P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

227) ll-F-17 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 227 of 250 
P.2 

03'16'9 5 15:3 7 ©20 2 208 1620 WASO NR.'AQ NPS AQMD-PPB )001'02 3 

or- t=--f7 

United States Department ofthe Interior 

i> rr.n.v KKKKK c 

NATIUNAf. PAl.K tiERVlCl. 

P.n ROY 37127 

Washington. D.C. 20013-7127' 

NUMBER OF PAfiES TO FOLLOW:. X3--

T O: *-/)-£JUt ^/^.SJr^ 

FROHt Kfrr4.y> /7?Al}Qy 

SUBJECT: /i/se Pa7.,K«.js 

DATE: 

\l/\b/*y-7 

l//b 

REMARKS: Mfirs.m //) £t?£/w / .^ft * Q/.wer*f?>. . . 

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITN THIS FAX OR TROUBLE RECEIVING A FAX 

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON WHOM YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

DENNIS, JOHN 

EADY, COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON, GARY 

KLIWINSKI, SHARON 

HALKIN, KAREN 

HCCLELLAND, LINDSAY 

NILLER, ABBY 

PECK, DEBBY 

202-208-5193 

202-208-4640 

202-208-5886 

202-208-4639 

202-219-3384 

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-208-4624 

WAUCER, BILL 202-219-3386 

WATKINS. WILNA 202-208-4913 

WILSON, RITA 202-208-3884 

; EFA A.3 DOCKET . 
P.3 

03/16'93 15:37 Q20 2 20S 1620 <VASO NR/AQ NPS -.-.-. AQMD-PPB -l) 002'023 

329 

major modification, due to the predicted ambient 

concentration from its own emissions, would be required to 

conduct a Class I increment analyeic for a given pollutant, 

and whether the emissions of such pollutant from the 

proposed source or modification would be considered to 

contribute to a violation of the applicable Class I 

increments. 

The proposed significance levels for Class I increments 

were derived by taking four percent of the concentration 

defined tor the existing Class I increment for each 

applicable pollutant and averaging pariod. The EPA believes 

that where a proposed source contributes less than four 

percent to the Class I increment, its projected emissions 

are sufficiently low so as not to warrant a costly and 

detailed analysis of the combined effects of the proposed 

source and all other increment-consuming emissions. The EPA 

previously used a similar rationale to establish the 

significant emissions rates for PSD applicability purposes, 

concluding in part that emissions rates which resulted in 

ambient impacts less than four percent of the 24-hour 

standards for particulate matter and so- were sufficiently 

small so as to be considered de minimis. Seg 45 PP 52676, 

52707-52708 (August 7, 1980). 

PRELIMINARY STATI WORKIMG DRAFT TOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL IPA POLICY 

• •• November 16/ 1994 — [filename PR.EAM_l.116) ••• 
, EA. 

03/16/95 15:3S ©20 2 20S 1620 WASO NR/AQ NPS -.-.-» AQMD-PPB 000 3 '023 

If tl> 

y - "" 

The proposed significance levels, expressed in /ig/Jn3, 

are to be compared against a proposed source'B predicted 

ambient concentrations in a Class I area. In the event that 

the predicted concentration is less than its respective 

significance level, the source's impact will be considered 

insignificant so that no further analysis of class I 

increments need be done for that pollutant. If a violation 

of a Class 1 increment is known to exist, the source will 

not be considered to contribute the violation.34 

The ErA emphasizes that these proposed significance 

levels for the Class I increments are hot intended to serve 

as thresholds for determining whether an adverse impacts on 

^--•airly AQRV will occur7~~7 Such adverse impacts may ooour at 

concentrations below the proposed Class I increment 

Vi significance levels. /A determination that a proposed source 

,• - U i ' •--- " 

i \ r A^ 

\i' v>ii may have an adverse impact on the AQRVs of a Class I area 

•J, ;*-' 

\jJ depends upon the sensitivity of the particular Class I area 

and involves an assessment of actual harm that will occur. 

' An ambient pollutant concentration that is deemed to be of 

relatively insignificant consequence for purposes of 

(4 

36If ErA or the state determines that a Class I increment is 

being violated, the SIP must be revised to correct the inadequacy. 

40 CFR 51.166(a)(3). This corrective action is required 

irrespective of any particular source's contribution to a Class I 

Increment violation. 

PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL SPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.5 

03 '16/9 5 13:3 8 ©20 2 20S 1620 _ VVASO NR'AQ NPS -•-.-. AQMD-PPB lg] 00 1 '023 

331 

increment consumption should not automatically be considered 

inconsequential relative to the inherently fact-speoifio 

determinations upon which adverse impact findings are to be 

based. Thus, the fact that a source's predicted ambient 

impact is less than the applicable Class T significance 

level does not relieve a permitting authority of the duty to 

consider a FLM's determination that a proposed source will 

have an adverse impact on the AQRVs in a Class I area. 

The EPA is declining to establish significance levels _ 

for £-icJi*&rmf\yt&{ site-specific AQRVs. Tha FLMs ara " * —, ^.^x. 

entrusted with protecting AQRVs and the decision to 

\Um\c establish any appropriate significance levels,for the AQRVs 

Should rest with the FLM's*' Any significance levels for """*' &*•'* 7. 

AQRVs will necessarily bo site-specific since each AQRV and -'''7 

its associated critical pollutant loadings may be different 

from area to area and even within individual Federal class I 

areas. n , 

'-{-Jr*. "TW O <Uai^r V'vC^ l .'<---

The EPA requests public comment on Jxt*. proposed Class I 

increment significance levels. In particular, the EPA 

requests comment on the levels proposed which are four 

percent of the applicable Class I increment. The F.PA 

realizes that Claee I increments are somewhat unique, 

relative to the other PSD increments, in that they have the 

additional, independent effect of determining who bears the 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

<.** November IS, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] *** 
P.6 

03/16/93 15:38 ©20 2 208 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS ->->-> AQMD-PPB li] 003'023 

332 

burden of proof in demonstrating the presence or absence of 

an adverse impact on an AQRV. The EPA requests comment on 

the appropriateness of establishing significance levels for 

Class I increments in light of the effoot upon the burden of 

proof. 

5. Clarification of Miscellaneous Issues. 

The discussion which follows addresses several 

relatively discrete issues. The EPA is clarifying current 

policy in areas where -there is significant confusion or 

uncertainty and, in some instances, is proposing conforming 

changes to the implementing regulations. Tho EPA ie also 

proposing changes that largely codify existing policy. 

a. Significance Levels for NAAQS and ClaBS II and III 

Increments 

The EPA is proposing several changes to the PSD 

regulations at both section 51.16G and section 52.21 to make 

the rules consistent with current practice. First, the EPA 

is proposing to revise the provisions of section 5l-l66(k) 

and section 52.21(k) to clarify that a source, itself, must 

make a significant contribution to a violation of any NAAQS 

or PSD increment before that source would be denied a PSD 

permit. Second, the EPA is proposing to incorporate the 

significance levels currently set forth in the broader 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFIOE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• November 16, 1994 — [filename FREAM1.116] •** 
PT7_ 

03'16/9 3 13:3 9 ®20 2 208 1620 __ _VVAS0 NR'AQ NPS --— AQMD-PPB % 006 '023 

333 

preconstruction review permit requirements at 

section 51.165 (b)37~uecd to determine whether sources 

contribute to a violation of a NAAQS—so that they may be 

directly applied to the "significant contribution" test in 

the PSD regulations. See proposed section 51.166(b)(23) (iv) 

and section 52.21(b)(23)(iv). 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to add significance 

levels for the Class II and class III increments, see 

proposed section 51.166(b)(23)(v) and 

section 52.21(b)(23)(v). The proposed levels are the same 

as those levels which define a significant contribution to a 

NAAQS violation, and simply codify current EPA policy which 

allows the significance levels from section 51.165(b) to be 

directly applied to the PSD program to determine a 

significant contribution tu either the NAAQS or PSD 

increments. The EPA requests comment on the need to include 

these significance levels in the PSD regulations and the 

need for significance levels for Class II and Clasa III 

increments. Furthermore, the EPA requests comment on the 

"These preconstruction review permit requirements are designed 

to satisfy the requirements of section n o (a) (2) (c) of the Act, and 

which address a broader category of "major" stationary sources 

(i.e., inn tons per year) proposing to locate in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area. The EPA has lonq interpreted the "significant 

contribution" test set forth in thcoc requirements to apply to PSD 

sources, as well. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.8 

03'16'95 13:39 ©20 2 208 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS -.-.-. AQMD-PPB ® 007'023 

334 

proposed significance levels for the Class ll and Class i n 

increments, specifically whether they should be lower than 

the lcvclc used for NAAQS compliance. 

b. Consideration of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NS R Reform subcommittee raised a question about the 

treatment of hazardous air pollutants in the impact analysis 

for AQRVc. Section 112(b)(6) of the Act plainly provides 

that the "provisions of [title I,] part C (prevention of 

significant deterioration) shall not apply to [hazardous air 

pollutants] listed under [section 112'].'" This alteration to 

the PSD program was addressed in guidance issued on 

March 11, 1991 (57 FR 18070, 18074-18075).M 

The obvious congressional purpose in this exemption was 

to substitute the provisions of the MACT program in amended 

ccotion 112 of the Act, and in particular the provisions for 

case-by-case MACT for new and modified sources in new 

section 112(g), for the previously applicable PSD program. 

However, the MACT program does not address the special Class 

I area protection concerns that are the subject of portion 

of the PSD program. The EPA must be mindful of this fact in 

determining the scope of the section 112(b)(6) exemption in 

" The EPA is revising the PSD regulations to implement this 

change in the Aot under separate rulemaking. However, that 

rulemaking does not address the issue of the AQRV Impact 

analysis. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT A« D 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

• •• November its, 1994 — (f lien tuna PREAH_I.U6] •*• 
P.9 

03/16/93 13:39 ®202 20S 1620 JVASO NR'AQ NPS —.- AQMD-PPB lg]00S '023 

335 

order to avoid creating a regulatory gap, ae there is no 

indication that Congress intended such a result. 

Accordingly, the EPA's interpretive guidance indicates that 

any hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112 of the 

Act, which are regulated as constituents of a more general 

pollutant undor other provisions of the Act, ouch as the 

NAAQS, are still subject to PSD as part of the more general 

pollutant. S_ee 57 FR at 18075. A S such, although hazardous 

air pollutants are not directly regulated under the PSD 

permitting program, the EPA believes that the impact that 

such hazardous air pollutants, which are also particulates 

or voc's or constituents of any other more general 

pollutant, would have on AQRVs must be addressed in the 

impacts analysic. 

c. Analysis of Impacts on Federal Class II Areas 

Today's proposal also clarifies that the requirement 

for additional impact analyses at section 51.166(o) and 

52.21(o) applies to Federal Class II areas. The analyses 

required under these provisions includes assessing the 

impairment of visibility, soils, and vegetation that would 

occur as a result of the source or modification and general 

commercial, residential, industrial, and other growth 

associated with the source or modification. Thus, under 

these proposed revisions, where a proposed source or 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1904 — [filename PREAM 1.116) *** 
P.10 

03/16'9 5 15:1 0 O20 2 208 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS -»•••• AQMD-PPB @)009'023 

336 

modification may impact a Federal Class II area, the 

additional impact analyses must assess the impacts on the 

area, gee proposed change to section 5i.i66(.o) (3) and 

section 52.21(o) (3) . \h e proposed change also specifies 

that the required analyeie\inolude consideration of 

* potential impacts on any vegetation wjjicn the FLM determines 

y$*J\ t o b e °f significant ecological &lue. In existing 

paragraph (o)(1) in both set* of PSD ^Regulations, the owner 

or operator of the proposed new or modified couroe ic not 

required to provid-^an analysis of the impact on vegetation 

having no s'iajrlf leant commercial or recreational value. 

Thus, the^ropoRed language would affirmatively clarify that 

tha existing exemption does not exalude the analysis ^of 

impacts on vegetation considered to be an important resc\rce 

/ in Federal Class I and II areas. 

/ 

d. Clarification of PJ5D Requirements Applicable to 

Lands within the Exterior Boundaries of 

Reservations Redesignated as class I Areas 

individual CAAAc members and Tribal representatives 

have asked the EPA to provide guidance on the PSD provisions 

that apply to reservation lands that arc redesignated by 

Indian Tribes as Class I areas. In particular, questions 

have been raised as to whether AQKV'S may be established for 

such lands and how these values are to be protected under 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PRBAM 1.116] *** 
P.11 

03'16/9 3 13:1 0 S20 2 208 1620 VVASO NR'AQ NPS —--. AQ.MD-PPB L^] 010 '02 3 

337 

the PSD program. The discussion below is intended to 

clarify the EPA's views on these issues and to describe the 

accompanying, largely technical, regulatory revisions that 

the EPA is today proposing. Relevant provisions of the PSD 

classification scheme are also described below as 

background. 

(1) Designation and Redesignation of Class I Areas 

National parks greater than 6000 acres in size, 

national wilderness areas greater than 5000 acres in size 

and other areas specified in section 162(a) of the Act are 

designated as Class I areas. These Federal lands may not be 

redeeignatcd as any other classification and are therefore 

"mandatory" Federal Class I areas. 

initially, all other PSD areas39 in the country were 

designated as Class II areas. S.ee the Act, section 162(b). 

States have broad discretion to redesignate Class II areas 

as Class I. See the Act, section 154. Special provisions 

address any potential State redesignation that include.-; 

Federal lands. For example, section 164(b)(1)(B) of the Act 

requires States to provide prior notice to the appropriate 

FLM and an opportunity for the FLM to confer and offer 

written comments and recommendations. 

"PS D areas are areas designated pursuant to section 107 of 

the CAA ac "attainment" or "unclassifiable." CAA S 161. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

• • • November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_I.U6 ] •• • 
_____ _ P.12 

03'16'93 13:10 ©20 2 20S 1620 tt'ASO NR'AQ NPS —.-. AQMD-PPB L^lOll'023 

338 

Seotion 164(d) of the Aot also directs the FLM's to 

review all national monuments, primitive areas, and national 

preserves and recommend appropriate areas for redesignation 

as Class I areas where AQRVs are important attributes Of 

the area. See the Act, section 164(d). The FLM's are 

directed to report their recommendations to Congress and the 

affected States, after first consulting with the States. 

certain Federal lands currently designated class II may 

only be redesignated as Class I. These particular Class TI 

"floor" areas include national monuacrrto, national primi-tive 

areas, national preserves, national recreation areas, 

national wild and scenic rivers, national wildlife refuges 

and national lakeshores or seashores which exceed 10,000 

acres in size and national parks and wilderness areas 

established after August 7, 1977 which exceed 10,000 acres 

in size. n&& the Act, section 164(a). 

Section 164(c) of the Act also gives federally" 

recognized Indian Tribes40 broad authority to redesignate 

lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations as 

Class I areas. Several Indian Tribes have already 

redesignated lands within reservation boundaries as Class I 

areas. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the 

*°Thc Department of Interior periodically publishes a list of 

Federally-recognized Tribes. s.«s 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993). 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — (filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
_^___ _ P.13 

03/16/9 3 13:1 1 ®20 2 208 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS ---.-. AQMD-PPB @) 012 '023 

330 

Flathead Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation and the Spokane Indian Reservation have been 

redesignated as Clags I areas for the purposes of the PSD 

program. S__ sections 52.1382(c) and 52.2497. 

(2) Status cf AQRV Protection for Lands Redesignated 

as class I Areas 

The Act provides special protection for the "natural 

values" of "national resource[c]." S. Rep. No. 127, 95th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 34 (1977). These areas are the 

"federally-owned class I areas." s. Kep. NO. 127 at 34. 

The FLM and the Federal, official charged with direct 

responsibility for the management of cuch lands have an 

affirmative responsibility to protect the AQRVs of such 

lands, see the Act, section 165(d)(2)(B). 

Ae described previously, a PSD permit shall not be 

issued if a proposed couroc will have an adverse impact on 

any AQRV in a Federal,, Class I area. T*he burden of proof for 

demonstrating the presence or absence of\ an adverse impact 

is determined by the Class I increments. \hat is, if a 

proposed source or modification does not contribute to a 

violation of a Class I increment, the FLM bearsNthe burden 

or demonstrating tne presence of an adverse impacts 

Conversely, if the proposed source or modification dc 

contribute to a violation of a Class I increment, the burden 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] •*« 
P.14 

03'16'93 13:11 ©20 2 208 1620 -VASO NR'AQ NPS -•-.-. AQMD-PPB ®013'023 

340 

of demonstratirrg. the absence of an adverse impact on an AQRV 

lies with the sourctlKpwner/operator. These provisions do 

not, however, apply to reservation lands. 

Federally-recognized Tribes may establish AQRVs for 

lands which they redesignate as Class I areas if they so 

desire. Mofeover, the Tribes may protect such AQRVs 

through a special dispute resolution provision, not through 

the specific authority that is conferred on FLM's to protect 

it^^jhr^j Federal Class I arcac If a federally-recognized Indian 

Tribe determines that a proposed PSD permit, in a State will 

cause or contribute to a violation of a class l increment on 

its reservation, the Tribe may request that the 

Administrator enter into dispute resolution negotiations 

with the parties involved. gt?e the Act, section 164(e) 

[also 40 CFR section 52.2i(t)].' If requested by the Tribe, 

the Administrator must make a recommendation to resolve the 

dispute and protect the AQRVs of the lands involved. 

Tribes may therefore establish AQRVs for their lands 

and may protect those values by invoking the EPA'S 

involvement in PSD permit disputes a6 provided in 

section 164(e) of the Aot. The Aot also allows States to 

similarly invoke these dispute resolution provisions. 

To clarify these is&ues, the EPA is proposing 

definitions of the terms "Federal class I area" and 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFXCS OF MANAGEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

"•November 16, 1994 ~ [filename PRBAK 1.116] ••• 
P.15 

03/16/9 3 13 : 12 ©20 2 208 1620 H'ASO NR'AQ .NPS ->->-> AQMD-PPB 12)011/023 

3 4 1 

"mandatory Federal class I area," and is making necessary 

implementing changes to sections 51.166 and 52.21. The 

dispute resolution provision is currently codified at ' 

section 52.2i(t); however, no similar provision is currently 

contained in the Part 51 PSD regulations applicable to State 

PSD programs. Therefore, the EPA is today proposing that 

the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Act be 

added to section 51.166. See proposed section 5i.i66(t). 

The EPA requests public comments on the preceeding 

discussion addressing whether AQRVs may be identified for 

redesignated Class I areaa within•the exterior boundaries of 

a reservation and addressing the manner in which such Values 

may be protected. The EPA also requests comments on the 

proposed definitions to reflect the resulting distinctions 

between mandatory Federal Class I areas, Federal Class I 

areas and "non-Federal" Class I areas (i.e., not under the 

jurisdiction of a FLM). 

6. Strategies to Address the Impaot of Existing 

Sources on Class I Areas. 

As noted, the CAAAC's NSR subcommittee has discussed 

and identified several different, options to address the 

impacts on tha AQRVs of Class I areas attributable to 

existing sources. While the Subiunuuittee has not mod-a 

specific ieuonunendf.ti.iens. Jfte options &. identified were 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES MOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

«..* November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] *** 
P.16 

03'16'9 3 13:1 2 ©20 2 208 1620 WASO NR/AQ NPS —.-AQMD-PPB C3)013'023 

342 

generally directed at the following air quality-related 

problems in Class I areas: (1) regional viaibility 

impairment, (2) acid deposition, and (3) ozone damage. 

The EPA has recently identified strategies that it intends 

to pursue over the next few years to protect and improve air 

quality in Federal Class I areas. These strategies, as 

described below, focus primarily on the contribution 

existing sources make to Federal Class I area air quality 

deterioration and address the three major areas of concern 

identified by the Subcommittee. 

As noted, the Act calls for the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission to issue a report to the EPA by 

November 1995 that examines, among other measures, the 

promulgation of regulations establishing long range 

strategies for addressing regional haze. To be prepared to 

move expeditiously once the EPA receives these 

recommendations, the EPA plans to initiate the technical 

activities needed to analyze the appropriate scope and 

components of a regional haze rulemaking. 

Thus, the EPA's immediate effort vill focus on 

developing the technical tools for regional haze planning. 

The next step will entail development of policy options for 

addressing regional haze and will involve consideration of 

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport commission's 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGBT REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**(. November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] -.** 
____ P.17 

03/16/93 13:12 ©202 208 1620 M'ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQ.MD-PPB -2016'023 

343 / M*tf' £ <7Ls *<•,•_/ 

recommendationc and the work of the Southern Appalachian /$/,,. , u 

The EPA will continue to actively implement the acid 

rain program under Title IV of the Act/ Full implementation 

of the next phase of the acid rain control program will be a 

major step in improving visibility in Eastern Class I areas, 

and reducing deposition-related damage. 

The EPA plans to address ground-level ozone damage to 

Class I area ecosystems by incorporating the technical 

information relevant to such damage into its ongoing review 

of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also exploring the efficacy 

of a short-term nitrogen oxides increment to address the 

ecosystem effects of nitrogen loading and potential ozone 

formation. 

.! _i 7. information clearinghouse (Class I areas). 

r- The CAAAC recommended that the EPA establish a 

clearinghouse of information about Class I areas. The EPA 

'. A—is currently working on a clearinghouse project to be 

'

 c incorporated into the EPA's public NSR bulletin board 

(NSR BB) which is hosted by the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Users of the NSR BB may search for, retrieve, then 

read and/or download full text of recent policy and guidance 

material. The users may also solicit from or provide to 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFIOE OF MANAOEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM1.116] *** 
P.18 

03/16/93 13: 13 ©20 2 208 1620 WASO .NR'AQ NPS -.-.-. AQMD-PPB @017'023 

344 

other parties in the NSR permitting community, information 

pertaining to areas of interest within NSR. 

Another NSR BB resides on the Permits Programs Bulletin 

Board System (PP BBS). The PP BBS version was designed 

primarily for use by the EPA Headquarters, the EPA Regional 

Office Staff, and other Federal and State agencies. 

However, the PP BBS is also accessible to the public. The 

PP BBS provides the same functions available on the TTN 

version, but has more sophisticated searching capability. 

The "EPA is expanding the NSR bulletin board'6 

capability in two respects to address the CAAAC's 

recommendations. First, consistent with the proposed 

requirement to improve permitting authority and FLM 

coordination, described in part v.c.l., above, a feature 

shall be installed exclusively for posting notice of 

construction permit applications by permitting authorities 

t and/or NSR permit applicants. All FLMs will have access to 

the database. This segment of the NSR BB will serve as a 

A' ,v fact sheet in that it will provide very basic source 

information, such as the name and type of source, its 

location via UTM coordinates, the distance between the 

proposed source and all Class I areas within 500 km, the 

proposed emission rate or net emissions increase of each air 

pollutant associated with the project. It also will allow 

PRSLZMINABY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAH1.116] *•* 
P.19 

03'16/9 5 13:1 3 ©20 2 20S 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS •*-.- AQ.MD-PPB 0018/02 3 

/ 

345 

permit, applicants and permitting authorities to address 

questions to FLMs regarding air quality issues relative to 

Federal lands that may be affected by the proposed new or 

increased emissions, and,, conversely, a contact to whom the 

FLMs may direct inquiries and information. See proposed 

section 51.166(n)(5) section 52.21(n)(5). 

Second, a data base addressing Class I areas shall be 

7available (initially on the PP BBS) in which FLMs and the 

\r-0A-1' ' 

ys.rr EPA will post the following information as it becomes 

available relative to Class I area protection: 

. -Boundaries and size of existing Federal Class I areas 

-Area-specific AQRV information, including sensitive 

' receptors, current emission inventories and current and 

critical loadings, existing adverse conditions; 

-Source-specific information on increment consumption 

and impacts on AQRVs in specific Federal Class I 

areas; 

-Reports of research and investigations about the 

impacts of air pollution on Class I area resources and 

contact persons for further information; 

-Comment letters and adverse impact findings issued 

relative to specific draft PSD permits; 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•••November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] .-»*• 
P.20 

03/16/9 5 15:1 3 ©20 2 203 1620 ft'ASO NR'AQ NPS --.-. AQMD-PPB @019'02 3 

. 346 

-Adjudicative appeals and corresponding orders from the 

EPA Environmental Appeals Board and court decisions 

relative to Class I area issues. 

All users of the NSR BB will be able to download all the 

documents posted in this portion of the data base. 

vi. Prevention of signifleant Deterioration 

Preeonatruction Monitoring 

Prcoonstruetion monitoring requirements for PSD sources 

are set forth in section 52.21(m) for Federal as well as 

state delegated permit programs and in section 5i.i66(m) tor 

State adopted programs. In both sets of regulations the 

monitoring provisions generally require that an applioant 

for a new major source or major modification submit with the 

application one year of continuous air quality data for the 

period preceding the application submittal. These 

requirements stem from sections 165(e)(1) and (c)(2) of the 

Act. in section 165(e)(1), Congress required for each PSD 

source a preconstruction analysis "of the ambient air 

quality at the proposed site and in the area which may be 

affeoted by the emissions from such a facility for oaoh 

pollutant subject to regulation under this Act which will be 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOE8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

••• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.21 

03/16/95 13:11 ©20 2 208 1620 WASP NR'AQ NPS ->->-• AQMD-PPB @020'023 

347 

emitted from such facility."41 Additionally, 

section 165(e)(2) requires that the analysis "shall include 

continuous air quality monitoring data gathered for purpoeoc 

of determining whether emissions from such facility will 

exceed the maximum allowable increases or maximum allowable 

concentrations permitted under this part." Further, 

section 165(e)(2) provides that data for the analysis shall 

be gathered over a period of one calendar year preceding the 

application or for a shorter period if a SLate allows it 

according to the EPA regulations. 

On June 19, 1978, the FPA promulgated regulations which 

required a source to submit a monitoring analysis and data 

collection only for those pollutants emitted by the source 

which would impact an existing NAAQS. Monitoring was not 

required to determine whether the source would cause or 

contribute to a violation of a PSD inorcment. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

in Alabama Power Co. v. EFA found the June 19, 1978 

regulation to be deficient in that it did not provide for 

continuous preconstruction monitoring for purpose of 

*' The 1990 CAA Amendments in section 112(b)(6) exempts the 

list of hazardouc air pollutants in section 112(b)(1) from any 

requirements imposed by Part C. Therefore, those pollutants are no 

longer considered regulated pollutants with respect to the PSD 

ru 1 ef-. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_i.H6] ••• 
P.22 

03'16'9 3 15: M ©20 2 20S 1620 WASP NR/AQ NPS -.->-. AQMD-PPB @]021'023 

348 

determining impaots on both NAAQS and increments. On 

August 7, i960, the EFA corrected the deficiency by 

promulgating the current rules in parts 51 and 52 covering 

preconstruction monitoring requirements. 

The EPA argued in the Alabama Power case that 

monitoring air quality concentrations was technologically 

infeasible for all but a small number of pollutants and that 

the then current monitoring techniques were at best of 

questionable accuracy even for the relatively 

straightforward measurement of whether en applicable NAAQS 

has been exceeded. The Court in rejecting the EPA'S 

arguments on this matter said that the statute clearly 

required monitoring for determining whether PSD increments 

would be exceeded. The Court discerned in the Act that 

Congress had a technology forcing intent in requiring such 

monitoring. Congress intended "that the employment of 

modeling techniques be held to earth by a continual process 

of confirmation and reassessment, a process that enhances 

confidence in modeling as a means for realistic projection 

of air quality." 636 F.2d at 372. However, the Court 

added, "[o]f course even a congressional mandate, suoh ac a 

technology-forcing requirement based on a congressional 

projection of emergence of technology for the future, is 

subject to a Justified excuse from compliance where goodPRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*• November 16, 1994 — [filename PRBAM 1.116] *•• 
03/16/95 13:11 ©202 208 1620 «'ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB -3)022/023 

349 

faith effort to Comply has not h-wan fru,tfnl nf results.!' 

Id. (emphasis added). The Court pointed ©ut that such a 

legitimate "excuse" had not been presented in the case, in 

which the EPA' exempted sources from preconstruction 

monitoring for PSD increments based upon current 

technological infeasibility. 

The Court's opinion thus allows the EPA, after an 

additional fifteen years of experience under the PSD program 

since Alabama Power to forego requiring strict compliance 

with the requirements of section 165(e)(2) where a goodfaith effort in preconstruction monitoring has failed in 

producing fruitful results. 

Since the Court's decision, several air quality 

dispersion models have been improved in accuracy or other 

more accurate models have been developed such that the EPA 

in its Guideline Air Quality Models does not permit 

calibration of such models by using site-specific air 

quality data. Where such models are employed to analyse the 

impact of a proposed source, the collection of 

preconstruction air quality data is generally of no use 

except in the narrow situation when new construction is 

proposed in an area which is isolated from other interacting 

sources. Where there is no representative background data 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKIMG DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] *•• 
P.24 

03'16'9 5 13:13 ©202 208 1620 H'ASP NR AQ_NPS -.--AQMD-PPB -4)023'023 

,y^f^y£7fj^ ' «S</J^^ 

usafu l i n 

^ C^*hJlfcf)^ 

available, preconstruction monitoring can be useful in 

establishing background air quality. 

The EPA believes that it is appropriate to reevaluate 

the regulatory requirement for preconstruction monitoring 

for proposed PSD construction where the air quality data 

cannot/feasibly Nbe used in tha analysie of a source's impact 

j upon air quality standards according to the EPA rules and 

/ guidance. The preconstruction monitoring requirement 

' obligates a considerable amount of an applicant's resources 

and often results in significant time delays in oubmitting 

its permit application. The EPA ia therefore requesting 

public comment on the appropriateness of providing a 

regulatory exemption for some cases from PSD preconstruction 

monitoring. Any comments should identify the ciroumetances 

where an exemption ie appropriate, and where it is 

i inappropriate. Where possible, comments accompanied should 

l be accompanied by technical and legal justification for 

providing an exemption. Recommendations for oontinuing 

preconstruction monitoring should be accompanied with d 

description of the environmental benefit of such source 

specific monitoring it possible. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

••• November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAM 1.116] • ••