p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 1 ) ll-F-4 3

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54

AM Sheet 1 of 45P. 2



## ' TRANSMISSIONRESUL T REPOR T (SE P 2 5 '9 5 02:24PM** * ITPID-IIG/OP G

• ; 

## v

• ' (AUTO ) »• » TH E FOLLOWINGFILE(S ) ERASE D FIL E FIL E TYP E OPTIONTE L NO
. PAG E RESUL T 01 2 MEMOR YT X91202395728 5 06/0 6 O K 

# A-40-3 7



# I S ( 3 B i iV §

; tfa: •o f996 !
EFA/u M DOCKE

T

ERROR S 1 ) HANGU P O R LIN E FAI L 2 ) BUS Y 3 ) N O ANSWE R 4 ) N O FACSIMIL E CONNECTIO N

- o f Air n_ .

an d 

# Operatin gPermit s Grou p (MD-12 )

Infonnatio nTransferandProgramIntegratio nDiv
. Officeo f Ai rQualit yPlanningandStandard s U . S
. EnvironmentalProtecdo nAgenc y ResearchTriangl ePark,N C 2771 1 FA XNumber : (919)541-550 9

TO : INAME 

## CHA-*

tn/tL-Z. ICOMFAKY/OFFIC B 

# L Date : 9/J**/f*

PHONENUMBE R

FA XNUMBER " 

# aoiX 39* 73 2£

### %-. r 

## SAA 

# J OAJ 

# .V'* 0 1^feo»Oi- i - Ff l

Topi c Difference(s ) betwee n Jul y

9 4 an d Jul y9 5 versio n Industr ycomments/EP Aactio n Conflict s wit h othe r programs/policie s Recommendation s

"Adverse. , impac to o 

### AQBV 1

"De Minimis" Level s Define d i n 199 5 a s a

deleteriou s effec tresultin g If f whole or in part from th e emission s o fa propose d sourc e o rmodificatio n tha t interfere s wit h th e management , protection , preservation , o renjoymen to f th e AQRV s o fa federa l Clas s 1 area , fCheck : Not e als o preambl e indicate s a chang e o fth e rul e t o prohibi t considerin g soi l an d vegetatio n i n a Clas s 1 o rI I ar e o fn o commercia l o r recreation s valu e excep t wher e FL M indicate s analysi s needed. ] Fo rth e firs ttime , EP A propose s d e minimi s impac t level s belo wwhic h source s woul d no thav e t o conduc ta n incremen tanalysis , bu tth e level s d o no tappl yt o AQR V assessments

. Not e tha tth e preambl e contain s a char ttha t demonstrate s ho wmuc h lowe rFLM s hav e recommende d thes e level s b e 

### se l at
. Substantia l discussio n occurre d o n th e exten temission s fro m a propose d PS D sourc e contribut e t o a n existin g advers e impac t fro m existin g stationar yan d mobil e source s withi n an d outsid e th e Clas s 1 are a o fconcern

. A s a result , EP Aagree d t o conven e a separat e grou p t o conside rth e contributio n b yexistin g source s t o advers e impact s o n AQRV

.

Industr yrecommende d tha tth e agenc ydefin e d e minimi s level s an d distanc e cut-off s belo w whic h i twoul d b e presume d tha t a sourc e woul d hav e n o impac t o n increment s o rAQRVs

. Thes e recommendation s wer e staunchl y oppose d b yth e FLMs , preventin g an yrecommendatio n b yth e CAAAC

. Obviously , n o guarante e tha t FLM s wil l hono rEP Adf i minimi s levels , sinc e the y hav e thei row n an d EP Aha s cede d s o muc h authorit yt o FLM s o n thes e type s o f decisions

. Revis e definitio n t o mea n "(1) a deleterious

effect resulting entirely

from emissions

from a proposed

major source or major modification;

or (ii) a significant

contribution to an existing deleterious effect resulting

in part from emissions

from a proposed

major source or major modification"

tha t interfere s wit h th e

... .

Strongl yrecommen d extensio n o fd e minimi s * concep tt o presumptio n tha tn o AQR Vaffected , unles s FL M make s showin g tha tAQR Vwil l b e affecte d negativel yb y propose d sourc e (no t existin g source s alread y affectin g value. )

-\\O C - 80334/300 3 - 015284 8 0 1Topi c Difference(s ) betwee n Jul y 9 4 an d Jul y9 5 versio n Industr ycomments/EP Aactio n Conflict s wit h othe r programs/policie s Recommendation s

"Federa l Clas s 1 Area "

Ai r Qualit y Model s

FLM/P A Coordina tio n Preambl e state s ne w

definitio n bein g propose d t o sa yland s "owned " b yth e U.S. , bu t 199 5 rul e languag e use s "within. " 199 4 use d "owned. " (Apparentl ychang e mean t t o reflec t inclusio n o f Clas s 1 area s owne d b ystate s o rTriba l authorities

. Mar yNichol s state d i n he r Ma y31 , 199 5 respons e t o Industr ytha t "conversio n methodologie s (L_ft_

» t o conv«r fambien t impac t mpdajin g int o AQR Vimpact ) b e mad e availabl e fo rpubli c notic e an d comment
. I canno t fin d suc h a provision

.

199 5 proposa l drop s 199 4 versio n provisio n "t o th e exten t possible, " P At o provid e FL M wit h notic e 8 k opportunit yt o commen t befor e applicatio n filed

. 199 5 proposa l require s P At o notif y FL M /i n 3 0 day s o fan y advanc e notificatio n an d pre apfflicatio n mt g wit h a prospectiv e applican t withi n 10 0 k m o fa Clas s 1 area . Thi s i s a n entirel yne wprovision , apparentl ygenerate d b yTriba l • reques tfo rredesignatio n o ftriba l are a t o Clas s 1 statu s i n Wisconsin

.

Industr ycommente d tha t FL M analyse s b e limite d t o us e o f approve d EPAGuideline s o n Ai r Qualit yModeling , bu tthi s commen t wa s rejected , base d p n EPA' s conclusio n tha t us e o fth e Guideline s i s no t compelle d b y sectio n 165(e)(3)(D ) becaus e i t doe s no tspea k

t o demonstratio n o rassessment o fClas s I AQRVs

.
NED Acommente d tha timprovin g coordinatio n wil l no tfi xthe

. proble m i fcriteri a fo rrejectin g permi tapplication s ar e no t clarifie d b yEPA , especiall ywit h respec tt o th e AQRV s themselves

. Th e propose d rul e doe s nothin g t o addres s th e inheren tunfairnes s i n th e process , give n it s hug e deferenc e t o FLM s decisions

. Woul d appea rt o b e i n fundamenta l conflic t wit h § 16 9 o fth e Clea n Ai rAct

.

Basi c conflic t wit h EP A authorit yt o revie wan d approv e us e o fai rqualit y includin g AQRV , models , a s

. par to fNS R program . Experienc e ha s show n DO I an d Agricultur e Departmen t no t experience d i n applicatio n o fdepositio n an d othe rlon g rang e models

.
Possibl e concer n regardin g impac t o n Titl e Vprogram . Oppos e thi s additiona l authorit yo n statutor y grounds , a s wel l a s concern s regardin g conflictin g designation s o fAQRV s b ymultipl e authorities

.

EPAshoul d stat e clearl y i n rul e tha t EPAnee d no t defe rt o FL M claim s o f advers e impact s o n AQRV s i n Clas s 1 area s whe n FL M claim s are no t base d o n EPA-approve d model s o rmodelin g technique s fo revaluatin g impact s o fa propose d ne wsourc e o n AQRVs

. ' Suppor t coordinatio n wit h mor e guidanc e an d reinsert "t o th e exten t possible, " i n rul e language , t o make clea r tha t (1 ) preapplicatio n conference s no t require d (o rsought ) an d (2 ) similarl ycoordinatio n i s no t required

.

\.\D C - 80334/300 3 •01628480 1Topi c Difference(s ) betwee n Jul y 9 4 an d Jul y9 5 versio n Industr ycomments/EP Aactio n Conflict s wit h othe r programs/policie s Recommendation s

PreAppli catio n Notic e Require ment s

Complete nes s Determi natio n Sources within 100 km [changed

from 200 km): Notic e t o FL M includin g cop y o fpenni t applicatio n an d an y othe rrelevan t informatio n required ; Sources

> 100 but <250 km: ca n provid e summar ynotic e o f application s o n EP Abulleti n board , instea d o fdirec t notice ; FL M mus t provid e notic e withi n 7 day s t o receiv e cop yo fapplicatio n (no t i n 199 4 draft)

. FL M no wmus l b e consulte d regardin g completenes s determinatio n an d i s give n min

. 3 0 day s (instea d o f21 ) t o reques t additiona l informatio n befor e completenes s determinatio n made ; i finformatio n requested , applican t mus t provid e information , unless PA disagree s an d issue s completenes s determination

. CAA C recommende d us e o f bulleti n boar d an d fac tshee tan d urge d EP At o lowe rradiu s fro m 20 0 km s t o 50-10 0 kms

.

NEDA/CAR P commente d o n th e hug e potentia l fo rFLM s t o hol d u p completenes s determination s b ymakin g unjustifie d request s fo r studie s (generall ywithou t guidanc e o n ho wstudie s ar e t o b e conducted)

. W e d o appreciat e tha tP Agive n authorit yt o rejec t FL M request
. .

• '

Strengthe n P Aauthorit y t o rejectFL M request s base d o n spuriou s ground s b yrecognizin g tha t arbitrar yo rill define d request s fo r studie s i s caus e fo rP At o procee d t o issu e completenes s determination

. Otherwise , FL M ha s n o burde n t o b e constructiv e i n process .

U\DC - 80334/300 3 •0162848.0 1 

### 8Topi c Difference(s ) betwee n Jul y 9 4 an d Jul y9 5 versio n Industr ycomments/EP Aactio n Conflict s wit h othe r programs/policie s Recommendation s

FL M demon stratio n o f advers e impac t

Rejectio n o fFL M advers e impac t findin g FL M ha s 6 0 day s t o mak e

require d demonstration , befor e applicatio n determine d complete , EVE N THOUG H THER E I S N O INCREMEN T VIOLATION

.

199 4 provide d P Awit h fina l decisio n authorit yt o reject FL M finding base d o n a writte n evaluatio n addressin g prppose d consideration s (scientific/technica l basis ; importanc e o fAQR Van d FLM' s advers e impac t finding ,

. ; mitigation)

. 199 5 versio n require s thi s determinatio n t o befk>ublishe d i n th e recor d o f th e PA' s draft/fina l penni t determinatio n 6 0 day s i n orde rt o determin e whethe ra n advers e impac t ha s occurre d seem s excessive , particularl yi n ligh tofth e expens e t o industr yo fth e nee d t o mak e timel ycapita l investments

. [Requir e FL M t o indicat e withi n 1 5 day s tha ti tha s reaso n t o believ e ther e ma yb e a n advers e impact , base d o n objectiv e fact s peculia rt o th e project , i n orde rt o trigge rremainin g 4 5 days

. Thi s wil l preven tunnecessarydela y an d forc e FLM s t o stud ysituatio n befor e 6 0 da yperio d elapses. ] Thi s i s particularl yth e case , whe n th e FL M ca n als o commen t o n a n advers e ai rqualit yimpac tdurin g th e publi c commen tperiod

. CAA C recognize d guidanc e necessar yi n ligh to fHadso n Buen a Vist a an d Ol d Dominio n EA B decisions , bu tmad e n o recommendation

. NEDA/CAR P recommende d guidanc e b o included , bu turge d agains t "scorin g AQRVs. " i t

Recommen d deletin g th e ' liste d propose d criteria , particularl ywit h respec t t o th e "importance " o f th e AQRV , an d enlarging , th e lis t (Nee d furthe r wor k here] , althoug h requiremen t fo rwritte n recor d o fbasi s fo r rejectio n shoul d b e maintained

.

VttD C - 80334/300 3 •0152848.0 1 

### 9Topi c Difference(s ) betwee n Jul y 9 4 an d Jul y9 5 versio n Industr ycomments/EP Aactio n Conflict s wit h othe r programs/policie s Recommendation s

Mitigatio n o f Advers e Impact s

Post Construc tio n Moni torin g 199 5 provide s ne wexplici t

regulator yprovisio n fo r mitigatio n o fa n advers e impac t o n AQRVs , i n orde rt o obtai n a PS D pennit , provide d mitigatio n base d o n "soun d technica l basis, " an d th e enforceabilit yan d permanenc e o femission s reduction s "tha t wil l offse t th e chang e i n ai r qualit yi n th e Clas s area. " 199 5 versio n stil l request s commen t o n us e o femission s reduction s require d b yanothe r progra m a s mitigation

. 199 5 add s ne wprovisio n tha t post-constructio n monitorin g ma yb e require d fo rAQR V impact s o n Clas s 1 areas . Industrywa s somewha tspli t o n th e us e o foffset s an d othe r "mitigation " measure s t o allo w source s tha twoul d otherwis e hav e AQR Vproblem s t o receiv e PS D permits

. Th e CAAA C recommende d rigid offse ttests , s o ther e woul d b e a know n tes t fo rqualifyin g mitigatio n measures , bu tEP Asai d tha t th e circumstance s wer e to o varie d t o articulat e a rigi d tes tbase d o n offse tratio s a s ha d bee n suggested

. NED Aconcurred :
CAA C recommende d post constructio n monitorin g a tth e discretio n o fth e penni tauthorit y i n lie u o fpreconstructio n monitorin g requirements

. Th e latte rhav e no t bee n delete d fro m th e rule , althoug h furthe r commen t ha s bee n requeste d o n thei rdeletion

. . ' • Allo wreductions , eve n thoug h obtaine d fro m othe rprogram , becaus e th e eifec l o n AQRV s i s th e sam e an d tha t i s what' s important

. Thi s i s no t analogou s to
. emission s trading, ' whic h i s a n incentive-base d regulatory"option, " an d henc e shoul d b e base d o n reduction s no t otherwis e required

.

*

CLAS S I Area s

\\\D C •80334/300 3 •01628480 1 1 0