p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

118) IV-C-32 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 118 of 142 
P.2 

€ 

j >.- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OCT 2 6 I9S 

Honorable Blanche L. Lincoln 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Lincoln: 

FEB I 5 2000 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Thank you for your letter of September 29,1999, urging the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to continue the discussions with the participating stakeholder groups on ways to 

reform and streamline the new source review (NSR) program. You expressed concern over 

reports of EPA engaging in only one more round of stakeholder meetings before making 

decisions on finalizing the NSR Reform rule and urged us to take advantage of the stakeholders' 

proposals that have been recently submitted. You suggested that the recent efforts by the 

stakeholders to forge a consensus offers the best hope of solution since the "unilateral efforts to 

revise the program rule by the Agency have been repeatedly rejected by both States and the 

regulated community." Finally, you expressed concern that the existing program has evolved to a 

point of having unclear obligations and this complexity stifles innovation and threatens the 

global competitiveness of the Nation's manufacturing sector for little environment benefit. 

You noted in your letter that the Federal Advisory Committee was convened on this topic 

in 1991. To clarify, the Committee was originally convened to address the implementation of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The project to reform the NSR Regulations was not 

initiated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards until 1992 with two public 

workshops in response to complaints by industry that the program was complex and burdensome. 

In 1993, we formed an NSR Reform Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

(CAAAC) to allow the stakeholder discussions to move toward consensus. Eight public 

meetings of the NSR Reform Subcommittee were convened in the 1993-94 time frame. During 

this period, public comment was sought on several occasions on elements of the package and a 

draft of the entire reform package in the summer of 1994. The proposal package was based on 

the consensus recommendations of the NSR Reform Subcommittee through the CAAAC and the 

many discussions and comments on those elements for which consensus was not reached. 

Numerous meetings with separate industry groups were interspersed between the fall of 1994 and 

proposal in the summer of 1996. A final meeting of the NSR Reform Subcommittee was 

convened shortly after proposal as well as a public hearing, and a 6-month public comment 

period ensued. After that time, further discussions were conducted under the auspices of the 

Title V, Toxics and NSR subcommittee of the CAAAC. In 1997-98 EPA, through analyzing and 

summarizing the many comments on NSR Reform, refined key issues that needed to be 

OAR/O AQPS/IPTID/IIG:DCrumpler:ybthorpe:RTP(MD-l 2):919-541 -0871 

Control # AL-9902123 Due:10/15/99 File a:\senator.wpd 
P.3 

( 

U 

-* 

addressed by the Reform rulemaking. The ensuing Notice of Availability that was published in 

the Federal Register triggered another round of meetings requested by various stakeholder 

groups. 

In late 1998 during discussions over litigation of the rules governing NSR applicability 

for utilities, EPA made an overture for industry to try one more time to come up with a better 

system for determining who or what is or is not covered by NSR. Again, the goal was to provide 

more flexibility for industry, streamline the permitting process where possible, but preserve the 

environmental protection called for by the Clean Air Act. Industry asked to be allowed to pursue 

the task. We have made a special effort over the past year to seek further input from all 

stakeholders on new approaches that will help achieve this goal. A large stakeholder meeting 

was convened on February 2-3 of this year and multiple rounds of follow-on meetings have been 

held with the stakeholders through the month of September. 

Consensus on reforming NSR applicability has been elusive up to the present, even 

among industry groups; however, the meetings have been constructive. Relative to your request 

that we continue these discussions, follow-up meetings for certain aspects of some issues are 

likely in October and November. Based on the recent progress, we believe we can craft a 

package'that provides an acceptable resolution on most issues by late fall. We are also 

investigating a longer term solution, i.e., sector-based approaches for selected industrial groups, 

such as utilities, that have similar manufacturing and emissions characteristics. This will likely 

/ be a separate effort that will require further discussion with stakeholders, but may yield important 

dividends if the legal and policy issues can be resolved. 

Again, thank you for your concern and comments. If I can be of further service, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

X 

». 
• ,» • 

P.4 

Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

CONTROL NO : AL-9902123 

STATUS: PENDING 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 10/20/99 

CORRES. DATE: 09/29/99 

RECEIVED DATE: 10/05/99 

ASSIGNED DATE: 10/06/99 

CLOSED DATE: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SaALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

LINCOLN BLANCHE LAMBERT.-D/AR 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

DEAR SENATOR LINCOLN 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ASSIGNED: 

CLEAN AIR ACTS NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) PROGRAM/CONCERNED 

THAT ONLY ONE MEETING WITH EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS 

WILL BE INSUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY DISCUSS THE PROPOSALS 

FORWARDED TO YOU BY STAPPA/ALAPCO IN MAY 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards - RTP 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO: OCIR/DIANN FRANTZ, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT & 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

SIGNATURE: 

OAR COMMENTS: 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

AL INSTRUCTIONS: MUST BE RETURNED TO OCIR (1304) 3RD FLOOR WT, FOR REVIEW AND 

DISPATCHING. INCLUDE "HARD" COPY OF SIGNED REPLY FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL FILES (AL). DO NOT DATE LETTER. 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. 

|Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

10/06/99 

Code/Status 

ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

• 

(Untitled) 3 
P.5 

BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN 

ARKANSAS 

359 DIRKSEN BUILDING 

TELEPHONE: (202) 224-4843 

e-mail: Blanche_Lincoln@Lincoln.Senate.Gov 

Bnitcd States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

COMMITTEES: 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

September 29,1999 

Mr. Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Assistant Administrator Perciasepe: 

I understand that you have initiated a dialogue with several groups to develop proposals to 

reform the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) Program. The States and the regulated 

community took your outreach efforts very seriously and invested a great deal of energy in 

developing the three reform proposals forwarded to you by STAPPA/ALAPCO in May. You have 

agreed to hold one round of meetings with representatives from the major stakeholder groups this 

month to discuss these proposals before you decide in late September whether to finalize the 

proposed revisions to the 1980 rule. 

I am concerned that only one meeting with each of the stakeholder groups will be insufficient 

to thoroughly discuss the proposals forwarded to you and may not be enough time for any new ideas 

generated from the meetings to be developed. I strongly urge you to take advantage of the 

stakeholder's NSR proposals that have been placed before you and provide ample time to fully 

explore whether an equitable reform proposal can be crafted. Prematurely finalizing the agency's 

proposed NSR rule revisions while these discussions are still underway will prevent workable reform 

of the program - an endpoint that the Agency and the stakeholders have been searching for since the 

Federal Advisory Committee was convened on this topic in 1991. 

These recent intense efforts by the stakeholders to forge consensus on NSR reform offers the 

best hope of solution, particularly since unilateral efforts to revise the program rule by the Agency 

have been repeatedly rejected by both the states and the regulated community. This current reform 

attempt is an outstanding opportunity to avoid the contentious proceedings and litigation that have 

characterized many other recent EPA actions. 

EPA staff within both your offices of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance have acknowledged that the NSR program is in need of reform. Over 

four thousand pages of interpretive guidance, complex rules and conflicting interpretation from 

different offices of EPA and the states have created a program with very unclear obligations. .The 

complexities of the current NSR system impose unnecessary burdens on States and uncertainty for 

the regulated community. This complexity stifles innovation and threatens the global 

competitiveness of the nation's manufacturing sector for little environmental benefit. 

4 -
P.6 

-,/••-'. • 

I am hopeful that your proven leadership in this area, combined with a recognition that this 

program needs to be fixed, will lead to a vastly improved NSR program. 

Sincerely, 

BLL.cb 

[JitoJ*. K. Ututf** 

Blanche L. Lincoln 

5