p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

14) ll-F-56 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54 AM Sheet 14 of 45 
P.2 

H-HO-jy 

**"••* » Tnnsfer and PZ L ,

 (M0"1 a 

Pffice of Air Quaiitv PLT^, k^* *

 D 

U S Em*.

 V*"yP,annm«»n«-Standards toLZST?*"*Protection A««*y 

Research Tnangle Park. NC 277U 

FAX Number: (919)541-5509 

TO* 

•^a/^^A J A^^^-K^ . 

Out: /0-2^-^sFROM: 

BNIMBEB 

'AX NUMBER 

COMMENTS: 

/=/esr /<?/= 7?fd ) /<*U -£T%_Z^ K 6^7-3* 

C/fot/ce* S/uoe me- &/z.q D~e> s&*^/ O A J 

\ 

APR; ; D1QQD ,• 

iV* t "xr^/uriDCCTi 

Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 18 

Ifyo if youu di ddnoc receive ail the pages, please contact tha 

919-541. 
P.3 

164 

defining AQRVs other than visibility. However, the legislative 

history provides the following: 

[T]he term 'air quality related values' of Federal lands 

designated as class I includes the fundamental purposes for which 

such lands have been established and preserved by the Congress 

and the responsible Federal agency. For example, under the 1916 

Organic Act to establish the National Park Service (16 U.S.C. § 

1), the purpose of such national park lands 'is to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.1 

S. Rep. No. 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (1977). 

The EPA proposes to define "air quality related value" as a 

scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or 

recreational resource which may be affected by a change in air 

quality, as defined by the FLM for Federal lands and as defined 

by a State or Indian Governing Body for nonfederal lands within 

their respective jurisdictions. See proposed section 

51.166(b) (40) and section 52.21(b) (41) . The proposed definition 

attempts, to include addresses the fundamental purposes for which 

such lands have been established and preserved. The proposed 

definition also recognizes that (1) the PLMs have the 

responsibility to identify AQRVs for Federal lands, and (2) the 

Act gives authority to States and Indian Governing Bodies to 

identify AQRVs for areas within their respective jurisdictions.53 

53 Section 164 (e) of the Act provides for EPA protection of 

AQRVs when the EPA is requested to resolve a dispute between a 

State and Tribe about the redesignation of an area or a proposed 

PSD permit.. The reader is also referred to the discussion in 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.4 

165 

The EPA is proposing to define "adverse impacts on air 

quality related values" as an unacceptable deleterious effect 1| 

any AQRV defined by the FLM, resulting in whole or in part from 

the emissions of a proposed source or modification, that 

interferes with the management, protection, preservation, or 

enjoyment of the AQRVa of a Federal Class I area. See proposed 

section 51.166(b) (41) and section 52.21(b) (42). Under the part 

52 PSD regulations, the proposed definition would be in addition 

to the existing definition of "adverse impact on visibility" 

[section 52.21(b) (29)] which is derived from the EPA's visibility 

regulations adopted pursuant to the Act's visibility protection 

program. See existing 40 CFR 51.301(a) and 51.307. 

The proposed definition of "adverse impact on. air quality 

related values" includes the requirement that such determinations 

be made on a case-by-case basis, focusing primarily on. the 

emissions from a proposed major source or major modification and 

the change in air quality that will result from those emissions. 

The FLM*s determination of an adverse effect shall apply to one 

or more specific AQRVs and must address, for each affected AQRV, 

the projected impact of the emissions from the proposed P$I> 

source on the existing air quality (including the predicted 

impacts of recently-permitted sources not yet in operation) in 

section IV.C.5 of this preamble, where EPA clarifies its position 

concerning the authority of States and Indian tribes to establish 

AQRVs for their respective lands. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.5 

166 

the Class I area.54 The FLM may determine that the emissions 

from a proposed source will have an unacceptable deleterious 

effect on AQRVs, considering existing conditions which may 

already be regarded as "adverse." However, the adverse effect 

resulting from the proposed source's emissions, in light of 

existing conditions, must be addressed specifically and must be| 

the basis for the adverse impact demonstration. The adverse 

impact demonstration is also discussed in section IV.C.2.d. of 

this preamble. 

The proposed definition also recognizes that the term 

"adverse impact on air quality related values" has special 

meaning under the Act that is properly limited to Federal Class I 

areas. See section 165(d) of the Act. As described previously, 

permits must be denied to sources whose emissions would have an 

adverse impact AQRVs in a Federal Class I area, even though no 

violation of a Class I increment would result from those 

emissions. 

b. Role of the FLM in Defining Specific AQRVs. 

In general, the EPA explicitly recognizes that FLMs have 

special expertise and knowledge about the Federal Class I areas 

which they manage. In addition, the EPA agrees with the CAAAC's 

54In a previous rulemaking, EPA determined that an assessment of whether a 

proposed source would cause an adverse impact on visibility requires the 

permittig authority to review the new source's impact in the context of 

background impacts caused by both existing and previously permitted sources. 

See 50 FR 28544, July 12, 1985 at page 28548. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.6 

167 

recommendation that the FLMs should be expressly recognized as 

having the primary responsibility for the identification of 

specific AQRVs. 

The EPA believes that it is appropriate not to propose 

regulations that would dictate how the FLMs identify AQRVs (and 

associated critical pollutant loadings) or demonstrate an adverse 

impact on AQRVs. These responsibilities are closely tied to the 

role of the FLM mandated by the Act, and are also integral to the 

management of those AQRVs under the mandates of the Federal Lands 

statutes as well (e.g., Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. sec. 1131 et 

seq., and 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. sec. 

1 et. seq.) Furthermore because of the wide variety of Federal 

Class I areas and AQRVs, sensitivities of critical receptors, and 

the unavailability of data in many cases, the EPA believes that 

the FLMs must have sufficient latitude to address these issues on 

an area-by-area, as well as a permit-by-permit, basis ao the need 

arioca. At the same time, the EPA encourages FLMs to identify 

AQRVs on a regional or national basis where appropriate, and to 

establish general procedures for identifying AQRVs. 

c. Role of the FLM in Triggering a Class I Area Analysis. 

It is generally agreed that not all sources applying for PSD 

permits should have to provide information concerning potential 

Class I area impacts. Various factors concerning a particular 

source, including the type and amount of its emissions, illi 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.7 

168 

source's distance -fee l§f|f§ the Class I area, aignificant terrain 

featured,—and surrounding meteorological conditions play key 

rolc-g in determining will influence whether a«y the emissions 

from a proposed source will have the potential to harm adversely 

impact a Class I area. The Act Today's proposal links the need 

•§ea? requirement for a permit applicant to provide Class I impact 

information with the filing of a notice by the FLM (or certain 

other government officials) which (1} alleges that emissions if|p 

particular pollutant from a proposed major emitting facility may 

affect cause or contribute to a change in air quality in a 

particular Class I area and (2) identifies the potential adverse 

impact of such change. The proposal is consistent with section 

165(d) (2) (C) (i) of the Act which rcquirca provides that once ffflfi 

a notice is filed a permit shall not be issued unless; the 

applicant muat demonstrate! that its proposed emissions will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of the Class I increments. 

See proposed section 51.166(p) (2) (i) and section 52.21(p) (2) (i) . 

The proposal also satiafioa is in accordance with the provisions 

under section 165(e)(3)(B) of the Act which require, for a 

proposed source/ an analysis of the ambient air quality, climate 

and meteorology, terrain, soils and vegetation, and visibility, 

at the site of the proposed source and "in the area potentially 

affected by the emissions from such facility." 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.8 

169 

Onoo The permitting authority would determine the status of 

the Class I increments ia known from considering, as appropriate, 

the analysis provided by the applicant-rl thia latter information 

The analysis of potential impacts on Class I area resources will 

help provide the basis for ah||l||j|;liiil| demonstration 

determination of whether the source will have an adverse impact 

on AQRVs. The EPA generally believes that the combined 

informational requirements contained in this proposed provision 

will greatly facilitate resolution of AQRV issues which must 

ultimately be addressed as a prerequisite'to permit issuance. 

That is, the analyses will reveal whether the Class I increments 

will be violated, a-ftd establish the relative roles of the 

applicant, the FLM and the permitting authority in making 

decisions concerning the AQRVs, and provide information needed to 

determine potential AQRV impacts. Moreover, today's proposal 

would limit an applicant's responsibility to perform Class I area 

assessments to circumstances where there is an identified 

potential that the proposed source will have an adverse impact on 

a Class I area. 

If the proposed source will cause or contribttte tc a 

violation of a Class I increment will occur, the applicant will 

provide .information pertaining to the source's impacts on, as 

appropriate in light of the FLM's notice, such things as soils, 

vegetation and visibility to demonstrate that there will be no 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.9 

170 

adverse impact on the potentially affected AQRVs identified by 

the FLM will occur. See section 165(d) (2) (C) (iii) of the Act. 

If the FLM agrees with this demonstration, the permitting 

authority may issue the PSD permit even though a violation of a 

Class I increment has been shown. Alternatively, when the 

applicant's analysis shows, to the satisfaction of the permitting 

authority, that the proposed source will not cause or contribute 

to fte H violation of a Class I increment, will occur the 

information pertaining to impacts on the potentially affected 

AQRVs identified by the FLM auch things aa aoila,—vegetation and 

viaibility will help the FLM conaidcr determine if the proposed 

source will have an adverse impact on AQRVs will occur, and to 

make a demonstration of such adverse impact to the permitting 

authority, where appropriate. 

While the Act is silent concerning the timing for filing 

thia the notice of potential adverse impacts, the EPA believes 

that it is ncccoaary and reasonable and appropriate to require 

the FLM or other named officials to file the notice before the 

permitting authority issues its completeness determination on the 

.permit application. See proposed sections 51.166(p)(2)(i) and 

52.21(p)(2)(i). One reason for this proposal is that the filing 

of the notice establishes certain informational requirements 

which serve as a measure of the application's completeness. 

Moreover, it is generally important that EPA require that the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.10 

171 

notice be filed early in the permit process to expedite permit 

review. A requirement for early notice submittal helps ensure 

that the Class I area issues are identified by FLMs and other 

officials early in the permit process and enables ao that the 

applicant eas 1| provide the appropriate Class I analyses in a 

timely manner so as not to delay the review and issuance of the 

permit. 

In 3omc caoeo The EPA encourages, particularly where a 

source proposes to locate within 100 kilometers from of a Federal 

Class I area, the applicant may chooac to coordinate with the FLM 

prior to the submittal of its application in order to be able to 

learn of any FLM-J-s concerns and to submit the Class I analyses 

along with the other required information in its initial permit 

application. Otherwise, the FLM would generally be expected to 

file the notice alleging potential affects on the Federal Class I 

area, where appropriate, during the 3 0-day period for review of 

the application for completeness, as provided under today's 

proposal and described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble. In 

the absence of a notice being filed concerning potential Class I 

impacts, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that 

emissions from the proposed source do not cause or contribute to 

a any violation of the Class II increments or NAAQS anywhere. 

Today's proposal to require the applicant to complete a 

•iitnprehensive Class I impact analysis is tied directly to the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.11 

172 

filing of a notice (alleging potential adverse impacts) prior to 

the permitting authority's issuance of its completeness 

determination. However, this proposal is not intended to 

preclude the FLM from raising new concerns about affects at a 

later time during the permit review. The FLM may ultimately 

submit a demonstration of adverse impact on AQRVs even if a 

notice has not been previously filed. In such cases, where 

additional information is needed to enable the FLM to make the 

necessary demonstration, the EPA believes that the permitting 

authority has discretion to determine whether, and to what 

extent, the applicant should be required to produce necessary 

information. 

The EPA requests comments on this aspect of the proposal in 

light of the specific implications associated with tho failure to 

importance of fileing a notice alleging potential Class I impacts 

for triggering the applicant's responsibility to provide relevant 

information on Class I area impacts from the proposed source's 

emissions. The EPA has considered alternative approaches for 

triggering the Class I analysis, including a mandatory Class I 

analysis for any proposed major source or major modification 

proposing to locate within 100 kilometers, or some other specific 

distance, from a Federal Class I area. The proposed approach 

tracks tne Act requirement for the filing of a notice. 

Additionally, A rigid distance-based test may necessarily be 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.12 

173 

either over* pr under-inclusive. For example, if a cutoff of 100 

kilometers was established, some sources locating within 100 

kilometers from a Federal Class I area may be required 

unnecessarily to perform an analysis in which the FLM may have no 

interest. Finally Conversely, sources proposing to locate more 

than 100 kilometers from a Federal Class I area that may 

nevertheless adversely impact a Class I area would not be 

required to carry out the appropriate Ciass I analyses. Thus, a 

rigid distance cutoff would will still need some kind of 

accompanying triggering mechanism to establish the informational 

requirement for Class I impacts for potential sources of concern 

locating beyond any specified cutoff distance. The EPA is 

interested in alternative approaches which will establish the 

requirement for Class I analyses at a reasonable point in the 

permit process. 

With regard to the notice, itself,—the EPA ia not propoaing 

apccific criteria for the form of auch notice. T|he EPA 

believes-7—however, that the notice §|§ should be in writing, 

preferably in the form of a letter to the permitting authority, 

and should address at a minimum (1) the specific pollutant 

emissions from the proposed source that may cause or contribute 

to a change in air quality in the specified Federal Class I area, 

and (2) the potential adverse impact of such change on each 

specified AQRV. contain an appropriate description of the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.13 

174 

potential adverse impact effects on AQRVs that could result from 

the change in air quality cau3cd by the proposed cmiaaiona 

inercaoc, attd:—f-4-)—where poaaiblc,—the pollutant concentrations 

that would be aaaoeiated with the adverse effecta doacribed. 

While the alleged change in air quality and potential impacts are 

naturally preliminary, and perhaps somewhat speculative, llll 

intent is that the allegation represents there ahould be 

aufficicnt cauoal a plausible linkage between the proposed 

sources—based on its specific pollutant emissions— and its 

relative location to the affected Class I area-Hlffand the known 

air quality related values specified AQRVs in the affected 

Federal Class I area to warrant the required Class I analysis 

support the allegation of a potential adverac impact on AQRVa. 

The notice is also intended for administrative purpoaea to 

provide the applicant with sufficient information.to focus the 

required Class I analysis on the appropriate pollutant emissions 

and AQRVs of concern to the FLM. Accordingly, and it the notice 

should not be used by the permitting authority for any 

prejudgment on the part of the permitting authority as to whether 

any adverse impaot potential effects on AQRVs will actually occur 

or whether a Claaa I area analyaia ahould be completed §§§ 

adverse. 'If, based on the allegations contained in the notice, 

it is plausible that a source may impact the affected Class I 

area, further analysis should be performed. The only basis for 

PRELIMINaARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.14 

175 

rejecting mch- notice, and thereby determining that a Class I 

analysis is not required, is that the permitting authority finds 

no plausible linkage between the proposed source and the AQRVs 

identified by the FLM. 

An important related issue concerns the responsibility for 

carrying out any additional technical analyses which may be 

necessary for the FLM to demonstrate that a source's emissions 

will have an adverse impact on AQRVs. The EPA generally expects 

the analyses performed by the applicant under the proposed 

provisions to enable a FLM to aaacaa evaluate the impacts on 

AQRVs. In some cases, however, additional information may be 

necessary to make a thorough AQRV assessment and there is a 

question as to who should bear the responsibility for such 

information. The generally limited resources available to FLMs 

may make it very difficult for them to independently complete all 

the additional analyses which may be needed. Applicants for PSD 

permits are typically required to provide information and 

analyses necessary for the permitting authority to make a variety 

of ambient air quality decisions because, among other reasons, 

applicants have detailed knowledge about the proposed source's 

emissions and operations. Yet, applicants should not necessarily 

be expected to conduct an unlimited number of studies•at the 

request of the FLM in order to accommodate the informational 

nccda that the FLM may have. The permitting authority should 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.15 

176 

ultimately determine, based on consultation with the FLM, what 

additional information collection should be required of the 

applicant. 

The EPA solicits public comment on this issue in order to 

establish an equitable approach for completing the required 

analyses for Class I areas applicable to individual PSD permit 

applicants. Specifically, the EPA seeks input in determining 

what the respective responsibilities of the FLM and the permit 

applicant should be for carrying out the analyses necessary to 

enable the FLM to demonstrate an adverse impact on AQRVs. The 

EPA will consider such input and decide whether the regulations 

should explicitly address these individual roles. 

Today's proposal also recognize! that the FLM is not the 

only eae official authorized by the Act to file the notice 

concerning potential impacts on a Federal Class I area. 

Specifically, aection 165(d)(2)(C)(i) of the Act authorizes that 

the notice be filed by any one of several officials, including 

the Federal official charged with direct responsibility for 

management of any lands within the Class I area potentially 

affected, the Federal Land Manager of such lands, the EPA 

Administrator, or the Governor of an adjacent State containing 

such Class I lands. Accordingly, the EPA is tracking thia 

statutory requirement by including in the proposal that the FLM 

or other named officials may file a notice when it is believed 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.16 

180 

. The EPA _is today proposing to reguire that the FLM be 

informed of any advance notification received by the permitting 

authority from a prospective applicant, invoking a source that 

wouid construct within 100 kilometers of a Federal class i area 

AS proposed, the affected FLM must be notified within 30 days of 

the permitting authority's receipt of any such advance 

notification of a PSD permit application. See. p ropose d 

section 51.166(p)(3)(i) and section 52.21 (p)(3)(i). 

The EPA recogni.es that the type of early notification that 

a prospective applicant may provide to the permitting authority 

will vary from one situation to the next. Thus,' the type of 

notification provided by the permitting authority to the FLM 

should be commensurate with the type of information which is 

received. For example, a brief letter or phone call from the 

permitting authority to the FLM may be appropriate when the 

information about the potential project is only very preliminary. 

Generally, it should * * be b e necessary to notify the FU , more 

than once concerning any ear i y contacts by a prospective 

applicant with the permitting authority. An exception would be 

where, as describe below, a pre-application feting is atrange d 

as a result Of subsequent communications between the applicant 

and the permitting authority. 

Additionally efjonsistent with CAAAC recommendations, the 

EPA is also proposing to require that the permitting authority 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF mmTM,. TM 

j^tEF? / ssn

 NOT

 ^ pf

 SENT S ^"S£^ M D 

ooe r •**'

 1995

 --- [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.17 

181 

provide the FLM with reasonable notice of, and aft reasonable 

opportunity to participate in, asy pre-application meetings 

scheduled with prospective PSD applicants that would locate 

within 100 kilometers of a Federal Class I area. See proposed 

section 51.166(p)(3)(ii) and section 52.21(p)(3)(ii). If given 

such an early opportunity, the FLM may find it appropriate would 

be expected, where possible, to inform the potential prospective 

applicant of any concerns about Class I impacts, as well as any 

intention to file a notice alleging potential Class I impacts. 

While today's proposal for advance notification applies 

specifically to prospective sources and modifications located 100 

kilometers or closer to a Federal Class I area, there should be 

no automatic presumption that sources located farther than 100 

kilometers will not affect a Federal Class I area.56 There will 

be instances where it would be prudent for the permitting 

authority to notify the FLM of a prospective source that would 

56 The 100-kilometer cutoff being used in today's proposal 

for mandatory notification requirements involving FLM's is 

consistent with the current EPA policy concerning modeling of 

Class I impacts. In an October 19, 1992 memorandum from John S. 

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to 

EPA Regional Offices, the EPA clarified its guidance for modeling 

Class I area impacts under the PSD program. The policy statement 

advised Regional Office personnel that it was appropriate to 

routinely consider the ambient impacts resulting from PSD sources 

proposing'to locate within 100 kilometers of a Class I area. The 

EPA further stated that such guidance was not to be interpreted 

so as to preclude the consideration of potential impacts of 

emissions from large sources locating at distances greater than 

100 kilometers if there is reason to believe that such sources 

could adversely affect the air quality in the Class I area. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** October 24, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] ***