p. 1



# OAR Box 1793
Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 4 ) ll-F-4 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 4 of 45P. 2

10/03/9 5 13:3 9 Q20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ©001/00 3



## Unite d States Departmento f the Interio r

I N HEPL V REFEf

tTQ »

# QJLOJJJLlii ) U U AP R 3 019° * ^

NATIONA L PAR

KSERVIC E P.O

. BO X3712 7 WASHINGTON , D. C 20013-712 7 

### A-96-3 7

EFAAlKDeSKE T DATE : 

# (olZttS

NUMBE RO F PAGE S T O FOLLOW :

/ 

# 3

TO :

FRON : 

# UICLL 

# d&TM~/f*/

/

SUBJECT : 

### /*C&U>C^

REMARKS : . 

# rapS *#q

I F YO UHAV E ANYPROBLEM S M1T H THI S FA XO RTROUBL E RECEIVINGA FA X PLEAS E CAL L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRO N HHON YOUAR E RECEIVIN

GTH E FAX . BLACKWELL . LAUREN

202-208 - COHHINS , BIL L 202-208 - DENNIS , JO M

202-208 - D1SALV0 , CARO L 202-219 - EADY . COLLETT E 202-208 - JOHNSTOH , GAR Y202-208 - KLIVINSKI , SHARON

202-208 - NALKIN , KAREN

202-219 - 491 2 NCCLELLA» , LINDSA Y 463 1 MILLER . ABB Y 519 3 QLHELL , PEGGY 893 6 PECK , DEBB Y 464 0 SHAFER , CRAI G 588 6 MALKER , BIL L 463 9 NATKINS , HILN

A 338 4 WILSON . RITA 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-219-893 3 202-208-462 4 202-219-893 4 202-219-338 6 202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4P. 3

10/03/9 5 13:4 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NPS ©002/00 3

HE W SOURC E REVIE W

(NSR ) 6/29/9 5 OMB INTERAGENC YREVIE W DRAF T DO I RESPONS E T O OM B AM D DO B COMMENT S RAISE D A S O F 9/27/9 5

comment : Th e notic e o f a potentia l advers e impac t shoul d contai n mor e specifi c reguirements . I nparticular , th e notic e shoul d demonstrat e a "causa l link " betweenth e propose d sourc e an d impact s a t a Clas s I area . Ther e shoul d b e onl y "on e bit e a t th e apple" ; i.e. . anapplican t shoul d onl y b e require d t o perfor m analyse s identifie d i nth e notice . (Se e (p)(6)(i) ) Response : Th e draf t NS Rpackag e implement s Sec . 165(d ) (2 ) (C ) (i ) o f th e CleanAi r Ac t (CAA) . A s indicate d o np . 16 6 o f th e preamble , th e notic e merel y trigger s th e nee d fo r Clas s I impac t informatio n regardin g emission s fro m a propose d majo r emittin g facility , whic h ma y affec t a particula r Clas s I area . I t ma y b e difficul t t o provid e informatio nona "causa l link " a t th e notic e stage , particularl y

withou t th e benefi t o f th e analyse s tha t coul d b e reguire d subsequently . Indeed , th e issu e o f causa l lin k i s often th e mos t difficul t issu e i nth e advers e impac t determination . Kee p i nmind , a s state d i nth e CAA , th e notic e ma y b e file d b y

no t onl y th e Federa l Lan d Manage r (FLM) , bu t th e Federa l officia l directl y responsibl e fo r managin g th e "potential[ly] " impacte d area , EPA , o r a Governo r o f a nadjacen t state . Includin g suc ha requiremen t a t th e notic e stag e coul d wel l resul t i ninadequat e responsivenes s b y th e permittin g authority , leadin g to source s tha t wil l caus e advers e impact s gettin g permit s alon g wit hcontrovers y an d possibl e litigation . Similarly , withou t impac t information , i t i s unreasonabl e to limi t th e scop e o f analyse s tha t a nFL M ma y recommen d an d a permittin g authorit y

ma y requir e to wha t i s identifie d i nth e notice . Certainly , a t leas t throug hth e require d publi c commen t period , a permittin g authorit y shoul d hav e th e discretio nto reques t mor e informatio nand analyse s uponwhic hto bas e hi s decisio nt o permi t a source . Th e statutor y languag e an d legislativ e histor y d o no t suppor t th e specifi c change s recommende d by OM B and DOE . In discussin g th e notic e tha t "wil l trigge r analyses, " th e Senat e repor t (95-127 ) specificall y instruct s to "er r onth e sid e o f protectin g th e ai r quality-relate d value s fo r futur e generations. "

Comment : Th e packag e shoul d specif y d e minimu s level s fo r ai r qualit y

relate d value s (AQRVs) , jus t a s i t specifie s significanc e level s fo r increment . Response : Again , thi s suggestio ni s contrar y t o th e inten t o f th e statute . T o bette r ensur e par k protection , Congres s provide d fo r tw o separat e test s permi t applicant s woul d hav e t o pass : incremen t an d advers e impact . Congres s mad e clea r tha t "[e]ac hcas e o f suspecte d clas s I intrusio nmus t b e analyze d o na nindividua l basis, " an d th e FLM "i s require d t o protec t Federa l land s fro m deterioratio no f a nestablishe d value , eve nwhe nclas s I number s ar e no t exceeded " (S . Rep . No . 95-12 7 a t 36) . Give nth e FLM' s Congressionally-mandate d "affirmativ e responsibility, " i f an yP. 4

screenin

g value s ar e appropriat e fo r AQRVs , thos e shoul d b e se t b y FLMs . Th e preambl e embodie s the legislativ e intent : a s wel l a s the technica l difficultie s i nestablishin

g significan t impac t level s for AQRVS , "sinc e eachAQR V an d it s associated critica l pollutan t loading s ma

y b e differen t fro m are a t o are a an d eve nwithi n individua l Federa l Clas s I areas. " (Se e p . 205 )
Comment : Th e criteri a i n(p)(6)(iii ) for whe na stat e ma y rejec t anFIJI' S advers e impac t demonstratio nnee d t o b e expanded t o includ e mor e factors , an d mak e clea r tha t thes e factor s ar e onl y examples . Response s Th e divers e representative s o f th e FAC A recognized the nee d fo r mor e certainty an d consistency

amon g permitting authoritie s i ndeterminin g wha t sor t o f advers e impac t showin g woul d satisf y

a stat e permittin g authority . A

workgrou

p o f the FAC A mad e specifi c suggestion s for criteri a for rejecting an advers e impact . The "criteria " liste d in(p)(6)(iii ) fairl y reflec t thos e views , an d provide a "minimum " floo r for wha t the permitting authority' s evaluatio no f a

nadvers e impac t shal l contain . Th e proposed regulatio nprovide s a soli d foundationt o ensur e tha t permittin g authorities ' decision s ar e informed b y a revie w o f the relevan t scientifi c an d technica l information . Congres s mad e clea r tha t wher e the FL M ha s satisfactoril y demonstrated tha t th e emission s woul d hav e a nadvers e impac t o

na n AQRV , "the

nthe Stat e mus t refus e t o issu e the permit " (S . Rep . No . 95-12 7 a t 35 ) . Nothin g inthe statute , the legislativ e history , o r genera l precept s o f la w sugges t tha t factor s unrelate d t o AQR V impact s may

dictat e wha t constitute s a nadvers e impact . Throughou t the CAA , Congres s made i t explicitl y clea r wher e i t intended considerationo f nonai r qualit y impact s (e.g. , Sec . i69A(g) , definitiono f "reasonabl e progress") . N o suchconsiderationi s intended here . comment : Th e definitio no f a nAQR V shoul d b e narrowed . I n addition , FIU s shoul d be require d t o specify

eachspecifi c AQRV , pinpoin t wher e withi na Clas s I are a i t i s located , an d provid e pollutan t threshold s throug ha Federa l Registe r and/o r pee r revie w process . Response : A s discussed a t th e Wednesda

y meeting , the legislativ e histor y provide s tha t the ter m AQRVs include s the fundamenta l purpose s for whic hthe land s containin g thos e value s wer e se t asid e for futur e generations , unde r the stewardshi p o f th e FLM . Th e NS R packag e require s FLM s t o provide al l pertinen t informatio nt o applicant s earl y

i nth e proces s an

d t o maintai na

nelectroni c AQR

V databas e for publi c access . A t th e clos e o f the Wednesda y meeting , OM B withdre

w it s comment s o

nthes e issues . comment : The definitio no f advers e impac t i n(41 ) shoul d b e changed t o mak e clea r tha t onl y the emission s fro m a propose d sourc e ma

y b e considered . Response t We ' strongl y recommen

d tha t the proposed definition .10/03/9 5 13:41 O20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S Z ^ 1K/A y n " ©003/00 3

whic hinclude s a "deleteriou s effect , resultin g i nwhol e o r i n part " b e maintained . CA A EP A an d FL M policy interpretationa s wel l a s - cas e law , suppor t consideratio no f cumulativ

e effect s i n evaluatin

g propose d emission s increases . Indeed th e cumulative effect s documented for ove r a decade hav e forme d the backdrop for DOI' s advers e impac t notice s an d determination s for Shenandoahan d Grea t Smok

y Mountain s Nationa l Parks . Thi s packag e mus t no t tur n bac k th e cloc k b

y narrowl y

definin

g a hadvers e impact , t o th e detrimen t o f thes e treasured resources , an d creatin

g mor e uncertaint y

i nth e permittin g process . Ho

w canpermitting authoritie s an

d court s determine tha t a deleteriou s effec t result s entirel y

fro m proposed emissions ? Again , Congres s instruct s t o er r o nthe side o f protecting AQRV s for futur e generations . A commo nprecep t o f genera l la w i s tha t yo u tak e your plaintiff s a s you fin d them ; i.e. . yo u ar e stil l responsibl e for the "eggshell " plaintiff . A napplican t seekin

g t o sit e nea r sensitive , alread y impaire

d resource s mus t conside r th e backgroun

d h e i s enterin

g into .