P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 40 ) IV-H-6 6
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/20084:20:37

PM Sheet 40of 107I I L': ! L>00

2 08:4 8 FA

X 301843880 6 P. 2 lunu
- l a 00 1
1/ - \ri~(o<* -EXECUTIV EOFFIC EO FTH EPRESIDENT



# COUNCI LO NENVIRONMENTA L

QUALIT Y

72 2 JACKSO NPLACE , N.W

. WASHINGTON , 

### D.C

. 2050 3 PHONE : (202 ) 395-575 0 FAX:(202)456-654 6



## .IrflM^ 

# fyvui& lea.- 56/

. 6 39^f

PAGES :

(INCLUDIN G COVE RS I I 

# COMMENTS :

yfyZ- °)y^). 55*8^—KM*. b*~ fa <^7'° ^

riciunc»H*

J ircnwinoyim : thi * PA X transmissio nmay contai ninformatio nwhic h i s confidentia l an4A» i iciwitiv t

rttciiil i

.„,,,„,,, ! Mnl

* fi n^ c in ,1 Kimtivfilual orcwii y name d o nth» arransmbso w«h«c . iryo o * « M I .M.IMMIIV. i-.ipv.ii-.,lisir.(i.ifiun.i rthe taklfls j i relbnv co nth e .re d .m i n- i

l rotsvhBuWbcr«orn«? « t o thi s offic e i

m i ncdiatcl y t

u thi * regard , i

l J i u n.,,,1 , u . l » i.i.ph.n, . ,..., . u-il i a.-iv, „ rh.i

l .». - v.u i

... • i ou * finHi

. retur no f

tni ..:.;.>.•
- ir(s ) to OS

. 

# r ~ NO V2 2 200 2

KE TP. 3 11/22/200 2 08:4 8 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E @ 0 0 2



### Chapte r3 - Baselin e Emissions , 199 8 NO A 3. 1 Metho d fo rDeterminin g Baselin e Comment : 3.1. 1 Suppor t fo r10-yea rBaselin e Fou rindustrycommenter s (IV-D-210 , 219 , 221 , 311 ) an d tw o utilit yindustry commenter s (IV-D-252 , 261 ) supporte d th e baselin e provision s i n th e NOA

. On e regulatoryagenc y(IV-D-262 ) supporte d th e 10-yea rbaselin e period , a s lon g a s th e 10
- yea rlimi t wa s permanent

. On e industrycommente r(IV-D-220 ) supporte d th e propose d 10-yea rtim e fram e an d suggeste d tha t thi s tim e fram e b e extende d t o al l areas , no t jus t attainment

. On e industrycommente r(IV-D-221 ) supporte d th e 10-yea rbaselin e period , bu t als o requeste d th e flexibilit yt o choos e a 5-yea rperiod

. On e commente r(IV-D-210 ) maintaine d tha t 1 0 year s wa s sufficien t t o demonstrat e t o th e permittingreviewin g authorit ytha t th e physica l o roperationa l chang e di d no t resul t i n a significan t emission s increase. 1 On e utilit yindustrycommente r(IV-D-261 ) explaine d tha t capacit yutilizatio n o fnon-nuclea runit s varie s substantiall ydependin g o n th e availabilit yo fnuclea runits , an d tha t therefor e a lon g loo k bac k perio d was desirable

. Anothe rutilit ycommente r (IV-D-252 ) explaine d tha t th e 10-yea rperio d mor e closel yrepresente d a fossil
generatin g unit' s norma l operatin g cycle

. A n industrycommente r(IV-D-219 ) supporte d th e 10-yea rbaselin e becaus e i t bette rreflect s actua l emission s a t norma l operations

. Th e commente r(IV-D-219 ) maintaine d tha t emission s ofte n decreas e a t th e en d o fth e usefu l lif e o fequipment , an d tha t th e decreas e frequentl yoccur s afte r5 years
. Response : As previously

stated in chapter 2, we are adopting

a new procedure, relying

upon a fixed 10-year look back period, for

establishing

the baseline annual emissions

for non-utility

existing emissions

units that are being modified. Electric

utility steam generating

units are not eligible toiise-^js-new

look back. We

believe the new fixed 10-year lOOk back Offers a mnn^a<iHSaH~f^\pir)^nh tn

Hpffsrmining

a murra'e

i'^/Ctn^f representative

operations

and ifTeemi$sknisassociated with that level of operation. Our complete

rationale

for adopting

the new procedure

is provided

in chapter 2. The new procedure

will apply in all areas (attainment, unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas) and the relevant major NSR regulations

are being amended

accordingly. It

Thes e ar e th e commenter' s direc t comment s regardin g th e 10-year baselin e a s foun do npag e 4

. Th e commen t doe s not appear relevan t t o thi s issue , bu t

t o th e 10-yea r future actua l methodology , whic hi s discusse di nChapte r 5

. Draf t - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Augus t 8 , 200 2PA_ 11/-22/200 2 08:4 9 FA X 301843880 6 HOM EIS00 3



## Section 3* I*?. I 3 -199 8 Comment s o n Baselin e Emission s baselinerate

should reflect what the unit could emit under the representative

operating levels just prior to the proposed

change. Also

see response

to comments

at section 2.2.5.2. We also have concerns

aboutdo not agree with the comments

that the baseline provisions

will not adequately

protect the environment. We

when compared

to the current approach

for setting the baseline emissions

rate. In sections 2.2.2 and 4.4 of this chapter, we

provide our reasons why we do not believe that it is the purpose of the baseline provisions-neither

the current nor the new ones-to provideeither

the new approach

for determining

a unit's baseline

emissions

rate or the " actual-to-projected-actual" test will result in adverse environmental

protection, per seimpacts. Instead, tThe baseline

provisions

should provide a fair and reasonable approach

for selecting

a baselinemodified

emissions

unit's pre-change

emissions

rate, that is representative

of the unit's normal operation, from

which it will be determined whether a physical or operational

change will result in a significant

emissions

increase. The Act does not prescribe

a method for determining

the baseline emissions

from which an emissions

increase

resulting

from a physical or operational

change will be determined. Even

under the current rules, a source may use a period other than the two years immediately

preceding

a change if the permitting

authority

agrees that such other period is more representative

of normal operations. The

new method for determining

baseline

emissions

is based on the premise that no particular

year of operation

within a source's business

cycle is necessarily

more representative

of normal operation

than another. Therefore, we have chosen a method which eliminates

the need for a source demonstration

or a permitting

authority

specific approval

(often accompanied

by debate and the consumption

of considerable

time) to arrive at an emissions

rate that represents

"normal"

operation. If

a source's

emissions increase, that is not considered

an emissions

increase

would cause problems

associated

with the NAAQS or PSD increments, such

increase

may be detected

as the result of an air quality analysis required of another source or via a periodic assessment

which is done by a State to determine

the status of the NAAQS or increments.
Moreover, the

new rules do not change the procedure

for calculating

an As mentioned

above in the response

following

section 3.1, we continue

to believe that a 5-year look back period is generally

appropriate

for establishing

baseline actual emissions

increase

for purposes

of determining

air quality impacts. That

is, if you determine

t£ia£4he

modification

of your source is a major modification

pursuant

to thejactual

te^future^ctual''

applicability

test, you

must continue

to use the existing definition or^GktaTemissions"

to determine

your source's

actual emissions

on a particular

date to satisfy all other NSR permitting

requirements, including any air quality analyses (for example, compliance

with NAAQS, PSD

increments, AQRV)

and the amount of emissions

offsets required. Compliance with the NAAQS is accomplished Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistributeAugus t 8 , 200 2P. 5 11/-22/200 2 08:4 9 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E® 0 0 4

5 - NO A Applicabilit y Response : S^?Vv > 5*
. 2 . 2. 0 While we do not necessarily

agree with all of the reasons that these commenters

provided

for opposing

the applicability

options presented

in the NOA, we

have decided that the proposed

changes, which

included an " actual-to-enforceable-future-actual" applicability

test (now promulgated

as the "- actual-to-oroiected-actual" test) without a demand growth exclusion, were

not appropriate

for the final rulemaking. We

do believe that the imposition

of an enforceable

limit on the projected

Murepost-chanae

emissions

level would have resulted in unnecessary

burdens, because

the regulations

already provide that a modified source which results in a significant

net emissions

increase

must undergo NSR.

The definition

of "modification"

in both the statute and regulations

provides

that there be a causal relationship

between

the physical or operational

change undertaken by the source and the emissions

increase. Thus, it

would be inappropriate

not to allow sources to oxoludoTo

better focus on those emissions

increases

that result from factors not attributable

to tho physical or operational

change. — a change, we

are extending

the demand growth concept to all modified existing emissions

units using the "actual-to-oroiected-actual" applicability

test. We continue

to believe that it is reasonable

and appropriate

to adopt the new method for establishing

a modified

unit's baseline

actual emissions. It

is important

to understand

tho differonce

botwoen

tho purpose of tho new procedure, which

usos the 10 year look back, and

the existing procedure

under the pre-existing

definition

of "actual emissions"

at §52.21 (b)(21)(ii), which generally

requires tho use of an avorago annual emissions

rate basod on tho 2 year period immediatoly

procoding

a particular date. The

latter procedure

is designed

to estimate

a source's actual emissions

at a particular

timo and continues

to be appropriate

for such things a s estimating

a- source's impact on air quality for PSDincrement

consumotionOur

complete

set of responses

to comments

on the new baseline

approach

is contained

in chapters

2 and 3 of this volume, and

chapter 2 of volume 2. Finally, we

do not believe that the actual-to-enfofeeaole

future-actual

test would be less protective

of the environment

than the existing rules

because

modifications

that result in a significant

net emissions

increase

would continue

to be subjected

to NSR, including a source impact analysis. In

addition, the

procedure

for determining emissions

levels for carrying out the ambient impact analysis would continue

to be based on the existing procedures

which use the existing definition

of "actual emissions. "

= Comment : 5.2. 3 Suggeste d Alternativ e Approache s Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Jul y19 , 200 2P. 6 11/22/200 2 08:4 9 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E @00 5



### SCjJhtJV\

3>'2-3. < 

### >

5
- NO

AApplicabilit y NSP S approac h t o determinin g a majo rmodificatio n a t a n existin g uni t (an yincreas e i n th e hourl yemissio n rat e a t maximu m capacity)

. Unde rthi s approach , a n increas e i n th e hourl yemissio n rat e mus t b e demonstrated , alon g wit h a n increas e i n annua l emission s ove rapplicabl e thresholds

. Th e commenter s objecte d t o th e propose d approach , whic h woul d trigge ra modificatio n base d solel yo n a projecte d increas e i n hour s o foperatio n (withou t a n increas e i n hourl yemissio n rate)

. Response :

* l/l/

e disagree

that an "allowable-to-allowable" test should be used to determine

an emissions

increase

at existing emissions

units that have not undergone

major NSR in recent years. We

believe that these types of units, fwglmnher

applied state-of-the-art

control technology

nor undergone

an air quality impact analysis, are

the very sources that the Act intends to be required to undergo major NSR when a physical or operational

change results in an y^\^£^kkml-emispions

increase

at the unit. For

those emissions

units which have undergone

major NSR in the past 10 years, new

requirements

for units having a Clean idmtsUnit

status are being adopted as part of the rulemaking. These recpjfrements

provide an exclusion

from NSR based on a " Permitted

allowoblo-to-permitted allowable"ajjjM

applicability

test based on a determination

that a project at a Clean Unit will not cause the need for a change in the emission

limitations

or work practices

in the permit for the Clean Unit that were adopted in conjunction

with the BACT or LAER requirement, as

applicable. For units that have not previously

undergone

major NSR, we

believe the best approach

is to use the "actual to future actual""actual-to-oroiected-actual" test to determine

the emissions

increase

that will result from the physical or operational change to the unit. Thereafter, the

Clean Unit exemotiontest

would applyv It is not nocessary

to address the-potential-to-potential approach

in tho NOA. This was raised in the 1996 proposal and comments

woro rocoived

and considered.

— The

NOAraised

issues and options that were not raisod in tho proposal.
as long as the unit retains a Clean Unit status. We disagree

with the commenters

who recommended

using the NSPS definition of "modification"

under the NSR rules. We

have addressed

this issue previously

and pointed out the differences

in the objectives

of the two programs

to explain why they rely on two different approaches

to the concept of "modification."

InkeepJng^&rith

our 'fYQjC^fc* concern for increases

in annual emissions, we

believe that "actual-Ao-future-aatual" test based on a tons per year emissions

increase

is the best option for\rfetenx»r(ing

an emissions

increase

for modifications

of existing units that have not undergone

major NSR in the past 10 years.

Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Jul y19 , 200 211/22/200 2 08:5 0 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E No v2 2 0 2 02:30. 3 J ame s L . Connaughto n 202-244-314 7 P. 7 S]00 6 P
- 1

3 •Lat e Comment s o n Actual-to-future-actua l Methodolog y EPA' s Propose d Economi cIncentiv e Progra m Guidance , whic h require s al l emission s trade s t o b e discounte d b y1 0 percen t t o preven t source s claimin g thei rcomplianc e margi n a s emissio n reductions

. Accordin g t o th e commenter , i n NS R th e existenc e o f th e complianc e margi n count s a s a n emission s increas e sinc e i t ca n lea d t o NS R bein g triggere d whe n n o rea l emission s increase s occur
. On e commente r(IV-D-408 ) state d tha t EP Aha s neve rdefende d th e actual-to-future-potentia l test

. Th e commente rsai d tha t EP Aneve rjustifie d th e conclusio n tha t usin g futur e potentia l emission s i s acceptabl e a s a "bes t guess " becaus e i t i s no t possibl e t o estimat e actua l emissio n level s fro m a uni t tha t ha s not " begu n norma l operations. " Th e commente rargue d tha t th e actual-to-potentia l tes t i s use d onl yi n th e absenc e o fan ypractica l alternatives

. NTh e commente rstate d tha t no wtha t alternative s tha t reconcil e th e competin g factor s withou t overstatin g emission s increase s hav e bee n proposed , th e EPA' s curren t approac h i s n o longe rdefensible

. Response : q - - r~~ftafCWe -agree with many of the Gommonts

that expressed

oonoorn

abouttheinaoproDriatoneGS

of tho existinaWhile

we have adopted

several new applicability

tests to replace the "actual-to-potentiar

tespf-For

exampier

in certain cases, we

have not completely

eliminated

the testOnallcasesias

recommended

bv some commenters. We believe that the "actual-to-potential"

tesfcould

subioct

an-en lesions unit to maior NSR for a physical

or operational

ohango

simply bocause

there as

a large enough gap lere IA between tho unit's actual utilizationcontinues

to be the meet appropriate

test for new emissions

units: however, for

existing emissions

units and units which replace existing units, we

now believe that the "aotual-to-proiected-actual" test is appropriate

because these units can more reliably predict their oost-chanoe

emissions

and thus do not need the safeguard, (and

associated

omissions)

immodiatoly

preceding

tho change and its full design capacity

(and potential

to emit) after the chanoo. Also, wecosf and delay) of the " actual-to-potential"

test. Nevertheless, we do not agree that the current actual-to-potential"

test

a fails to focus on the emissions

increase

"that would result' from tke-physical

or operational

changes

because

it does not allow for the oxclusion

of emissions

increases

(from utilization

increases, permissible fuelorrawmateriaiswitches. etc.)

that could havo beon accommodated

prior to tho-chanae. The. Under the "actual-to-potential"

test prosumos

that a sourco

owner or operator

mak'mg^siL aDDlicant

who believes

that a modified

emissions

unit's actual emissions

increase following a physical or operational

change

at an emissions

unit will run that newly-modified

unit at its full design capacity-and

reach-its

potontial

toomit-unloes-theGourco takeswill

not increase

significantly

has the option of establishing

an enforceable restriction

demonstrating

that it does not intend to operate at such high-levels. Although you can avoid major NSR review by obtaining-enforceable

permits

that ensure that the modification

will not result in a sianificantcao

based on the predicted oost-chanoe

actual emissions

increase--tkie

so that if the emissions

increase

is not Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistrlbute-Augus t 13,200 211/22/200 2 08:5 0 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E Mo v2 2 o 2 0 2 :3rJ a Jame s L Connaughto n P. 8



# 1 ©00 7 202-244-314 7 P- 2

3 - Lat e Comment s o n Actual-to-future-actua l Methodolog y emissions, expressed

as tons per year, to the NSR program, while

relying on a an increase in the maximum

hourly achievable

emissions

to trigger NSPS. Consequently, it is possible for a source undergoing

a physical or operational

change to be subject as a modification

to the NSR program but not the NSPS. For ^further discussion

of whv we believe the NSPS test for modifications

is not appropriate

for major NSR ami the statutory

and judicial background

for-this decision, see our response

in ^section 4.3 (volume 1) of this Technical

SupportDocument

### 3.7 6 5-yea rTrackin g - Lengt h o fTrackin g Perio d Comment : On e commente r(1V-D-408 ) disagree d wit h EPA' s proposa l i n th e 199 8 NO Atha t th e effec t o fchange s shoul d b e tracke d fo r1 0 years , whic h woul d correspon d wit h th e 10-yea rlook-bac k

period

. Th e commente rstate d tha t the ybelieve d th e lengt h o ftim e th e effec t o fchange s shoul d b e tracke d shoul d b e base d a source' s expecte d retur n o n investment

. Th e commente rsai d tha t th e look-bac k perio d an d th e perio d fo rtrackin g th e effec t o fchange s ar e no t linke d an d shoul d no t b e th e same
. On e commente r(IV-D-408 ) propose d tha t th e modificatio n o fa n existin g emission s uni t o rinstallatio n o fa ne wemission s uni t woul d trigge rNS R i femission s fro m th e ne wo rmodifie d uni t increase d abov e predicte d level s durin g th e firs t 3 year s afte rth e change d uni t bega n ful l operation , unles s th e sourc e coul d sho wa clea r extraneou s caus e fo rth e increas e tha t too k plac e afte rth e perio d ha d ru n tha t woul d no t trigge rNSR

. Th e commente rdefende d th e 3-yea rperio d becaus e mos t companie s onl yauthoriz e investment s tha t pa yof fwithi n 3 years
. Therefore , i fth e pay-of fresult s i n increase d emissions , th e increas e i n emission s shoul d b e apparen t withi n 3 years
. Th e commente rargue d tha t i t i s no t reasonabl e t o presum e tha t a chang e woul d caus e emission s increase s a t a n emission s uni t tha t d o no t begi n fo r3 o rmor e year s afte rth e change

. Response : We agree that

it is generally not

necessary to link

the length of

the record

keeping requirement

to the length of

the look back period for establishing baseline actual emissions. Our final rules require that

yousources maintain records tracking yewntheir annual emissions

for a 5-year period if there is areasonable possibility that the project

may result

in a significant emissions increase. However, we have decided that it is appropriate to require a 10-year recordkeeping requirement in situations where the physical or operational

changes that

yeuthe
Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Augus t 13,200 211/22/200 2 08:5 0 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E " " ^ No v22 ' O? np--qi= » i
. ©00 8 o v* e O S 02.31 a Jame s L
. Connaughto n 202-244-314 7 P6 - Actual-to-future-actua l Methodolog y On e commente r(IV-D-47 ) observe d tha t becaus e th e actual-to-future-actua l tes t doe s no t appl yt o replacement s o rne wsourc e construction , it s potentia l us e i s ver y limited

. Th e commente rals o believe d tha t PAL s offere d a mor e viabl e solutio n tha n th e actual-to-future-actua l methodolog yfo rstreamlinin g th e proces s fo rmodifications

. Th e commente rstate d tha t th e potentia l benefi t t o th e regulator ycommunit yo fth e actual-to-future-actua l methodolog yca n b e accomplishe d mor e efficientl yan d effectivel ywithi n th e contex t o fa PAL

. Response : As indicated

in earlier sections, wo

have adoptod

now rules that apply tho " actual to future actual" applicability

tost to all existing omissions

units (oxcopt that oxisting units classified

ao Clean Units may use an altomative

-method).

— Wo

appreciatetho comments

genorally

expressing

support

for the actual to futuro-actual

tost. Some of the comments

containod

in this section have already been addressed

in the responses

to comments

on retaining

the actual-to-potential

test in Section 4.2, above. Comments

involving

the calculation

of baseline

emissions

have been addressed

in Chapters 2 and 3. The responses

below address

thosesoinniBDts^not

already specifically

discussed. ^^TrXiQ^JtcA- Aconsequonco

of the new rules 4sWe disagree

wiffTthose

commenters

who asserted, that

some modification

projects

thatjwould

have triggered

major NSR as major modifications

based onunder

the "actual-to-potential"

test will not trigger review under the new ^actual to-futuro

aGtual""actual-to-pnbiected-actuar test. Numorous commenters

questioned

tho switch to a new applicability-teat

that would cause this result. One

thing to consider-ie-that, while some modification

projections

may not be eubjootod

to major NSR, we

do believe that )omo of the projects that are not regarded NSR under oxisting State permit programs.- explained

previously

in section 4.2. the

essdntial

difference

between

the two methods

is that under the "actual-to-ootential"

approach the

projection

of actual emissions

may be as major modifioations-undeF

tho now applic ibility test will be required

to undorgo

minerAnother consideration

ie that even undorAs.

set forth ip a minor NSR p&rmit or other enforceable

emissions-capping

mechanism before construction, whereas the "actual-to-Jactual"

approach

relies on emissions tracking and recordkeeping

to insure that projected

actual emissions

are not exceeded (unless the company

obtains a maior

NSR permit). The

end result is that State and local reviewing

authorities

now have the option of focusing

their limited resources

on those types of changes

that are ooino to result

in significant

increases

in actual emissions

to the environment. Use

of the new test will also remove the perceived disincentive

claimed

bv many industry

commenters

for sources to make the types of changes that improve

operating

efficiency^

implement

pollution

prevention

projects, and, result in other environmentally

beneficial

chances. We also note that the current rules dp not reouire every emissions Draf t - D o no t quote , cite , cop yo rdistrlbute07/16/0 2^^__

_P.1 0 11/22/200 2 08:5 1 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E©00 9

SCXJnCTr^ 5^-3. 3 5-NO A Applicabilit y actual tofuturo aGtual""actual-to-orojected-actual" applicability

test. We

believe that most sources should be able to adequately

project the emissions

increases

that will result from the physical and operational

changes

that they choose to make. If

for some reason these projections

are projection

is not accurate, the

required tracking of emissions

for 5 years following

the changes

will determine

whether a significant emissions

increase

has actually occurred. Where

the change is found to be a major modification, despite

the oredictionsoroiections

made by the source, the permittinqreviewina

authority

will be expected

to proceed with the process of subjecting the source to the major NSR requirements. We disagree

with the commenter

who stated that increased

competition

and deregulation

in the electric utility industry would lead to less accurate

estimates

of futureoost-chanoe

utilization

and demand growth. Howover, we have retained tho provision requiring

that, for EUSGUs

using tho actual to-representative-future acfr/aA tost. you must submit Nevertheless, the

new rules require modified

EUSGUs

tSsubmit \fj^ notice to the reviewing

authority

prior to beginning

actual constructioTTJhat

is&at considered

a major modification, and

must submit post-change

annutthemissions

rate data, in tons per year, annually

for 5 years after the change sufficient

rocords to demonstratea

change is made. Again, this

requirement

applies to EUSGUs

when the new "actual-to-oroiected-actual" applicability

test shows that the change haswill not resulted in a significant

emissions

increase

over the basoline levolsat the unit (or significant

net emissions

increase

at the source), even

in cases when the oost-chanoe annual emissions

during the 5-vear period do not show a significant

emissions increase. We

believe these provisions

will continue

to provide accurate

information

on post modificationoost-change emissions

at EUSGUs. Moreover, we believe that EUSGUs will continue

to have adequate

emission

projection

and tracking capabilities, regardless

of deregulation

of some aspects of public utilities. Also. EUSGUs are still required to meet rigorous monitoring

requirements

under title IV. 

### 5. 5 Proposa l t o Creat e Enforceabl e 10-yea rEmission s Leve l Comment : 5.5. 1 Suppor t Enforceabl e 10-yea rEmissio n Leve l On e industr ycommente r(IV-D-273 ) an d on e utilit yindustrycommente r(IV-D
252 ) supporte d th e 10-yea remissio n limit

. Anothe rindustrycommente r(IV-D-321 ) supporte d a 10-yea rtrackin g period , bu t di d no t specificall yendors e th e propose d enforceabl e 10-yea remissio n level

. On e industrycommente r(IV-D-250 ) state d tha t a 10-yea rlimi t woul d b e acceptabl e i fth e applican t desire s it

. On e utilit yindustrycommente r(IV-D-252 ) believe d th e temporar yemission s ca p was necessaryt o ensur e tha t a significan t ne t emission s increas e di d no t occur
. Th e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Jul y19 , 200 2^^_PJJ

_ 11/22/200 2 08:5 1 FA X 301843880 6 HOM E©01 0

5Ce^f-zir\ o (?""
. ^ . 4 - 5-NO A Applicabilit y

' earlier, we

havejiejLldBxhQQ(to

adopt the "actual-to-enforceable-future-actual" test in 15? the

final mleirfaTdng, InsteadSwe have adopted the "actual to futuro actualTM IJ
- -~r~^cTual-to-tost-chanqe-actuar test. Accordingly, the new applicability

test includes the '\\ftAX provision

ekiseribcd-atroVe

calling for a 10-year record keeping period when a project
' U^Pdeemed

not to be a major modification

would, nevertheless, increase an emissions Af ) unit's

capacity or potential

to emit.


### 5. 8 Shoul d th e Actual-to-future-actua l Tes t Appl yt o Netting ? Comment : 5.8. 1 Yes , th e Actual-to-future-actua l Tes t Shoul d Appl yt o Netting Thirtee n industrycommenter s (IV-D-208 , 219 , 260 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 270 , 298 , 301 , 304 , 308 , 313 ) an d si xutilit yindustrycommenter s (IV-D-252 , 266 , 279 , 282 , 294 , 318 ) maintaine d tha t th e actual-to-future-actua l tes t shoul d als o b e use d fo rth e nettin g analysis

. Thes e commenter s believe d tha t th e rule s coul d no t defin e emissio n increase s differentl yfo rnettin g tha n fo rmodifications

. On e utilit yindustrycommente r (IV-D-279 ) base d thi s assertio n o n thei rinterpretatio n o fth e Alabama Power court case
. rAlabam a Powe rCo

. v
. Costle

. 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 401-0 3 (D.C

. Cir

. 1979) ] Th e commente rquote d th e court' s language , statin g tha t "Ther e i s n o basi s i n th e Ac t fo r establishin g tw o differen t definition s o fmodification , on e tha t look s onl ya t ne t increase s fo rsubstantiv e requirements , an d a secon d tha t look s a t al l increases , withou t allowin g offsets , fo rprocedura l requirements. " Anothe rutilit yindustrycommente r(IV-D-294 ) believe d tha t applyin g a potentia l methodolog yt o nettin g wa s contraryt o WEPCO. Th e commente r(IV-D-294 ) als o state d tha t th e EP Aha d no t provide d publi copportunit yfo r commen t fo rth e actual-to-potentia l methodology , whic h was require d b yth e WEPCO court an d b ysectio n 30 7 o fth e CAA

. Athir d utilit ycommente r(IV-D-282 ) state d tha t permittin g reviewin g authoritie s routinel yrel yp n enforceabl e an d creditabl e emissio n decrease s a s part o fth e nettin g analysis

. On e industrycommente r(IV-D-265 ) argue d tha t nettin g involve d rea l emissio n reduction s tha t completel ycancele d ou t an yincreas e i n PTE

. Therefore , th e actual-to
future-actua l tes t shoul d definitel yappl yt o nettin g transactions

. Anothe rindustry• commente r(IV-D-298 ) believe d tha t tw o set s o fbook s woul d b e require d unles s th e actual-to-actua l methodolog yapplie d t o netting

. On e industrycommente r(IV-D-304 ) maintaine d tha t i t woul d b e illogica l no t t o allo wth e actual-to-future-actua l approac h fo rnettin g becaus e a chang e tha t was no t a modificatio n woul d the n stil l b e significan t unde rth e nettin g analysis

. Tw o commenter s (IV-D-298 , 304 ) furthe rargue d tha t no t allowin g th e actual-to-future-actua l approac h woul d penaliz e source s i n serious , severe , an d extrem e nonattainmen t areas
. Suc h Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o rdistribut e Jul y19 , 200 2