible particulate matter CTG=control technique guideline DOI=Department ofthe Interior DOT=DepartmPnt ofTransportation EKMA=Empiricul Kinetic Modeling

Approach ERC=emission**rt~duction** credits ETC=employertransportation coordinator ETPS=EmissionTrading Policy Statf'ment FIP=Federallmplemenlation Plan FMVCP=Federal MotorVehicle Control

Program FR=Federal Register GVWR=Gross Vehicle Weight Rating HC=hydrocarbons 1/M=inspection and maintenance IPP=inventory preparation plan LAER=Iowest achievable emission rate MMS=Minerals Management Service MSA/CMSA= metropolitan statistical area/

consolidated metropolitan statistical area NAAQS=nationul ambient airquality

standards NAS=National Academy ofSciences NOJ=Nitrogen dioxide**NO,~**nitrogen oxides NSPS=new source performance standard NSR=New Source Review OCS=outercontinental shelf PSD-=prevention ofsignificant deterioration psi=pounds per square inch RACM=reasonably available control

measures RACT=-,reasonably available control

technology RFP=reasonable further progress RTA=rural transport area RVP=Reid vapor pressure SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality

Management District SO,=sulfur dioxide SIP=State implementation plan TCM=transportation control measures TSP=total suspendedparticulate (matter) VOC=volatile organic compound VMT=vehicle miles traveled Appendix 8-Bibliographyand Cited References

To obtain copies ofOi\QPSdocuments.
contact the EPA Library. (919) 541-5514; (1-!S) 629-5514. For OMS publications. please
contactMark Woh;ott. (313) 668-4219; WI'S) 374-8219.
SIP Inventory Guidance/Requirements

"Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections," EPi\-450/4-91-{119. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, July 1991.

"Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation. Volume IV: Mobile Sources." EPA-450/4-81-{)26d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofMobile Sources. Ann Arbor. Ml, July 1991. (also listed below underGeneral Inventory Guidance). "Procedures for the PrPparation of Emissions Inventorie& for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors ofOzone. Volume 1". EPA450/4-91-Q16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. May 1991.

"Procedures for the Preparation of Emissions Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors ofO.wne. Volume II: Emission Inventory Requirements for Photochemical Air Quality Simulation Models." EPA-450/4- 91-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. ll.lay 1991.

"Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans," EPA450/4-91-Q10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. March 1991.

"Emission Inventory Requirements for CarbonMonoxide State Implementation Plans." EPA-450/4-91-{111. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ResearchTriangle Park. NC. March 1991.

"SIPAir Pollutant Inventory Management System (Si\MS) Version4.0 and SAMS User's Manual." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Qualit}· Planning and Standards.ResearchTriangle Park. North Carolina. March 1991.

"ExampleEmission Inventory Documentation for Post-1987 Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs)."' EPA-450/4-89- 018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. October 1989.

"Procedures for Estimating and Applying Rule Effectiveness in Post-1987 Base Year Emission Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide StateImplementation Plans," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. June 1989. Quality Assurance/Inventory Review Guidance

"QualityReview Guidelines for Post-1987 StateImplementation Plan (SIP) Base Year Emission Inventories (Draft)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. February 1990. (Final version to be completed in August 1991.)

"Guidance for the Preparation ofQuality Assurance Plans for 0./CO SIPEmission Inventories," EPA-450/4-81Hl23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. December 19A8.
General Inventory Guidance

"Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. ResearchTriangle Park. NC:

a. "Volume 1: Emission Inventory Fundamentals."' EPA-450/4-81-{)26a. September 1981.

b. "Volume II: Point**Sources.~** EPA-450/4- 81-{)26b. September 1981.

## Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules 18071

c. "Volume III: Area Sources," EPA-450/4-**81~26c.** September 1981. d. "VolumeIV: Mobile Sources." EPA-450/**H1~2&d** (Revised). July 1981.



### e. "Volume V: Bibliography," EPA-450/4-**61~26e.**September 1981.
Emission Factors/Models

"Personal Computer Version ofthe Biogenic Emissions Inventory System {PCBEIS) With Ueer'tGuide." EPA-450/4-91- 017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAirQualityPlanning and Standards. ResearchTriangle Park. NC. July 1991.

"User'sGuide lo MOBILE4 (Mobile Source Emission FactorModel)." EPA-AA-TEB-{19- 01. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofMobile Sources, Ann Arbor. MI. February 1969. {Revised version ofMOBILFA and documentation tobe completed in July 1991.)

"Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) Version 2.0 User's Manual." EPA-450{ 4-90-Q19a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards.ResearchTriangle Park. NC. September 1990.

"Background Document for Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) Version2.0. EPA-450/4-90-<l19b," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards. ResearchTriangle Park. NC. September 1990.

"AIRS Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes (SCCs) and Emission FactorLiating for Criteria Pollutants." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualityPlanning andStandards, ResearchTriangle Park. NC. September 1989.

"CompilationofAirPollutantEmission Factors. Volumes.I and IIand its supplementa, Fourth Edition," AP-42, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Office of Air**Q~~«lity** Planning and Standards, ResearchTrianglePark, NC, September 1965.
Citations and Guidance for SJP Corrections

"GuidanceDocument for Correction ofPart DSIP's for Nonattainment Areas," EPA. OFfice ofAir QualityPlanning andStandards. ResearchTriangle Park, NC. January 27. 1984.
Citations and Guidance for PM-10

"Assessmentofthe Controllability of Condensible Particulate Matter," EPA--«JJ/6- 90-75, October 1900.

"Procedureafor EstimatingProbability of Nonattainment ofa PM-10 NAAQS Using Total SuspendedParticulate ofPM-10 Data.'' EPA-450/4-M-Ci7,December 1986.

"PM-10 SIPDevelopment Guideline," June 1987.

"Control ofOpenFugitive Dust Sources." EPA-450/3-$-008. September 1968.

"GuidanceDocument for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures,"**EPA-450/2~15,** September 1969.

''PrescribedFire Smoke Management Guide." NFES No. 1279. February 1985.

"PrescribedFire Plan Guide," NFES No. 1939. August 1966.
Citations andG11idance for

## so.

"SOz Guideline," EPA-450/2-as-019. 

### •·so, Guideline Appendices." EPA-450/2- 89-019. October 1989. "Letter from William Reilly to Representative John Dingell, In Response to questions andGAOreport." April10. 

### 11!91.

Citations and Guidance for Lead

"Updated information on Approval and Promulgation ofLead Implementation Plans," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ResearchTriancle Park. 

### NC, July 1983.

"Guideline Series. Development ofan Example Control Strategy for Lead." EPA450/l-79-00Z.. April1979.

"GuidelineSeries. Supplementary Guideline for Lead Implementation Plans." EPA-450/2-76-038, August 1978. Modeling Guidance

"UAM Applications Guidance." May 1991. "User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model. Vol. 4," EPA-450/4-90-007D. June 1990.

"Guidance on Air Quality Models (Revised)." EPA-450/2-78-{)27R. July 1966.

"Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models: Experience with Implementation."EPA 450/4-81Hl06. July 1985.
New Source Review Guidance

"New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Guidance Notebook," January 1988.

"Draft Workshop Manual for New Source Review (NSR) Programs," December 1990.
Miscellaneous Guidance

"Criteria for Assessing the Role of Transport ofOzone/Precursors in Ozone Nonattainment Areas." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ResearchTriangle Park. NC, EPA-450/4-91-{115).

"Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs," December 1991.

"GettingStartedonTitle 

### 1." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS. ResearchTriangle Park, NC

.. April1991.

"Issues Relating to VOC Regulations. Cutpoints. Deficiencies. and Deviations," Clarification to Appendix D

### ofNovelllber24. 1987 FR {Blue Book. revised January 11. 19110). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, AQMD, May 25,11188.

"Protocols: CanCoaters. 45FR (December 8. 1988) 

## +Topcoaters," EPA-450/3-81Hl18

· {December 1988). "Technical Guidance-Stage IIVapor .Recovery System for Control ofVehicle RefueUng Emissions atGasolineDispensing Facilities," Volume 1,November 1991.
Memoranda

Memorandum from William Laxton, Director.Technical Support Division, to Regional AirDivision Directors. "Guidance for Determining Significant Stationary Sources ofCarbon Monoxide," May 13, 1991.

Memorandum from John Seitz, OAQPS to AirDivision Director, Regions I-X, "New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance," March 11, 1991.

Memorandum fro!" John Calcagni and William Laxton. "Interim Guidance on Emission Limits and StackTest Methods for Inclusion in PM-10SIP's," December24. 1990.

Memorandum from Robert Bauman and Rich Biondi to Air Branch Chiefs,**"S~** SIP Deficiency Checklist.'' November211. 1990. Memorandum from Joaepb Tikvarl and Robert Bauman concerning modeling guidelines addressing PM-10, datedJuly 15. 1990.

Memorandum from William Laxton, Director. Technical Support Division, to Regional Air Division Directors. "Ozone and Carbon Dioxide Design Value Calculations." June 18, 1990.

·Memorandum from Craig J. Potter. "Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions." April 22. 1968.

Memorandum from Gerald A. Emison, Director. OAQPS. to Regional Air Division Directors, "Transmittal ofReissued OAQPS CEMS Policy," March 31, 1988.

Memorandum from John Seitz. Director. Stationary Source Compliance Division. to Regional Air Division Directors. "Implementation ofRule Effectiveness Studies." March 31, 1968.

Memorandum from Craig Potter,Thomas Adams. and Francis Blake to Regional Air Division Directors, "ReviewofStale Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency." September23, 1967.

Memorandum from Gerald Emison, Director. OAQPS, to David Kee, Director. Air Management Divi&ion, Region V, "Need (or

### a Short-Term BACT Analysis for the Proposed William A. ZimmerPower Plant," November 24.1988.

Memorandum from Richard Rhoads. DirectorCPDD, to Division Directors. Regions I-X. "Growth Restrictions in Secondary NAAQS Nonattainment Areas," October28, 1980.

Memorandum from R. Strelow to RA's Region I-X. "Guidance for Determining AcceptabilityofSIP Regulations in NonAttainment Areas,"December9, 1976.
Federal RegisterCitations
44 FR 20312. April4, 1979. 44 FR 20375, April 4, 1979. 44 FR 53762, September 17. 1979. 44 FR 53709, September 17, 1979. 44 FR 53791. September 17, 1979. 45 FR 52676. August 1, 1980. 46 FR 7182, January 21. 1961. 46 FR 1187, January 22, 1961. 51 FR 43812, December4. 1986. 51 FR 43814. December4. 1988. 51 FR 43632. December4. 1986. 52 FR 29363, August 7, 1987. 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. 53 FR 34500, September 7, 1988. 54 FR 812. January 9, 1989. 55 FR 30973, July 30, 1990. 55 FR 41546, October 12. 1990. 55 FR 41547, October 12. 1990. 55 FR 45799, October31, 1990 56 FR 5460, February 11, 1991. 56 FR 11101, March 15, 1991. 56 FR 16274, April12. 1991. 56 FR 23826, May 24, 1991. 56 FR 27257, June 13. 1991. 56 FR 27803, June 14, 1991. 56 FR 31151. July 9, 1991. 56 FR 31154, July 19, 1991. 58 FR 37654, August 8. 1991. 56 FR 43593, September3. 1991. 56 FR 54554, October22. 1991. 56 FR 56694, November6, 1991. 56 FR 58656, November 21, 1991

## 18072 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, 

### No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules

Code ofFederal Regulations Citations
40 CFR 50.8. 40 CFR 50.9 Apprndix H. 40 CFR 50.9. 40 CFR Purt 51. 40 CFR Purl 51 Appendix M 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S. 40 CFR 51.100(o). 40 CFR 51.110(c)(1). 40 CFR 51.117. 40 CFR 51.165. 40 CFR 51.166. 40 CFR 51.340 (Subpart R). 40 CFR Part 52. 40 CFR 52.10. 40 CFR 52.21. 40 CFR 52.24. 40 CFR Part 55. 40 CFR Part 58. 40 CFR Part 60. 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da. 40 CFR Part 81. Appellate Court Citations

Alaban111 Pu1ver Company v. Cost/e. 636 F.2d 32:1, 3fi0·61, 404-05 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.Zd 1224, (D.C. Cir. 1988), Cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 219 (1988).

DelanP.y v. EPA, 898 F.Zd 687, 136 Cong. Rec. S16971 [October27, 1990).
House ofRepresentatives Reports

H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Congress, 2nd Session. pt. 1 at 204, 239, 242, 257, 258, 267, 268, and 381. Appendix Cl-AvailableFugitive Dust Control Measures Background

The available control measures listed below apply to all fugitive dust sources except those to which only available control technology is applicable (i.e., process fugitive dust associuted with stationary sources). Fugitive duNIis particulate matter suspended in the aireitherby mechanical disturbance of the surface material orby wind action blowing across the surface. Mechanical disturbance includes resuspension of particles from vehicles traveling over roadways, parking lots, and otheropen areas. Wind action includes dust blown off inadequately stabilized open areas. The quantity offugitive dust emissions Is dependent upon several factors such as the size ofthe source, emission rate, and control efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy is to reduce fugitive dust emissions. with an emphasis on preventing. ratherthan mitigating. them. For example, past efforts to control emissions from paved roads have usually relied on street cleaning to reduce silt loading. The

new approat:h would put a higherpriority on

measures to prevent silt from getting on the road surface. Mitigative measures.should be reserved for those areas/situations where prevention is not feasible. Technicalguidance

on fugitive dust control measures is found in ControlofOpen FugitiveDustSources (EPA450/3-88-008 September. 1988).

Listof Availab/e ControlMeasures
1. Pave. vegetate, orchemically stabilize

access points where unpaved traffic surfaces adjoin paved roads. 2. Require dust control plans for construction or land clearing projects.

3. Require huul trucks to be covered. 4. Provide for traffic rerouting orrapid clean up oftemporary (and not readily preventable) sources ofdust on paved roads (watererosion runoff, mud/dirt carryout
areas, material spills. skid control sand). Delineate who is responsible for cleanup.

5. Require paving, chemically stabilizing. or otherwise stabilizing permanent unpaved haul roads, and parking or staging areas at commercial, municipal, orindustrial facilities.

6. Develop traffic reduction plans for unpaved roads. Use ofspeed bumps, low speed limits, etc., to encourage use ofother (paved) roads.

7. Limit use ofrecreational vehicles on open land (e.g., confine operations to specific
areas, require use permits, outright ban).

8. Require improved material specification for andreduction ofusage ofskid control sand orsalt (e.g., require use ofcoarse, nonfriable**mat~riul** during Rnow nnd ice season).

9. Require curbing and pave or stabilize (<:hemically orwith vegetation) shoulders of paved roads.

10. Pave orchemically stubilize unpaved roads.

11. Pave, vegdute, orchemically stabilize unpaved parking areas.

12. Establish dust control measures for material storage piles.

13. Provide for sto1m waterdrainage to prevent watererosion onto pavedroads.

14. Require vegetation, chemical stabilization, orotherabatement ofwind erodible soil, induding lands subjected to water mining, abandoned farms, and abandoned construction sites.

15. Rely upon the soil conservation requirements (e.g., conservation plans, conservation reserve) ofthe Food Security Act to reduce cmiRsions from agricultural operalions. AppendixC2-AvailableResidential Wood Combustion Control Measures Background

Wood smoke from residential wood stoves and fireplaces Is a significant source ofPM10 pollution in some areas in the westem United States that do not attain the PM-10 ambient airquality standards. For example. In some mountain communities, atmospheric inversions can trap wood smoke particulates in valleys and cause PM-10 concentrations to reach levels well in excess ofthe standards.

The U.S. EPA's new source performance standard (53 FR 5860, February 26, 1988) is a long4erm strategy designed to improve the performance ofwood burning devices nationwide.The EPA believes that this standard alone, though, may not result in attainment ofthe PM-10 airquality standards in areas affected by wood smoke. Additional available control measures are listed below. They are intended to (1) reduce emissions from current stoves through inspections, education, and shifting to cleanerstoves or fuel; (2) curtail the use ofwood stoves or fireplaces during adverse meteorological conditions; and (3) limit future growth in emissions. Additional guidance on these

measures is contained In EPA-450/2-89-015 (September 1989), GuidanceDocumentfor Residential Wood Combustion Emission ControlMeasures. Nothing in this document prevents a State implementation plan (SIP) in

a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area from containing control measures more stringent thanRACM.

Listof Available ControlMeasures
1. Establish an episode curtailment program, including: A curtailment plan; a communication strategy to Implement the plan; a surveillance plan (e.g., "windshield"
survey, opacity trigger); and enforcement provisions including procedures, penalties. and exemptions). A voluntary program will be deemed reasonable ifthe area demonstrates attainment.

2. Establish a public information program to inform and educate citizens about stove sizing, installation, proper operation and maintenance,general health risks ofwood smoke, new technology stoves, and alternatives to wood heating.

3. Encourage improved performance of woodburning devices by: -Establishinga program to identify, through

opacity observation, deficiencies in stove operation and maintenance. (Under such a program, advice and assistance should be provided to the identified households to help reduce visible emissions from their devices.) -Providingvoluntary dryness certification

programs for dealers and/ormaking free or inexpensive wood moisture checks available to burners. -Evaluatingand encouraging, as

appropriate, the accelerated changeover of existing devices to new source performance standard orotherclean burning new orexisting technology stoves (e.g., hybrid designs, pellet stoves) by such approaches as subsidized stove purchases
tax credits, orotherincentives. 4. Provide inducements that would leadto reductions in the stove andfireplace population (or use) by: -Slowingthe growth ofwoodburning

devices in new housing units by taxes, installation permit fees, orother disincentives. -Encouraginga reduction in the number of

woodburning devices (i.e., removing or disabling the devices) through tax credits

orotherincentives. -Discouragingthe resale ofused stoves

through taxes, fees, orother disincentives. -Discouragingthe availability offree (or

very inexpensive) firewood by increasing cutting fees orlimiting the cutting season. Appendix C3-PrescribedBurning Control Measures Background

Prescribed burning. including silvicultural and agricultural burning, is a contributor to PM-10 nonattainment in some regions. In many cases, well-established smoke management approaches are not being followed, resulting in avoidable airquality problems.The EPA has beenworking closely with the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) to develop appropriate

## Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules 

## 18073

guidance.The objective is to establish smoke management (SM) programs in these areas which constitutereasonably availablecontrol

measures (RACM). and reduce population
exposure to smoke from prescribed burning, while assuring that resource management goals are met.

States should address emissions from prescribed burning in a manner that balances natural resource, agricultural. and other burning objectives with airquality goals and objectives, by utilizing a smoke management program as described in the NWCG's Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide (NFES No. 1279, February 1965) and the Prescribed Fire Plan Guide (NFES No. 1939, August 1986), publications ofthe Boise (Idaho) Interagency Fire Center.

The scope ofa SM program should reflect the specificconditions and requirements ofa local area. Existing programs may be adequate in manycases and in othercases mayprovide a basis for developing a refined
program. Smoke management should
encourage the cooperative efforts oflocal. State, Federal. and private land managers. Emphasis should be on conducting burns under an established planning process.

For the purpose ofPM-10 SIP development, the term prescribed burning includes all open burning ofvegetative matter. This includes both planned ignition and prescribed natural fire. Nothing in a SM program constituting RACM is intended to influence vegetation management orfire suppression practices so

as to increase the potential for wildfire to the point that natural resources orpublic safety

are compromised.

The EPA believes it is reasonable that a SM program apply in those moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas where it hasbeen shown, through monitoring. modeling, or otheranalysis, that prescribed burning can or does contribute to violations of !he PM-10 national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS). The SM program should also apply
to areas outside ofthe nonattainment area if it is shown that prescribed burning outside of the nonattainment area can or does contribute to NAAQS violations. The prescribed burning control measures reasonably may be limited only to the season(s) when high ambient PM-10 concentrations occur. 

### ifit can be shown that the annual PM-10 NAAQS is not violated. 

### See H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong

.. 2d Sess. 268-269 (1990).

Sourcecategories (e.g

.. burning of fencelines. ditch banks, small brush piles, small prescribed natural burns. garden plots)
may not be reasonably controlled where their impact is de minimis based on consideration oftheir collective influence on PM-10 emissions. their duration, season, and proximity to potentially affected populations.

An SM program should consist ofat least the following components:
SmokeDispersionEvaluation

As a minimum. the program should usc National Weather Service forecasts or other meteorological analyses to determine when meteorological conditions are favorable or unfavorable for dispersion and transport of smoke (i.e., "burndays," "noburn days"). Burn Planning, Authorization, and Administration

The smoke management program should provide a process (e.g., telephone call-in) for receiving burn requests, evaluating requests and granting approval for burns. Approval of

a bum should bebased on an evaluation of the alrshcd's capacity/capabilityto disperse emissions on allowable bum days so that the cumulative emissions from all burns and othersources in the airshed will not cause or contribute to violations ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. The approval to burn on a burn day should be equitably divided among all categories ofburners requesting approval to burn while accommodating the "incentives" specified elsewhere in this policy. RequirementsforEnsuringBurner Qualifications

Voluntary training in smoke management techniques should be reasonably available for all burners.The program should include incentives for burners who complete the voluntary training (e.g

.. priority for approval
to burn on "burn days").

PublicEducation andAwareness

Information programs on the nature ofand

reasons for smoke management should be periodically presented to the public (e.g

.. public service announcements, newspaper articles).

SurveillanceandEnforcement

The SM program should rely on routine PM-10 monitoring. and/ormodeling supplemented by periodic visual assessments ofthe effectiveness ofthe dispersion evaluation program. The existing PM-10 monitoring network should be evaluated for its ability to provide information on the effectiveness ofthe SM program as applied to burning conducted in and near the nonattainment area. The network should be modified as appropriate.The program should also provide a process for documenting and following up on public complaints and should provide for and levy fines against burners who violate any ofits mandatory requirements.

Emission Inventories andEmissionEfforts

States should develop and maintain an emission inventory for prescribed burning and all burns should be categorized as to their purpose. Documentation ofthe size. date. purpose, and emission reduction

measures used should be submitted following each large bum. Emission reduction techniques (e.g., mass ignition. rapid mop-up) should be encouraged and incentives (e.g., priority for approval to burn on "burn days") should be offered for demonstrated emission reduction efforts, including the use of alternatives to burning, provided that such incentives can be utilized without compromising resource management objectives.

State Oversight

Therelationship ofthe State air pollution agency with other State agencies to which management oftbe SM program may have been delegated will need to be determined on

a State-by-Statebasis. Nevertheless, State rules and regulations should be enacted in such a mannerthat all provisions ofthe SM
program are enforceable by the State through its State implementation plan. Generally, memorandums ofunderstanding should be utilized to clearly specify working relationships among agencies. AppendixC4-RACTDelenninatlons for StationarySources Bar;kground

Congress has for the second lime in amending the Clean Air Act (Act) specifically required that reasonable available control technology (RACT) be applied to existing stationary sources In nonaltainment areas. In section 172(b)(3) ofthe Act, as amended in 1977, Congress specified that nonattainment

area plans were to "require, * * *, reasonable further progress * * * including such reduction In emissions from existing

sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology." Thus, RACT wasrequired in SIP's developed for areas that were designated nonattoinmcnt for total suspended particulate matter. Now, in section 172(c)(l) ofthe Clean AirAct, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of1990 (Nonattainment Plan Provisions-In General), Congress again requires that· nonattainmentareaplans provide for "• • • such reductions In emissions from existing

sources in the (nonattainment) area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology." Thus. RACT is now required for PM-10 nonattainment area SIP's.

The EPA recommends that the RACT for a particular source continues to be determined

on a case-by-case basis considering the technological and economic feasibility of reducing emissions from that source (through
process changes or add-on control technology). The following technological and economic parameters should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source. TechnologicalFeasibility

The technological feasibility ofapplying an emission reduction method to a particular

source should consider the source's process and operatingprocedures. raw materials, physical plant layout, and any other environmental impacts such as water pollution, waste disposal. and energy requirements.The process, operating procedures, and raw materials used by a

source can affect the feasibility of implementing process changes that reduce emissions and the selection ofadd-on emission control equipment. The operation of and longevity ofcontrol equipment can be significantly influenced by the raw materials used and the process to which it is applied. The feasibility ofmodifying processes or applying control equipment is also influenced by the physical layout ofthe particularplant. The space available in which to implement such changes may limit the choices and will also affect the costs ofcontrol.

Reducing airemissions may notjustify adversely affecting otherresources by increasing pollution ofbodies ofwater, creating additional solid wastedisposal

## 18074 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules

problems orcreating excessive energy demands. (An otherwise available PM-10 control technology may not be reasonable if these otherenvironmental impacts cannot reasonably be mitigated.) For analytic purposes. 1t Statemay considera PM-10 control measure technologically Infeasible If, considering the availability (and cost) of mitigative adverse Impacts ofthatcontrol on otherpollution media, the control would not, in the**State'~** reasonedjudgment, provide a net environmental benefit. In many instances, however. PM-10 control technologies have known energy penalties and adverse effecta

on othermedia, but such effects and the

### r.oat oftheir mitigation are also known and have beenborm? by owners ofexisting sourcesIn

numerous c:ases. Such well-established adverse effects and theircosts are normal and assumed to be reasonable and should
not. in most cases,justify nonuse ofthe PM10 control technology. The costs ofprcvenlinR adverse water, solid waste and energy Impacts will also influence the economic fea'!ibility ofthe PM-10 control technology.

Alternative approaches to reducing emissions ofparticulate matterIncluding PM10 are discussed in Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources-VolumeI (EPA-450/3-81-00Sa) and Volume II (EPA-450/3-81-005b), September 1982. The design, operation and maintenance ofgeneral particulate mattercontrol systems such as met:hanical collectors, electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and wet scrubbers

are discussed in Volume I. The collection efficiency ofeach system is discussed as a function ofparticle size. Information is also presented regarding energy and environmental considerations andprocedures for estimating costsofparticulate matter control equipment.The emission characteristics and control technologies applicable to specific source categories are discussed in Volume II. Secondary environmental impacts are also discuRsed.

Additionnl sources ofInformation on control technology are background information documents for new source performance standards and Identification, Assessment, and Control ofFugitive Particulate Emissions,**EPA~/8-8~23,** August 1986.

In some instances, control technologies

more modern or more advanced than those described in the documents referenced may exist. In s01:h cases, the State'sRACT analysis for a source should consider such available technology.



### Economic Feasibility

EconomiL feasibility considers the cost of reducing emissions and the difference in
costs between the particular source and other similar sources that have implemented emission reduction. As discussed above, EPA presumes that it is reasonable for similar

sources to bearsimilarcosts ofemission reductions. Economic feasibility rests very little on the ability ofa particular source to "afford" to reduce emissions to the level of similar sources. Less efficient sources would be rewarded by having to bearlower emission reduction costs ifaffordabilily were given high coJnsideration. Rather, economic feasibility for RACT purposes islargely determined by evidence that othersources in

a sourcecategory have In fact applied the control technology in question.

The capital costs, annualized costs, and
cost effectiveness ofan emission reduction technology should be considered in determining its economic feasibility. The OAOPS Control Cost Manual, Fourth Edition, EPA-450/3-90-006. January 1990, describes procedures for determining these costs.The above costs should be determined for all technologically feasible emission reduction options.

States may give substantial weight to cost effectiveness in evaluating the economic feasibility ofan emission reduction technology. The cost effectiveness ofa technology is its annualized cost ($/year) divided by the amount ofPM-10 emission reduction (i.e., tons/year) which yields a cost peramount ofemission reduction ($/ton). Cost effectiveness provides a value for each emission reduction option that is comparable with otheroptions and otherfacilities.



### Ifa company contends that it cannot afford the technology thnt appears to be RACT for that source orgroup ofsources, the claim should be supported with such information as the impact on: 1. Fixed and variable production costs ($/

unit),
2. Product supply and demand elasticity, 3. Product prices (cost absorption vs. cost

pass-through), 4. Expected costs Incurred by competitors, 5. Company profits, and 6. Employment.



### Ifa company contends that available control technology is not affordable and would lead to closing the facility, the costsof closure should be considered. Closure may incur costs for demolition, relocation,

severancepay, eft:. Appendix D
United StatesEnvironmental Protection

Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. Reseurch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. March 11, 1991.



### Memorandum Subject: New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance. From: John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards 

### (MD-- 10). To: Addressees.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments) make numerous changes
to the NSR requirements ofthe prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment area programs.The 1990 Amendments create new and expanded nonattainment areas, extend PSD coverage to current Class Iarea boundaries, and mandate

a PSD exemption for certain hazart!ous air pollutants.The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) intends to propose by Septemberof**thi~** yeara regulatory pnckage that will implement these and otherchanges
to the NSR provisions. Final adoption of these revised regulntions is projected for August 1992. In the interim period between passageofthe 1990Amendments and adoption ofthe Agency's final regulations, EPA expects thai numerous issues regarding the 1990Amendments will arise.This memorandum setsforth the Agency's positil)n

on the most important ofthese transitional issues involving the NSR program.

This guidance document does not supersede existing State regulations or approved Stateimplementation plans. However, in some cases, it calls upon**State~** to implement their NSR programs in a manner consistent with provisions ofthe 1990 Amendments that areapplicable immediately and with the requirements that flow directly from these provisions. Nonetheless, the policies set out in this transition memorandum are Intended solely asguidanc:P and do not represent final Agency action. They are not ripe forjudicial review for this

reason. Moreover, they are not Intended, nor

can they be relied upon, to createanyrights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.The EPA officials may decide to follow theguidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis ofspecific circumstances.The Agency also may change this guidance at any time without public notice.

The Regional Offices should send this guidance document to their States. Questions from States and applicantsconcerning specific issues and cases should be directed
to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 

### If
you have anygeneral questions, please
contact Mr. Michael Sewell ofthe New Source Review Section at fTS 62!Hl873 or (919}**541~73.** Attachment



### Addressees Director, Air, Pesticides, andToxics

Management Division, Regions I, IV, and VI Director. Air and Waste Management

Division, Region II Director, AirManagement Division, Regions

III and IX Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region



### v Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions

VII, VIII, and X

cc:

J. Calcagni R. Campbell W. Laxton 

### E. Lillis J. Rasnic L. Wegman J. Weigold NSR Contacts Corrections to Original Document: Two

errors in the document as issued on March 11, 1991 have been corrected in this copy. On page 2on the last line, "CFC 112" is changed
to correctly read "CFC 113". On page 8in item 4, the cite "Section 172(b)" is changed to correctly read "Section 173(b)",
New Source Review (NSR) Transitional Guidance



### Taxies andNotionalEmissions Standardsfor IlazardousAirPollutants (NESHAPS)Issues

1. Section 112Hazardous AirPollutants are No Longer Considered Regu!atecl Pollutants

## Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules 

## 18075

Under Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD). but NESHAPS**~till** Apply.

Under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act) and regulations issued thereunder. the PSD requirements ofthe Act apply to all "major" new sources and "major" modifications. i.e., those exceeding certain annual tonnage thresholds (see40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i)). Typically, new

sources and modifications become subject to PSD because they exceed the specified tonnage threshold for a criteria pollutant, i.e.,

a pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) has been established under section 109 ofthe Act. Once a new source ormodification is subject
to PSD. the PSD requirements apply to every pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that is emitted in "significant" quantities (or, in the case ofa major modification. for which there is a significant net emissions increase) (see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23) and (i)(2)). Under the 1977 Amendments. best available control technology (BACT) and otherPSD requirements apply not only to emissions of criteria pollutants but also to emissions of pollutants regulated underotherprovisions of the Act, such as section 111 or 112. This regulatory structure was altered by the 1990 Amendments.

Title 

### 111 ofthe 1990 Amendments added a
new section 112(b)(6) that excludes the hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112(b)(l) ofthe revised Act (as well as any pollutants that may be added to the list) from the PSD (and other) requirements ofPart C. Thus, because they are on the initial Title III hazardous airpollutants list. the following pollutants, which had been regulated under PSD because they werecovered by the section 112 NESHAPS or section 111 new

source performance standards (NSPS) program, are now exempt from Federal PSD applicability:

• Arsenic

• Asbestos

• Benzene (including benzene from gasoline)

• Beryllium

• Hydrogen sulfide (H2Sl

• Mercury

• Radionuclides (including radon and

polonium)

• Vinyl chloride

TheTitle Ill exemption applies to final Federal PSD permits (i.e

.. those issued in final form and for which administrative appeals, if any, under40 CFR 124.19 have been exhausted) issued on orafter the date of
enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments (November 15, 1990). For Federal PSD permit applications now underreview by eitheran EPA Regional Office ora delegated State, PSD permit requirements do not apply to the pollutants exempted byTitle III. For Federal PSD permitscontaining PSD requirements for the pollutantsexempted by Title III issued on
orafterNovember 15, 1990, the permittee may request a revision (e.g., removal ofa BACT limit for benzene) to theirPSD permit
to reflect the Title Ill exemption from Federal PSD applicability.

Note that pursuant to section 116 and the preservation clause in section 112(d)(7) ofthe amended Act. States with an approved PSD program may contmue to regulate the Title III hazardous airpollutants now exempted from Federal PSD by section 112(b)(6) ifthe State PSD regulations provide an independent basis to do so. These State rules would remain in effect unless a Staterevised them
to provide similarexemptions. Additionally. the Title Ill pollutants continue to be subject
to anyotherapplicable Stale and Federal rules: the exclusion is only for Part C rules.

Finally. section 112(q) retains existing NESHAPS regulations by specifying that any standard under section 112 in effect prior to the date ofenactment ofthe 1990 Amendments shall remain in force and effect after such date unless modified asprovided in the amended section.Therefore, the requirements of40 CFR 61.05 to 61.08. including preconslruction permitting requirements. for new and modified sources subject to existing NESHAPS regulations are still applicable.

,

In summary. the pollutants currently regulated under the Act as ofMarch 1991 that

are still subject to Federal PSD review and permittingrequirements are:

• Carbon monoxide

• Nitrogen oxides

• Sulfur dioxide

• Particulate matterand PH-10

• Ozone (volatile organic compounds)

• Lead (elemental)

• Fluorides

• Sulfuric acid mist

• Total reduced sulfur compounds (including

1-I,S)

• CFC's 11. 12, 113. 114.115

• Halons 1211. 1301. 2402

• Municipal waste combustor (MWC) acid

gases, MWC metals and MWC organics 2. Hazardous Air Pollutants that are Regulated as One Component ofa More General Pollutant Under OtherProvisions of the Clean Air Act are Still Regulated.

Any hazardous airpollutants listed in section 112(b)(1) which are regulated as constituents ofa more general pollutant listed under section 106 ofthe Act are still subject
to PSD aspart ofthe more general pollutant, despite the exemption inTitle Ill. For example. volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (a term which includes benzene. vinyl chloride, methanol, toluene. methyl ethyl ketone, and thousands ofothercompounds)

are still regulated as VOC's (but not as individual pollutants such as benzene. etc.) underthe PSD regulations because these pollutants are ozone precursors. not because they are air toxics. Also, particulates (including lead compounds and asbestos) are still regulated asparticulates (both PM-10 and particulate matter) under the PSD regulations. Lead compounds are exempt from Federal PSD by Title III. but the elemental lead portion oflead compounds (as tested for in 40 CFR part 60. appendix A, Method 12) is still considered a criteria pollutant subject to the lead NAAQS and still regulated underPSD.

3. ToxicEffect ofUnregulated Pollutants Still Considered in BACT Analysis.

Based on the remand decision on June 3. 1986 by the EPA Administratorin 

### North CountyResourceRecoveryAssociates (PSD Appeal No. 85-2). the impact on emissions of otherpollutants. including unregulated pollutants. must be taken into account in determining BACT for a regulated pollutant. When evaluating control technologies and their associated emissions limits, combustion practices, andrelated permit terms and conditions in a BACT proposal. the applicant
must consider tke environmental impacts of all pollutants not regulated by PSD. Once a project is subject to BACT due to the emission ofnonexempted pollutants, the BACT analysis should therefore considerall pollutants. including Title III hazardous air pollutants previously subject to PSD. in determining which control strategy is best.



### PSD Class IBoundaryIssues

1. PSD Applicability Coverage Changes as Class IArea Boundaries Change

Sections 162(a) and 164(a) ofthe amended Act specify that the boundaries ofareas designated as Class 1must now conform to all boundary changes at such parks and wilderness areas made since August 7. 1977 and any changes that may occur in the future. TheEPA does not believe that Congress intended to create the turmoil which would

occur ifthis redesignation required the modification ofpermits issued between August 7, 1977 and November 15, 1990. or the resubmission and reevaluation ofcomplete permit applications submitted prior to enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments. Thus, for this reason, applications considered complete prior to November 15, 1990 should be processed as submitted without regard to the

new Class 1area boundaries. Exceptions to this general policy are in the area of increment consumption and airquality related values (including visibility). as discussedbelow.

Foran applicant who submitted a complete PSD application prior to November 15, 1990. if all otherPSD requirements are met, a permit may be issued based on the Class 1analysis

as submitted in the application, unless the reviewing authority finds. on a case-by-case basis. that additional analysis is needed from the applicant to address suspected adverse impacts orincrement consumption problems due to the expandedboundaries ofthe Class I areas. Any existing increment violations in the newboundaries ofClass I areas must be remedied through a SIPrevision pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(3).

The PSD applications not considered completebefore November 15, 1990 must consider the impact ofboth existing sources and the new or modified source on the Class I

areas as defined by the 1990 Amendments. Thus. the complete application must consider the impacts on the entire Class Iarea based upon the boundaries in existence ofthe date ofsubmittal ofa complete application: as before, ifa Class Iboundary changes before the permit is issued, the reviewing authority may find. on a case-by-case basis, that additional analysis is needed from the applicant to address suspected adverse impactsor increment consumptionproblems due to expanded Class IArea boundaries.



### NSRNonattainmentlssues
1. NSR Construction Permit Requirements in Nonattainment Areas

In many States, the existing approved Part Dpermit program.by its terms covers all designated nonattainment areas in the State,

## 18076 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules

sua Part lJ permit program will automatically apply to the new and expanded nonattainment areas which are established under provisions ofTitle Iofthe 1990 Amendments. Thus, until new rules are adopted for these new or expanded nonattainment areas, States should apply the requirPme.tls oftheirexisting approl'ed Part Dper·nit progrum. However, in othl'r Stales,

a Par! Dprogram may be limited to specified

areas and does not apply to new or expanded HreiJS. In**the~;e** caHes, StateR must imp:ement

a tranqitionHI permitting program unlil their existing**Pt~rl** D programs are revised to meet the requirromPntR ofthe 1990 Amendments und expanded to coverall nonattainment arPus in th,• State. Otherwise. both thP gon!s ofpHrt U**aT~** Congress' intent in creilfing

nrow ur e.-.phndcd nonattainment arPas will be frustmind.

The EPA regulations alre.Jdy providP for**the~e** new orexpanded designated nonattainn•ent arrasbecause the Emission Offset Interpretations Ruling [40 CFR part 51!, appe:1dix S) ROVerns permitH to construct between the date ofdesignution and the**dt~le** 1m approVI'd Pa!"! Dplan Is maue applicable
to the new nonattainment area (sPe 40 CFR 52.24(1.)). Until a State'snew Part Dpian is B!ifll"O\eri hy EPA, ifa St<tiP wishes to lssue H permit for .t mnjor statiom;ry source ormajor· modifir:atiun**in~;** new orexpanded designated nnnattr.inmentarea, the StHifJ should comJ.IlY with the requirements of appendix S. Among other things, appendix S rr•quires a maj•Jr source seddng to locate In a nonattainrne:-tt area to (1) meet the lowest HchiE:vable emission rate for sud: S'"lurce, [2) pro\irle offsets from existing sources in the
area, t:'ld (3) shov.; that the offsets will provirleo p.lsith·e n10t airquality benefli (see 40 CFR purl fil. appendix S, section IV.A}.

. The EPA believes that in order to carry out

the intent "fappeudixS, offsets should be required for sources in all categories and in all instdnct!N should be calculated on a tons peryearbasis [see 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. section IV.(.I.

Of**COUf~P.. m>ith~r**  appendix S nor thP f'Xistin!! 1\lS.R rules incorpofllte the NSR chankPS mundated byTitle Iofthe 1990 Amendment& such as lower source applicability thresholds, increased emi&sions offset**ratio~.** n<Jw definitions ofmajor st11tionary source, and (forozone nonattainment areas) requirements fur nitrogen oxides (NOx] control and NO;.; emissions offsets. However. the 1990 Amendments require**Sta~es** to submit to EPA

new NSR permit program rules for ozcne non:tttainment areasby November 15, 1992; for PM-10 nonattainment areasbyJune 30, 1992; and for most carbon monoxide (CO} nonattainment areas no later than 3years from the date ofthe nonattainment designation.The EPA interprets this**I!~** an expression ofcongressional intent not to mandatethat States adhere to the more stringentTitleINSR requirements in nonattainmenl areas during the time provided for State implementation plan (SIP) development. Thus, for NSR permitting
purposes in nonattainment areas. the new NSR requirements in Title I are not in effect until the States, as required by the Act. adopt NSR permit program rules toimplement the Title Iprovisions. In addition, EPA
encourages any Stalehaving adequate authority for early implementation ofthe NSR changes to do sous soon aspossible.



### IfStates filii to submit to EPA the new NSR permit program rules for nonattainment areas by the dP.adlines in the amended Act, EPA Intends to impose in these nonattainment

areas a Federal implementation plan (FIP) embodying such requirem1mts. Currently, EPA intends to propose revis!'d NSR regulations ul 40 CFR part 52 that would implement the new Title INSR requirements under a FIP In a State ifthat**Stc~te'a** revised NSR rules to Implement Title Iar" not submitted in**approvublt~** form tn EPA and**rn:1d1~** effective within the Statehy thP deadlines established by th"**1~10** Amendments.

Th" urea designation in elletl un the d:j!l' ofpermitissuance by the rnviewing agency determines which regulations (Part C orPart D) apply to that permit. In oth1 r words, the PSD permit regolations apply to pollutants for which the area Is uesignated us attainment or t.nclussifial:la. unJ lhe NSR nun;>ttainment permit regnlations apply to pollu:ants for which the are!! is designated nonatthinment (see 40 CFR 51.166[i) (3) anu (5); and 40 CFR 52.21(i) (3)anu (5)}. Under theHe regulations, a PSD permit for a pollutant c;annot be issued in an area that is designated nonallr.inment for that pollutant. For the situation where a

source wceives a PSD o;other permit prior to the date the area is designated as nonattC>inment, thP. permit remains in efftc!

as long as the source commenr.es wnstruction within 18 month!! after the date ofnonaaainment designation oftht' area, dues not rlis1;ontinue construction for more than 18 months, and completes CIJnStl1Jction within a reasonable time (sP.e 40 CPR 52.24 [g) and (k)). Although the PSD regulations provide for extension ofthesedeadlines, no extension would be appropJiale where the

area has been designated as nonattainment following permit issuance. Accordingly, ifany ofthese construction provisions ure not met, the PSD permit or otherpermit will not be extended, and the source (ifsubject to the nonattainment provisions) must obtain a nonattalnment permit priorto commencing (or continuing) construction.

The 1990 Amendments create some new and expanded nonattainment areasby operation oflaw. Othernonallalnmt:nt area changes are expected as thP Sidles and EPA complete the designation process prescribed in amended section 107(d). Ber;ause ofthese provisions, the dates areas switch from attainment to nunattainmenl for NSR**purpo~es** vary by pollutant. However, except for the two instances where the Amendments
create changes by operation oflaw, the new designations and expandedboundaries will
not beeffective for NSR purposes until EPA promulgates the changes.The promulgations will be announced in the Federal Register.

Congress created new PM-10 nonattainment areas through designations that br

..ame effective upon enactment ofthe 1990Amendments on November 15, 1990 (see section 107(d)(4)(B)). Specifically. Congress designated Group I areas and areas where violations ofthe PM-10 NAAQS had occurred prior to January 1, 1989 us nonattainment. The EPA published a list of these PM-10 areas in a Federal Register notice (see 55 FR 45799, October31, 1990; SllP also 52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987). The EPA plans to publish a notice in the Federal Register listing these areas as nonattainment in the near future, but they are alreAdy considered nonattainmentareas as of November 15, 1990.

Similal'ly, the 1990Amendments expandby operation oflaw some CO and ozone nonattainment areas. However, these changes did not become effective with passage but ratheron December 30, 1990. The specifics nre as follows: Section 107(d)(4}(A)(iv) ofthe ornendt>d Act provides that, with the exception explained below ozone and CO nonat!ainment areas located within metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA) which are classified as serious.
severe, or extreme for ozone oras serious for CO are automatically expanded to include the entire MSA orCMSA. This expansion became effective by operation of IRw 45**d11y~** afterenactment unlesf, the Governor suhmilled a notice by this deadline ofthe State's intent to seek a modification ofthe expanded bound<tries purHuant to the procedures set forth in section 107(d)(4}(A}(v). So ifa State did nut provide this notice, the nonattainment boundaries ofall serious, severe, and
extreme ozone nonattainment areas in the State and all serious CO areas in the State expanded to Include the entire MSA or CMSA on December 30, 1990.1fa State did provide ti;;r.ely notice, the Administrator hat< up to 14 months from enactment to resolve the State'schallenge. Until EPA promulgates a resolution ofthe State's challenge, the old boundariesrem11ln in effect. Except for**th~.:se** two cases where new ur expandedboundaries have been createdby op!lration ofluw, nonatlainment area changes will not be considered effective until the changes arll promulgated by the EPA. As
to most new areas orexpansions of previou&ly-designated nonattainment ateas, this will occur240 days afterenactment (see section 107(d)(4)(A) (i) and (ii)). Newlycreated ozone and CO nonattainment areas will be considered part ofa designated nonattainment area for NSR purposes at thP time ofpromulgation.
2. Status ofConstruction Bans

Pursuant to section 110(n)(3], an existing construction ban that was imposed due to the absence ofapproved Part D NSR rules remains in effect until a revised NSR SIP is approved. Existing construction bans imposed due to disapproval ofprimary sulfur dioxide NAAQS allainment plans also remain in effect. A Federal Register notice will be puhlished soon announcing the statu'! ofconstruction bans in general and also lifting specific banswhere appropriate. Should a construction ban be lifted In any

area designated as nonallainment, and the

area locks an approved Part D NSR rule, the State should meet the requirements of40 CFR part 51, appendix S, in issuingpermits to

## Federal Register 

# I Vol. 57, 

## No. 82 

# I Tuesday, April 28, 1992 

# I Proposed Rules 

## 18077

major new sources ormajor modifications prior to the adoption ofNSR rules meeting the requirements ofthe 1990Amendments.

3. Federal Implementation Plans Remain in Effect

The NSR permitting program in an existing FIP remains in effect until a SIP is approved

ora revised FIP is adopted.

4. Use ofPreviously-Apprvved Growth Allowances Is Prohibited

Section 173(b) invalidates growth allowances in existing SIP's in areas that received a SIP call prior to enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments, or that receive one thereafter. For NSR permits issued on orafter November 15, 1990. previously-approved growth allowances cannot be used in these

areas. Construction permits cannot be issued in SIP-call areas under existingEPAapproved Part Dprograms to the extent that such permits rely onpreviously-approved growth allowances. Case-by-case emission offsets must be obtainedfor any such permits. and otherexisting Part D requirements mustbe met.
5. Existing NSR Permitting Rules ContinueTo Apply in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (NOTR)

The 1990 Amendments establish a single

ozone transport region comprised ofthe StatesofConnecticut. Delaware. Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire. New Jersey. New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. Vermont, and the CMSA that includes the District ofColumbia and part ofthe State ofVirginia. For this transport region, including all attainment areas within its boundaries, new section 184(b)(2) specifies that any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 Ions peryear ofVOC's shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources ifthe area were classified as a moderate ozone nonattainmenl area. ForNSR purposes, the requirements ofsection 184(b)(2} are not in effect in a State until the State submits a new
orrevised SIP that includes the requirements (or EPA imposes a FIP implementingthose requirements). A Stalein the NOTR has until November 15, 199Z to submit to EPA the new
orrevised NSR rules addressing the new requirements. Appendix E

I. Introduction

The EPA is issuing this CTG document under section 182(b) ofthe Clean AirAct, as amended. Undersection 182(b). States must develop RACT rules for sources "covered by

a CTG document issued by the Administrator between November 15, 1990 andthe date of attainment."The Slatemust submit these RACT rules wwithin the period set forth by the Administratorin issuing the relevant CTG document." One type of"CTG document" is a CTG: a CTG is a technical document that sets forth a presumptive level ofRACT controls for a source category.The Act provides that EPA must issue eleven CTG's by November 15, 1993. In addition, the Act specifically requires the Agency to prepare CTG's for aerospace coatings and ship building and repairwithin the same timeframe.

This document is not a technical CTG, but rather a second type ofCTG document-a document that lists the eleven CTG's EPA anticipates publishing in accordance with section 183(a) and establishes lime tables for submittal ofRACT rules for sources that are not ultimately covered by a CTG issued by November 15, 1993. The EPA believes that it is necessary to issue this document at this time so that States will be able to determine which sources and source categories fit within the RACT rule submittal requirement for sources that EPA expects to be covered by a post-enactment CTG.

II. Listof Eleven CTG's The EPA plans to issue the following CTG's in accordance with section 183(a).

1. Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillation;

. 2. SOCMI reactors; 3. Wood furniture; 4. Plastic parts coaling (business machines): 5. Plastic parts coaling (other): 6. Offset lithography; 7. Industrial wastewater; 8. Autobody refinishing: 9. SOCMI batch processing; 10. Volatile organic liquid storage tanks: and

11. Clean up solvents.

!II.Authority

Under section 182(b}(2), Statesmust adopt RACT rules for three general groups of

sources: (A) Thosecoveredby a postenactment CTG document; (b) those covered by a pre-enactment CTG; (c) "all other major stationary sourcesofVOC's.'' Section 182(b)(2) alsoestablishes the timing for Stale submittal and source implementation of RACT rules for these three groups. For

sources covered by a post-enactment CTG document. the Statemust submit RACT rules within the period established in the relevant CTG document. Forthe other twogroups. the Act provides specific dates for submittal. November 15, 1992. andimplementation. no laterthan May 31, 1995.

Alone. subparagraphs (A). (B) and (C) seem to set forth three distinct groups ofsources. However. the submittal dates under the second portion ofthe provision potentially could blurthe line betweenthese three groups ifEPA does not issue before November 15. 1992. a CTG document covering all sources for which it plans to issue a CTG under section 183(a). At that time. States would need to submitRACT rules for all othermajor stationary sourcesthose for which neither a pre-enactment CTG

nor a post-enactment CTG document had been issued.

The EPA's obligation to issue the eleven CTG's does not ripen until November 15, 1993. andEPA does not anticipate issuing all ofthese CTG's before November 15. 1992. Therefore, to the extent EPA does not issue a CTG document before November 15, 1992, States would be required to submit non-CTG RACT rules for sources that could In the future be covered by a CTG. In.addition. at the time the CTG document was issued, the Statecould then be required lo submit a new rule, consistent with the CTG document, thereby duplicating its earliereffort.

In orderto relieve the States from being required to duplicate rules and to relieve

sources from potentiallybeing subject to two different requirements within a short period, EPA is issuing this CTG document to retain the sharp distinction between the three different groups in subparagraphs (A). (B), and (C). Ifa State believes that one ofthe eleven CTG's listed in Section II will cover a particularmajorsource. the Stale should follow the timing provisions ofSection IV, below for submittal ofa rule applicable to that source.The State should Identify those

sources in its November 15, 1992 RACT submittal.

IV. Time Table

The EPA is establishing the following general time table for States to submit RACT rules for sources that it identifies in a November 15, 1992 submittal asbeing a

source covered by a post-enactment CTG document.

(1) on November 15. 1992, the State must submit a list ofmajor stationary sources that it anticipates will be subject to one ofthe CTG's listed in Section II. which EPA plans to issue by November 15, 1993.

(2) For those majorsources on the list submitted by the Stalein the 1992 submittal that are not covered by a CTG that EPA has issued by November 15, 1993. the State must submit a RACT rule by November 15, 1994 that requires implementationofRACT by May 15, 1995.

(3) For sources covered by a CTG issued under section 183(a) and for which the Stale has not. by the dateofsuch Issuance, adopted an approvable RACT rule. the State
must submit a RACT rule in accordance with the time schedule setforth in the relevant CTG.

(4) For sources subject to a RACT rule that the State adopted andEPA approved under section 182(b}(2) priorto EPA's issuance ofan applicableCTG, EPA will work with the State to determine whether the existing rule should be revised once a CTG hasbeen issued thai would apply to thai source.
(FR Doc. 92-9866 Filed4-27-92; 8:45am)

BILUNG CODE**6560-~**