p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 14) ll-F-5 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54

AM Sheet 14 of 45P. 2 H-HO-jy


## **"••* » Tnnsferan

d PZ L , (M0 

## " 1 a 

## Pffic eof Ai rQuai it 

## vPLT^, k^* * D 

## U S Em* . V 

## *" yP,annm 

## «»n«-Standard s 

# toLZST?*"* ProtectionA 

# ««* y Researc h Tnangl ePark . N C 277U FA X Number : (919)541-5509

TO *
•^a/^^A J A^^^-K^ . 

### Out : /0-2^-^s FROM : BNIMBEB
'A X NUMBE

R



### COMMENTS : 

### /=/es r /<?/= 7?f d ) /<* U -£T%_Z^ K6^7-3 * 

### C/fot/ce* S/uoe me- &/z.q D 

### ~e> s&*^/ O A J \

APR; ; D1QQ D ,

• iV * 

# t "xr^/uriDCCT

i

Numbe rof Page s (includin gcove rsheet) : 18 Ifyo udi d no creceiv eai l th epages , pleas

econtac tth a i f yo ud 919-541 .P. 3

16 4 definin g AQRVs othe r tha n visibility
. However , th e legislativ e historyprovide s th e following : [T]h e term'ai r qualit yrelate d values ' o f Federa l land s designate d a s clas s I include s the fundamenta l purpose s fo r whic h suc hland s hav e bee n establishe d an d preserve d b

yth e Congres s an d th e responsibl e Federa l agency . Fo r example , unde r th e 191 6 Organi c Ac t t o establis hthe Nationa l Park Servic e (1 6 U.S.C . § 1) , th e purpos e o f suc hnationa l par k land s 'i s t o conserv e th e sceneryan

d th e natura l an

d histori c object s an d the wildlif e therei n an

d t o provid e fo r the enjoymen t o f th e same i n suc h manne r and bysuc hmean s a s wil l leav e themunimpaire d for the enjoymen t o f futur e generations. 1 S . Rep . No . 127 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 3 6 (1977) . Th e EP A propose s t o defin e "ai r qualit yrelate d value " a s a scenic , cultural , physical , biological , ecological , o r recreationa l resourc e whichma y be affectedb

y a change i nai r quality , a s define d b ythe FLMfo r Federa l land s an d a s define d b ya Stat e o r Indian Governing Bod yfo r nonfedera l land s withi n thei r respectiv e jurisdictions
. Se e proposedsectio n 51.166(b ) (40 ) an

dsectio

n52 .21(b ) (41 ) . Th e propose d definitio n attempts , t o includ e addresse s the fundamenta l purpose s fo r whic h
suc hland s hav e bee n establishe d an d preserved . Th

e proposed definitio n als o recognize s tha t (1 ) th e PLMs hav

e th e responsibilit y

t o identif y

AQRVs fo

r Federa l lands , an d(2 ) th

e Ac t give s authority to State s an

dIndia nGovernin

g Bodie s t o identif y

AQRV s fo r area s withi nthei r respectiv e jurisdictions. 5 3

5 3 Sectio n 16 4 (e ) o f the Ac t provide s fo r EPAprotectio n o f AQRV s whe n th e EP

A i s requeste d t o resolv e a disput e betweena Stat e an

d Trib e abou t the redesignatio n o f an are a o r a propose d PS D permit.
. Th e reade r i s als o referre d t o th e discussio n i n PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [file name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 4

16 5 Th e EP Ai s proposin g t o defin e "advers e impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d values " a s a n unacceptabl e deleteriou s effec t 1 |
an yAQRV define d b

yth e FLM , resulting i n whol e o r i n par t fro m th e emission s o f a propose d sourc e o r modification , tha t interfere s wit hthe management , protection , preservation , o r enjoymen t o f th e AQRVa o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(b ) (41 ) an d sectio n 52.21(b ) (42) . Unde r th e par t 5 2 PS D regulations , the propose d definitio n woul d b e i n additio n t o th e existin g definitio n o f "advers e impac t o n visibility " [sectio n 52.21(b ) (29) ] whic hi s derive d fro mth e EPA' s visibilit y regulation s adopte d pursuan t t o the Act' s visibilit yprotectio n program . Se e existin g 4 0 CFR 51.301(a ) an d 51.307 . Th e propose d definitio n o f "advers e impac t on. ai r qualit y relate d values " include s the requiremen t tha t suc hdetermination s b e mad e o n a case-by-cas e basis , focusing primaril yon . th e emission s froma propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n an d th e chang e i n ai r qualit ytha t wil l resul t fromthos e emissions
. Th e FLM* s determinatio n o f a n advers e effec t shal l appl yt o on e o r mor e specifi c AQRV s and mus t address , fo r eac haffecte d AQRV , th e projecte d impac t o f the emission s fro m th e propose d P$I>
sourc e o n th e existin g ai r qualit y(includin g the predicte d impact s o f recently-permitte d source s no t ye t i n operation ) i n sectio n IV.C. 5 o f thi s preamble , wher e EPAclarifie s it s positio n concernin g th e authorit yo f State s an d Indian tribe s t o establis h AQRV s fo r thei r respectiv e lands . PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 5

16 6 th e Clas s I area. 5 4 Th e FL M ma ydetermin e tha t th e emission s froma propose d sourc e wil l hav e a n unacceptabl e deleteriou s effec t o n AQRVs , considerin g existin g condition s whic hma y alread yb e regarde d a s "adverse. " However , th e advers e effec t resultin g fro mth e propose d source' s emissions , i n ligh t o f existin g conditions , mus t b e addresse d specificall yand mus t be | th e basi s fo r th e advers e impac t demonstration
. Th e advers e impac t demonstratio n i s als o discusse d i n sectio n IV.C.2.d . o f thi s preamble . Th e propose d definitio n als o recognize s tha t th e term "advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d values " ha s specia l meanin g unde r th e Ac t tha t i s properl ylimite d t o Federa l Clas s I
areas . Se e sectio n 165(d ) o f the Act . A s describe d previously , permit s mus t b e denie d t o source s whos e emission s woul d hav e an advers e impac t AQRV s i n a Federa l Clas s I area , eve n thoughn o violatio n o f a Clas s I incremen t woul d resul t fro mthos e emissions
. b . Rol e o f the FLM i n Definin g Specifi c AQRVs . I n general , th e EP Aexplicitl yrecognize s tha t FLM s hav e specia l expertis e an d knowledg e abou t th e Federa l Clas s I area s whic hthe ymanage . I n addition , the EPAagree s wit hth e CAAAC' s

54 I n a previou s rulemaking , EP Adetermine d tha t a n assessmen t o f whethe r a propose d sourc e woul d caus e a n advers e impac t o n visibilit yrequire s th e permitti g authorit yt o revie wthe ne wsource' s impac t i n the contex t o f background impact s cause d b ybot hexisting an

d previousl ypermitte d sources . Se e 5 0 FR 28544 , Jul y12 , 198 5 a t pag e 28548 . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 6

16 7 recommendatio n tha t th e FLM s shoul d b e expressl yrecognize d a s havin g th e primar yresponsibilit yfo r th e identificatio n o f specifi c AQRVs . Th e EP Abelieve s tha t i t i s appropriat e no t t o propos e regulation s tha t woul d dictat e ho wth e FLM s identif yAQRV s (an d associate d critica l pollutan t loadings ) o r demonstrat e a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Thes e responsibilitie s ar e closel ytie d t o th e rol e o f th e FLMmandate d b ythe Act , an

d ar e als o integra l t o the managemen t o f thos e AQRV s unde r the mandate s o f th e Federa l Land s statute s a s wel l (e.g. , Wildernes s Act , 1 6 U.S.C . sec . 113 1 e t seq. , and 191 6 Nationa l Par k Servic e Organi c Act , 1 6 U.S.C . sec . 1 et . seq. ) Furthermor e becaus e o f th e wid e variet yo f Federa l Clas s I area s an

d AQRVs , sensitivitie s o f critica l receptors , an d th e unavailabilit yo f dat a i n man ycases , the EPAbelieve s tha t th e FLM s mus t hav e sufficien t latitud e t o addres s thes e issue s o n a n area-by-area , a s wel l a s a permit-by-permit , basi s a o th e nee d arioca
. A t th e same time , the EPAencourage s FLM s t o identif y AQRV s o n a regiona l o r nationa l basi s wher e appropriate , and t o establis hgenera l procedure s fo r identifying AQRVs . c . Rol e o f th e FLM i n Triggering a Clas s I Are a Analysis
. I t i s generall yagree d tha t no t al l source s applyin g fo r PS D permit s shoul d hav e t o provid e informatio n concerning potentia l Clas s I are a impacts
. Variou s factor s concerning a particula r source , includin g th e typ e an d amoun t o f it s emissions , ill i
PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 7

16 8 source' s distanc e -fe e l§f|f § th e Clas s I area , aignifican t terrai n featured,—and surroundin g meteorologica l condition s playke y rolc- g i n determinin g wil l influenc e whethe r a« yth e emission s froma propose d sourc e wil l hav e th e potentia l t o harmadversel y impac t a Clas s I area . Th e Ac t Today' s proposa l link s th e nee d •§ea ? requiremen t fo r a permi t applican t t o provid e Clas s I impac t informatio n wit hth e filing o f a notic e b yth e FL M(o

r certai n othe r governmen t officials ) whic h(1 } allege s tha t emission s if| p particula r pollutan t fro ma propose d majo r emitting facilit ymay affec t caus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i n ai r qualit yi n a particula r Clas s I are a and (2 ) identifie s th e potentia l advers e impac t o f suc hchange . Th e proposa l i s consisten t wit hsectio n 165(d ) (2 ) (C ) (i ) o f th e Ac t whic hrcquirc a provide s tha t onc e ffflf i
a notic e i s file d a permi t shal l no t b e issue d unless ; th e applican t mua t demonstrate ! tha t it s propose d emission s wil l no t
caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e Clas s I increments
. Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p ) (2 ) (i ) an d sectio n 52.21(p ) (2 ) (i ) . Th e proposa l als o satiafio a i s i n accordanc e wit hth e provision s unde r sectio n 165(e)(3)(B ) o f the Ac t whic hrequire , fo r a propose d source / a n analysi s o f the ambien t ai r quality , climat e and meteorology , terrain , soil s an d vegetation , an

d visibility , a t th e sit e o f th e propose d sourc e an d "i n th e are a potentiall y affecte d b

yth e emission s fro m suc hfacility. "

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 8

16 9 Ono o The permittin g authorit ywoul d determin e th e statu s o f th e Clas s I increment s i a know n fro mconsidering , a s appropriate , the analysi s provide d b ythe applicant-r l thi a latte r informatio n Th e analysi s o f potentia l impact s o n Clas s I are a resource s wil l hel p provid e th e basi s fo r ah||l||j|;liiil | demonstratio n determinatio n o f whethe r the sourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impac t
o n AQRVs . Th e EP Agenerall ybelieve s tha t the combine d informationa l requirement s containe d i n thi s propose d provisio n wil l greatl yfacilitat e resolutio n o f AQR V issue s whic hmus t ultimatel yb e addresse d a s a prerequisite't o permi t issuance
. Tha t is , th e analyse s wil l revea l whethe r the Clas s I increment s wil l b e violated , a-ft d establis hthe relativ e role s o f th e applicant , th e FLM an d the permitting authorit yi n makin g decision s concernin g the AQRVs , an d provid e informatio n neede d t o determin e potentia l AQR V impacts
. Moreover , today' s proposa l woul d limi t a n applicant' s responsibilit yt o performClas s I are a assessment s t o circumstance s wher e ther e i s a n identifie d potentia l tha t th e propose d sourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n a Clas s I area . I f th e propose d sourc e wil l caus e o r contribttt e t c a violatio n o f a Clas s I incremen t wil l occur , the applican t wil l provid e .information pertainin g t o the source' s impact s on , a s appropriat e i n ligh t o f the FLM' s notice , suc hthing s a s soils , vegetatio n an

d visibilit yt o demonstrat e tha t ther e wil l b e n o
PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 9

17 0 advers e impac t o n the potentiall yaffecte d AQRV s identifie d b y th e FLMwil l occur . Se e sectio n 165(d ) (2 ) (C ) (iii ) o f th e Act . I f th e FLMagree s wit hthi s demonstration , th e permittin g authorit ymayissu e the PS D permi t eve n thougha violatio n o f a Clas s I incremen t ha s bee n shown . Alternatively , whe n th e applicant' s analysi s shows , t o the satisfactio n o f the permittin g authority , tha t th e propose d sourc e wil l no t caus e or contribut e t o fte H violatio n o f a Clas s I increment , wil l occu r the informatio n pertainin g t o impact s o n th e potentiall yaffecte d AQRV s identifie d b ythe FLM auc hthing s a a aoila,—vegetatio n an d viaibilit ywil l hel p th e FL Mconaidc r determin e i f th e propose d
sourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s wil l occur , an d t o mak e a demonstratio n o f suc hadvers e impac t t o th e permittin g authority , wher e appropriate
. Whil e th e Ac t i s silen t concerning the timing fo r filing thi a th e notic e o f potentia l advers e impacts , the EPAbelieve s tha t i t i s ncccoaaryan d reasonabl e an

d appropriat e t o requir e th e FLM o r othe r name d official s t o fil e the notic e befor e th e permittin g authorit yissue s it s completenes s determinatio n o n the .permi t application
. Se e propose d section s 51.166(p)(2)(i ) and 52.21(p)(2)(i)
. On e reaso n fo r thi s proposa l i s tha t the filing o f th e notic e establishe s certai n informationa l requirement s whic hserv e a s a measur e o f the application' s completeness . Moreover , i t i s generall yimportan t tha t EP A requir e that th e
PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [file name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 0

17 1 notic e b e file d earl yi n the permi t proces s t o expedit e permi t review
. Arequiremen t fo r earl ynotic e submitta l help s ensur e tha t th e Clas s I are a issue s ar e identifie d b yFLM s and othe r official s earl yi n th e permi t proces s and enable s a o tha t th e applican t ea s 1 | provid e the appropriat e Clas s I analyse s i n a timel ymanne r s o a s no t t o delaythe revie wan d issuanc e o f th e permit
. I n 3omc caoe o Th e EP Aencourages , particularl ywher e a sourc e propose s t o locat e withi n 10 0 kilometer s fro mo f a Federa l Clas s I area , th e applican t maychooa c t o coordinat e wit hth e FL M prio r t o th e submitta l o f it s applicatio n i n orde r t o b e abl e t o lear n o f an

yFLM-J- s concern s an

d t o submi t the Clas s I analyse s alon g wit hth e othe r require d informatio n i n it s initia l permi t application
. Otherwise , the FLMwoul d generall yb e expecte d t o fil e th e notic e allegin g potentia l affect s o n the Federa l Clas s I area , wher e appropriate , during the 3 0-da yperio d fo r revie wo f th e applicatio n fo r completeness , a s provide d unde r today' s proposa l an

d describe d i n sectio n IV.C. 2 o f thi s preamble . I n th e absenc e o f a notic e being file d concerning potentia l Clas s I impacts , th e applican t wil l b e require d t o demonstrat e tha t emission s fromth e propose d sourc e d o no t caus e o r contribut e t o a an yviolatio n o f th e Clas s I I increment s o r NAAQ S anywhere . Today' s proposa l t o requir e th e applican t t o complet e a •iitnprehensiv

e Clas s I impac t analysi s i s tie d directl yt o the
PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [file name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 1

17 2 filin g o f a notic e (alleging potentia l advers e impacts ) prio r t o the permittin g authority' s issuanc e o f it s completenes s determination
. However , thi s proposa l i s no t intende d t o preclud e th e FL Mfromraising ne wconcern s abou t affect s a t a late r time durin g th e permi t review
. Th e FLM mayultimatel y submi t a demonstratio n o f advers e impac t o n AQRV s eve n i f a notic e ha s no t bee n previousl yfiled
. I n suc hcases , wher e additiona l informatio n i s neede d t o enabl e th e FL Mt o mak e th e necessar ydemonstration , th e EP Abelieve s tha t th e permittin g authorit yha s discretio n t o determin e whether , an d t o wha t extent , th e applican t shoul d b e require d t o produc e necessar y information
. Th e EP Arequest s comment s o n thi s aspec t o f th e proposa l i n ligh t o f th e specifi c implication s associate d wit htho failur e t o importanc e o f fileing a notic e alleging potentia l Clas s I impact s fo r triggerin g th e applicant' s responsibilit yt o provid e relevan t informatio n o n Clas s I are a impact s fro mth e propose d source' s emissions
. Th e EPAha s considere d alternativ e approache s fo r triggerin g th e Clas s I analysis , including a mandatoryClas s I analysi s fo r an

ypropose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n proposin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 kilometers , o r some othe r specifi c distance , from

a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e propose d approac h track s tn e Ac t requiremen t fo r the filing o f a notice
. Additionally , Arigi d distance-base d tes t ma ynecessaril yb e
PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 2

17 3 eithe r over * prunder- inclusive
. Fo r example , i f a cutof f o f 10 0 kilometer s wa s established , some source s locating withi n 10 0 kilometer s fro

ma Federa l Clas s I are a mayb e require d unnecessaril yt o performa n analysi s i n whic hth e FLMmayhav e n o interest
. Finall yConversely , source s proposin g t o locat e mor e tha n 10 0 kilometer s fro ma Federa l Clas s I are a tha t ma y nevertheles s adversel yimpac t a Clas s I area woul d no t b e require d t o carryou t th e appropriat e Cias s I analyses . Thus , a rigi d distanc e cutof f woul d wil l stil l nee d some kind o f accompanyin g triggering mechanis m t o establis hthe informationa l requiremen t fo r Clas s I impact s fo r potentia l source s o f concer n locatin g beyond an yspecifie d cutof f distance
. Th e EPAi s intereste d i n alternativ e approache s whic hwil l establis hth e requiremen t fo r Clas s I analyse s a t a reasonabl e poin t i n th e permi t process . Wit hregar d t o th e notice , itself,—th e EPAi a no t propoain g apccifi c criteri a fo r th e for mo f auc hnotice
. T|he EP A believes-7—however , tha t th e notic e §| § shoul d b e i n writing , preferabl yi n th e for mo f a lette r t o the permittin g authority , an d shoul d addres s a t a minimu m(1 ) the specifi c pollutan t emission s fro

m th e propose d sourc e tha t ma ycaus e o r contribut e t o a change i n ai r qualit yi n the specifie d Federa l Clas s I area , and (2 ) th e potentia l advers e impac t o f suc hchang e o neach specifie d AQRV . contai n an appropriat e descriptio n o f th e
PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 3

17 4 potentia l advers e impac t effect s o n AQRV s tha t coul d resul t from th e chang e i n ai r qualit ycau3c d b ythe propose d cmiaaion a inercaoc , attd:—f-4-)—wher e poaaiblc,—th e pollutan t concentration s tha t woul d b e aaaoeiate d wit hth e advers e effect a doacribed
. Whil e th e allege d chang e i n ai r qualit yand potentia l impact s ar e naturall ypreliminary , an d perhap s somewha t speculative , lll l inten t i s tha t th e allegatio n represent s ther e ahoul d b e aufficicn t cauoa l a plausibl e linkag e betwee n th e propose d sources—base d o n it s specifi c pollutan t emissions

—an d it s relativ e locatio n t o th e affecte d Clas s I area-Hlffan d th e known ai r qualit yrelate d value s specifie d AQRV s i n th e affecte d Federa l Clas s I are a t o warran t the require d Clas s I analysi s suppor t th e allegatio n o f a potentia l advera c impac t o n AQRVa . Th e notic e i s als o intende d fo r administrativ e purpoae a t o provid e th e applican t wit hsufficien t information.t o focu s th e require d Clas s I analysi s o n th e appropriat e pollutan t emission s an d AQRV s o f concer n t o th e FLM . Accordingly , an d i t th e notic e shoul d no t b e use d b yth e permittin g authorit yfo r an y prejudgmen t o n th e par t o f the permittin g authorit ya s t o whethe r an yadvers e impao t potentia l effect s o n AQRV s wil l actuall yoccu r o r whethe r a Claa a I are a analyai a ahoul d b e complete d §§ § adverse . 'If , base d o n th e allegation s containe d in th e notice , i t i s plausibl e tha t a sourc e mayimpac t th e affecte d Clas s I
area , furthe r analysi s shoul d b e performed . Th e onl ybasi s fo r
PRELIMINaAR

Y STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 4

17 5 rejectin g mch- notice , and thereb ydeterminin g tha t a Clas s I analysi s i s no t required , i s tha t th e permittin g authorit yfind s n o plausibl e linkag e betwee n th e propose d sourc e an d th e AQRV s identifie d byth e FLM . An importan t relate d issu e concern s the responsibilit yfo r carryin g ou t anyadditiona l technica l analyse s whic hma yb e necessar yfo r th e FLMt o demonstrat e tha t a source' s emission s wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Th e EPAgenerall yexpect s th e analyse s performe d b yth e applican t unde r th e propose d provision s t o enabl e a FLMt o aaaca a evaluat e the impact s o n AQRVs . I n some cases , however , additiona l informatio n mayb e necessar yt o mak e a thoroughAQR V assessmen t an

d ther e i s a questio n a s t o wh o shoul d bea r the responsibilit yfo r suc h information
. Th e generall ylimite d resource s availabl e t o FLM s ma ymak e i t ver ydifficul t fo r themt o independentl ycomplet e al l th e additiona l analyse s whic hmayb e needed . Applicant s fo r PS D permit s ar e typicall yrequire d t o provid e informatio n and analyse s necessar yfo r the permittin g authorit yt o mak e a variet y o f ambien t ai r qualit ydecision s because , among othe r reasons , applicant s hav e detaile d knowledg e abou t th e propose d source' s emission s an d operations
. Yet , applicant s shoul d no t necessaril y b e expecte d t o conduc t an unlimite d numbe r o f studies•a t th e reques t o f th e FLMi n orde r t o accommodat e th e informationa l nccd a tha t th e FLMmayhave . Th e permitting authorit yshoul d

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 5

17 6 ultimatel ydetermine , base d o n consultatio n wit hth e FLM , wha t additiona l informatio n collectio n shoul d b e require d o f th e applicant
. Th e EP Asolicit s publi c commen t o n thi s issu e i n orde r t o establis ha n equitabl e approac hfo r completing th e require d analyse s fo r Clas s I area s applicabl e t o individua l PS D permi t applicants
. Specifically , th e EPAseek s inpu t i n determinin g wha t th e respectiv e responsibilitie s o f the FLM an d th e permi t applican t shoul d b e fo r carrying ou t the analyse s necessar yt o enabl e th e FLMt o demonstrat e a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Th e EP Awil l conside r suc hinpu t an d decid e whethe r th e regulation s shoul d explicitl yaddres s thes e individua l roles . Today' s proposa l als o recognize ! tha t th e FLMi s no t th e onl yea e officia l authorize d b ythe Ac t t o fil e th e notic e concernin g potentia l impact s o n a Federa l Clas s I area . Specifically , aectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(i ) o f th e Ac t authorize s tha t th e notic e b e file d b yan yon e o f severa l officials , includin g th e Federa l officia l charge d wit hdirec t responsibilit yfo r managemen t o f an

yland s withi n the Clas s I are a potentiall y affected , th e Federa l Land Manage r o f suc hlands , th e EP A Administrator , o r th e Governo r o f an adjacen t Stat e containin g suc hClas s I lands . Accordingly , the EPAi s trackin g thi a statutoryrequiremen t b yincluding i n th e proposa l tha t th e FLM
o r othe r name d official s mayfil e a notic e whe n i t i s believe d
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [file name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 6



### 18 0

. Th e EP A_i s toda yproposin g t o reguir e tha t th e FL Mb e informe d o f anyadvanc e notificatio n receive d byth e permittin g authorit yfroma prospectiv e applicant , invokin g a sourc e tha t woui d construc t withi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l clas s i are a A S proposed , th e affecte d FL M mus t b e notifie d withi n 3 0 day s o f th e permittin g authority' s receip t o f anysuc hadvanc e notificatio n o f a PS D permi t application
. See . p ropose d 

### sectio n 51.166(p)(3)(i ) an d sectio n 52.2 1 (p)(3) (i) 

### . Th e EP Arecogni.e s tha t th e typ e o f earl ynotificatio n tha t a prospectiv e applican t ma yprovid e t o th e permittin g authorit y wil l var yfro mon e situatio n t o th e next . Thus, ' th e typ e o f notificatio n provide d byth e permittin g authorit yt o th e FL M shoul d b e commensurat e wit hth e typ e o f informatio n whic hi s received
. Fo r example , a brie f lette r o r phon e cal l fro mth e permittin g authorit yt o th e FL M ma yb e appropriat e whe n th e informatio n abou t th e potentia l projec t i s onl yver ypreliminary
. Generally , i t shoul d * * b e b e 

### necessar yt o notif yth e FU , mor e tha n onc e concernin g anyear 

### i y

### contact s b ya prospectiv e applican t wit hth e permittin g authority
. A n exceptio n woul d b e where , a s describ e below , a pre-applicatio n fetin g i s atrange d 

### a s a resul t O f subsequen t communication s betwee n th e applican t an d th e permittin g authority
. Additionall yefjonsisten t wit hCAAA C recommendations , th e EP Ai s als o proposin g t o requir e tha t th e permittin g authorit y PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F mmTM,. TM 

# j^tEF? / ss n NO T

# ^ p 

# f SEN TS 

# ^"S£^ M D

ooe r 

### •** ' 1995

### --- [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 7

18 1 provid e th e FL Mwit hreasonabl e notic e of , and af t reasonabl e opportunit yt o participat e in , as ypre-applicatio n meeting s schedule d wit hprospectiv e PS D applicant s tha t woul d locat e withi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p)(3)(ii ) an d sectio n 52.21(p)(3)(ii)
. I f give n suc ha n earl yopportunity , th e FLM ma yfin d i t appropriat e woul d b e expected , wher e possible , t o infor mth e potentia l prospectiv e applican t o f an

yconcern s abou t Clas s I impacts , a s wel l a s an y intentio n t o fil e a notic e allegin g potentia l Clas s I impacts
. Whil e today' s proposa l fo r advanc e notificatio n applie s specificall yt o prospectiv e source s an d modification s locate d 10 0 kilometer s o r close r t o a Federa l Clas s I area , ther e shoul d b e n o automati c presumptio n tha t source s locate d farthe r tha n 10 0 kilometer s wil l no t affec t a Federa l Clas s I area. 5 6 Ther e wil l b e instance s wher e i t woul d b e pruden t fo r th e permittin g authorit yt o notif yth e FLMo f a prospectiv e sourc e tha t woul d

5 6 Th e 100-kilomete r cutof f bein g use d i n today' s proposa l fo r mandator ynotificatio n requirement s involving FLM' s i s consisten t wit hth e curren t EPApolic yconcerning modelin g o f Clas s I impacts
. I n an Octobe r 19 , 199 2 memorandu mfromJohn S . Seitz , Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s t o EP ARegiona l Offices , th e EP Aclarifie d it s guidanc e fo r modelin g Clas s I are a impact s unde r th e PS D program . Th e polic ystatemen t advise d Regiona l Offic e personne l tha t i t wa s appropriat e t o routinel yconside r th e ambien t impact s resulting fromPS D source s proposing't o locat e withi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Clas s I area . Th e EP Afurthe r state d tha t suc hguidanc e wa s no t t o b e interprete d s o a s t o preclud e th e consideratio n o f potentia l impact s o f emission s fromlarg e source s locating a t distance s greate r tha n 10 0 kilometer s i f ther e i s reaso n t o believ e tha t suc hsource s coul d adversel yaffec t th e ai r qualit yi n the Clas s I area . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Octobe r 24 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *