P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 221 ) ll-F-1 0
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 221 of 250

### Mc-uJ Scarce Z-toietAj

fL<z forn*, " £

T/f-os , OYMJ



### 'sfi*''fctluefi^r\\

I, Choreic. " Ol Kp<if)<jf-/o*y* bO H emrSS/or.'

f ('/nony places ) 

### 2. Ch£.r.ac "oftprofriotc" £ o "A^/ L 

### crt/ff//*4/c " P)2.

L / * ,*./,
. _ 

### 3 , " o rfr.ods ffC-X'htOt- 

### P J 3 ^rsrerr" ?*) ZPrJrf- c

Ceceerf- -r-yf-o " Pcofoseef" P Z.7 fitdd ' S 

### &PA" f<L3

& cf drCJ~Sr* <-T

CO^Csm-S* M 

### 9 , ^/f^ c d-C^iSir0t>yrv.e<>\ hex J fl-SMz. £-r~omr> chcrnytcJ 

### cf/• AAr.T rtJr.iJ-s", S<J6^ 

### f*,{-j£c >'fhcrh hH-\c o rr> o $-<jrJ-hcrt?ty~.)S3io~\ JZt-r./t-c*f-fos> u-fO&Jd he a ohi rurcJ by SSS< #

f- /-These OT^S", 

### Pjr / ° . ^r^rnj c TO re f><d} cwrci-f «*-* > iss ron contra J

fr9y 'f> tr,rt.hs th T~/f*& '* nermCt tftr'atviwr'" P

-i*f- /Z, Cln create " <? tx- r /bc7Trf, nc JrtsrAj-'£-$"dc^ r-so *r>< t> rr jrtMj n e /e-m/c-J' 1 

### P

3-C CArrirt c " tntrcr^ftij- £_j[ " & 0 

### " ^c/bsftvr. A(

er(" f> 4J 

# r/p< > ****' ' ?s.

. Chayiac, jrco«/ Sehi-c/st: * 1 v\ .Pod •*• noJ-c /x ) Ctc*o; J> 

### adeft

£/4nerJ

ro*> f-ro/

caovfd

**e cfctCC

erv-fSS/QHS a**. J y s/< Jfiffytj

tf-efJ-cf/fj

buf'^^///"^/</ C

Chertnac "br<nr£t+ / d M t<:.~)UtrotH-fte*. £ ' 6 0 "*r*kSSfO*\ 

## r<z.d<jhrl/o'.s u 

## Ps<f17. a»t,rf'*o«dhe"CrC . " f&fP. 3

2.0, Chat\px. " Sitntfjcarnf l<vSS

oJ- C nt/iro**>*<?*>, f-a

( tAra^Cchro^

" °to " ,n rrcrrso /v i s hoch

hecton

* r-nfs-rso'.f

* , Zt. TyfO'

"e-'cv*."

fjod. i 2 , TyfC

amf

Hhhc2 n

P ll^ Z.3. TyffiZ

on. h

"bo" R t-ZZ. Z<rm firdd " b/tcTo<

!-*£=£ " her-fvrcm "c 0 ^<firaf

PiUS 

## is, Type: ,y 

## off<ic*l.(c" PJ3Z *<•> Ty?o:

ddctc

"tharj*

a^d etdd*dM?rc«h

$~ro~,"

P Z*>S 21, fi.ef>lcfCC h adverse

OJ f Jtijaf/fiy

/^aa-trfis

«x/»<re/r</ " us i j-h\

>x £>ofe^f/ct

( for HJ-rrcrrjed

onmjerl

<*>rv>A?-s/0i>r' ' f*7Z. 2%. £><>/*

fc " jr.hernerft&iict

f-Kt

co-rJ-S

o£- o> r Ao (ftshfo <^ 

### pro fee ff or." p-fcq ZI,- tAakc

* pa (I jfer *.+ " piofarl f M,/7& 30. ry^< j *auhh or .hez" P

tSrO 3i. isrsjcff

"0$-" bthnsf?"

\Ki&t<*ct'

*n*c f ^ua.fefbfc". fe.rfiner

3Z. TyfC

f femooc

",*" ?)?/

3<f , Typo , i«snrh "be"

P )3£~ 3 ^ Tyfo

t t*s<*A *

ly* P zCr lis S*cf-'dr*i

St?£-rrr*.ccS..
. / ' S hov Id i~h r^c kc S-oo f** O Ac S
or lU\ brn-cf&c'fts

T Ml. hkrotJQth

Sctrf-io*. 1/'
. ••37. £J"»r«rrfiz

"jtnou** " f> 2 3C ® 3X, Typo

. H 'Con

fr/U,fie " f> Z3Z. 

### 31 T 

### /P d 

### ' 'tAyoof- " fSc3 <U> Typo;

"one/ " P3IO
4Z, €/,yyi, ua fic

"Zcfc

rto rat "t$ £f/rnir\a

lc ' 'd CCO**>

ferr-iccf*

P SSOP. 4

1 2 Th e NS Rprovision s o f th e Ac t ar e a combinationo f ai r 4trr\iSS)0tr> qualit y plannin

g an d ai r pollutio n contro l technolog y Q progra m requirement s fo r majo r stationar y source s o f ai r C D pollution . I nbrief , section 10 9 o f th e Ac t require s th e EP A t o promulgat e primar y NAAQ S t o protec t publi c healt han d secondar

y NAAQ S t o protec t publi c velfare . Onc e thes e standard s have bee nset , i naccordanc e vit hsection110(a )
o f th e Act , State s mus t develop , adopt , an d submi t t o th e EP A fo r approva l Stat e implementatio nplan s (SIP ) vhic h contai nemissio

nlimitation s an

d othe r contro l measure s t o attai nan

d maintai nthe NAAQ S an d t o mee t th e othe r requirement s o f sectio n110(a) . Eac hSI P i s required t o contai na preconstruction reviev progra m fo r the constructionor modification o f an y stationar

y sourc e o f ai r pollutiont o assur e tha t th e NAAQ S LU
ar e achieved an

d maintained ; t o protec t area s o f cleanair ; t o protec t ai r qualit y related value s (AQRV ) (includin g visibility ) i nnationa l park s an d othe r natura l area s o f tKoj - hh e b*s £ avertable specia l concern ; t o assur e appropriat e emissioncontrol s ar e (T ) applied ; t o maximiz e opportunitie s for economi c developmen t consisten t vit hth e preservationo f cleanai r resources ; an d
e rrt, SS(9Y. - ~ t o ensur e tha t an

y decisiont o increas e *«££$p?)^2£ut3&oa i i s (7 ) mad e onl y

afte r ful l publi c consideratio no f al l th e

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P. 5



### 1 3 consequence s o f suc ha decision . See , e.g. . th e Act , section s 101(b)(1) , 110(a)(2)(C) , 160 , and 173 . I n1972 , th e Supreme Cour t affirme d a love r cour t decisio nvhic hrule d tha t sectio n10 1 o f th e Ac t require d tha t significan t deterioratio no f ai r qualit y i nclea nai r
area s o f th e countr y b e prevente d [se e Sierr a clu bvs . Ruckleshaus r 

### 41 2 U.S . 54 1 (1973)] . . I nrespons e t o th e court' s order , th e EP A promulgate d PS D regulation s i n4 0 CF R par t 52 . Th e EP A

inserte d th e par t 5 2 Federa l PS D regulation s directl y int o eac hstate' s SI P pursuan t t o sectio n110(c ) o f th e Act . I n1974 , th e EP A

promulgate d a Federa l preconstructio n permi t program

t o preven t emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e (S O )
an d particulat e matte r (PM ) fro m significantl y

deterioratin g ai r qualit y

i narea s vher e th e NAAQ S ha d bee nachieve d (attainmen t areas ) (3 9 F R42510) . Thes e earl y PS D regulation s prohibite d th e constructio no f any ne v sourc e o r modificatio nunles s th e EPA , o r a delegate d State , issue d a 

### (delete): permi t demonstratin g tha t th e sourc e or^n 

### »odif : 

### ifi^[|i$

hvoul d appl y BAC T fo r S O an d particulat e matte r (PM) , an d tha t emission s o f thos e pollutant s fro m th e sourc e *©J

$ VF < "' < " 

### ^ ^ZJ i»di££eatio nvoul d no t caus e significan t deterioratio no f ai r qualit y

i nany area .

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BP A POLIC Y ** • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** * 

# QP. 6

1 9 emission s vhe ndeterminin g vhethe r a nonroutin e physica l 6 r operationa l chang e a t anelectri c utilit y stea m generating uni t (other tha nreplacemen t o r addition o f a nev unit ) i s subjec t t o majo r NSR . I naddition , th e EP A adopted a broad : /T ) exclusionfro

m majo r NS Rrequirement s fo r utilit y pollutio nt?/»»isjw \ contro l projects , an d adopted change s pursuan t t o th e Clean Ai r Ac t Amendmen t o f 199 0 (199 0 Amendments ) i nth e applicabilit y

o f majo r NS Rt o cleancoa l technolog y (CCT )
an d repovering projects , an d t o "ver

y clean " units . Th e 199 0 Amendments , Pub . L . No . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov . 15 , 1990 ) mad e numerou s change s t o titl e I o f th e Act , vhic hcontain s provision s fo r revie v o f nev o r modifie d majo r stationar

y source s locate

d i nattainmen t areas , nonattainmen t areas , an d area s i na

nOTR . Th e change s mad e t o par t D , includin g the nonattainmen t NS Rpermitting provisions , ar e discussed i nthe "Genera l Preambl e fo r Implementationo f Titl e I o f the CleanAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 " (Genera l Preamble ) (5 7 F R1349 8 an

d 5 7 F R55620) . A s
a resul t o f thes e nev statutor

y provisions , th e EP A propose d t o amen d it s NS Rregulation s t o incorporat e th e nev provision s (reserve forcite FR

______ _(Month tday) , 1995) . Th e proposed rul e als o include s numerou s change s t o th e PS D permitting provision s for attainmen t areas , required b y th e 199 0 Amendments . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P. 7

2 1 th e majo r NS Rrule s i norde r t o reduc e complexit y an d perceive d impediment s t o speed y revie v o f th e curren t systems , vhil e a t th e sam e tim e maintaining th e environmenta l goal s an d benefit s embodied i nth e curren t approach . Th e Subcommitte e va s composed o f representative s fro m industry , environmenta l organizations , an d Stat e an

d loca l agencies . Member s o f the NS RRefor m Subcommitte e ver e selected onth e basi s o f thei r professiona l qualification s
an d diversit y

o f perspective s vhic hvoul d enabl e th e Subcommitte e t o provid e soun d advic e an

d guidanc e t o th e Agenc y i nreformin

g th e NS Rrules . Representative s fro m the EPA , th e U.S . Fores t Service , th e Nationa l Park Service , th e Departmen t o f Energy , an d th e Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t ver e als o invite d t o participat e i nSubcommitte e activities . Th e NS RRefor m Subcommitte e meeting s ver e hel d
onJul y 21-22 , 1993 ; Novembe r 8-9 , 1993 ; Januar y 20-21 , 1994 ; Marc h16-17 , 1994 ; an d Jul y 19-20 , 1994 . Th e Subcommitte e forme d smalle r subgroup s t o analyz e issue s an

d develop draf t recommendation s i nspecifi c progra m
areas . Thre e subgroup s ver e forme d t o addres s th e NS R permitting issue s associated vit hneaSfeClas s I areas : &\

/ Procedure s an

d Coordination , Determinatio n o f Advers e Impacts , an

d Mitigationo f Sourc e Impacts . Thre e subgroup s PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L BPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P. 8

2 4 t o a recen t BAC T o r LAERreviev , a nequivalen t Stat e technolog

y requiremen t o r anothervis e comparabl e contro l technology . Thus , vei l controlled unit s voul d be afforded greate r flexibility thanpoorly*controlled o r uncontrolle d (Sy units . Similarly , the EP

A i s toda

y clarifyin

g i nit s regulation s tha t change s t o a non-emittin g facilit y

a t a
sourc e d o no t trigge r majo r NS Rs o lon g a s th e sourc e can continu e t o operat e vithi nexistin g permi t limitations . Today' s proposa l als o solicit s commen t o na nev method for determinin

g a source' s baseline fo r the purpose s o f "netting. " Th e EP

A i s proposing t o allo v source s t o bas e thei r actua l emission s fo r nettin g baseline purpose s o nth e highes t consecutiv e 12-mont hperiod o f operatio ndurin g th e 

# 0 5 o r 1 0 yea r period preceding th e proposed modification . Th e EP A i s proposin

g t o exclude certai n *f^WtiWdr r contro l project s fro m the definitio

no f "major modification " fo r PS D an

d nonattainmen t NSR , thu s exemptin g suchproject s fro m majo r NSR . Thi s exclusio nvoul d cove r add-oncontrol s
an d fue l switches , a s vei l a s certai npollutionprevention projects . Thi s proposa l generall y follov s an

d codifie s existin g EP A guidanc e o

nthe applicability o f majo r NS R requirement s t o pollutio n contro l projects . T o implemen t \JJ thi s exemption , the EP A ha s proposed tv

o safeguards : PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM1.H6 ] ** *P. 9

2 7 permitting authorit y t o cu t of f considerationo f additiona l
ne v o r emergin

g contro l technologie s identified afte r th e permi t applicationha s bee ndetermined t o b e complete , unles s a commente r provide s basi c documentationconcernin g nevl y identified technologies . Th e requirement s fo r documentationo f ' a nev technolog

y
ar e proposed a s change s t o th e publi c participation requirements . I n addition , t o promot e certaint y an d clarity i nth e PS D permittin g process , th e EP

A i s proposin

g t o Propose** s--~s codif y th e methodolog

y proponed i nit s existin g policy

fo r [J^J determining BACT . Furthe r clarificatio ni s given , likewise , ondeterminin

g LAER . Finally , vit hregard t o the BAC T an d th e LAE

R determinations , th e EP A i s proposin

g reforms t o facilitat e pollutionpreventioneffort s an d limi t the risk s incurred b y
source s usin

g undemonstrated technologies . Th e EP A i s proposing t o renam e th e existin

g innovativ

e contro l technolog

y (ICT ) vaive r i nth e PS D regulation s t o "UT/A " an d t o exten

d th e UT/ A

vaive r t o the nonattainmen t NS Rprogram . Th e EP A i s proposin

g severa l nev

provision s fo r a

nUT/ A vaiver . A s proposed , a UT/ A vaive r reques t mus t identif y potentia l failur e modes , projected emission s increase s fro m failur e modes , potentia l contingency measures , an

d anuppe r boun d onmas s emission s tha t coul d be accommodated i nthe PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.1 0



### 2 9 Th e EP A i s als o proposing revision s aimed a t clarifyin g th e relative role s an d responsibilitie s o f th e FLM's , an d ZJJ

• A

- State s i naddressin g Clas s I are a issues . T o promot e reasoned decisionmaking , th e EP A i s proposing criteri a t o guid e a State' s considerationo f a FLM' s determinationtha t
a propose d sourc e vil l hav e a nadvers e impac t o nth e AQR V o f
a Clas s I area . Th e EP A i s als o adoptin

g a genera l polic y on th e mitigationo f sourc e impact s ona Clas s I area . Measure s
suc ha s emissio

nreduction s (offsets ) a t existin g sources , furthe r contro l o f emission s a t th e proposed source , or som e combinatio

no f both , represen t a reasonabl e vay t o mitigat e th e advers e impact s o nClas s I area s tha t migh t othervis e
occur fro

m ne v or modifie d majo r sources . Th e EPA' s mitigationpolicy , vhic hi s effectiv e immediately , provide s needed flexibility b y allowin

g th e ne

v sourc e or modificationt o proceed vhil e addressing7Concerft s that , absen t mitigative measures , ther e voul d be a ne t advers e impac t onAQR

V follovin

g constructiono f th e ne v source . The EP A propose s t o ad

d significanc e level s fo r Clas s I increment s tha t voul d b e used t o determine vhethe r a propose d sourc e mus t conduc t a Clas s I incremen t analysis . Th e EP A i s als o proposing severa l revision s t o clarif y area s vher e ther e i s confusionabou t th e implementatio no f th e PS D PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.1 1

3 1 discussion s provide d the EP A vit ha bette r understanding o f th e concern s o f al l side s an d revealed a fe

w area s o f potentia l agreement . Ther e ver e commo nelement s i nman

y o f th e competin

g proposal s circulated b y member s o f th e Subcommittee . Thus , vhil e ther e va s n o CAAA C resolutiono f th e issues , th e follovin g proposa l o f applicabilit y measure s build s upo nth e Subcommittee' s deliberations . Man y Subcommitte e participant s focused onth e complexit y

an d inclusivenes s o f EPA' s curren t applicabilit y tes t a s i t applie s t o modification s a t existing emission s units . Mos t applicability proposal s pu t forward b y Subcommitte e member s attempte d t o addres s thi s are a o f th e applicabilit y

issue . A s explained i nmor e detai l i nth e follovin

g sections , the EP A i s toda

y proposing severa l change s t o it s applicability regulation s t o addres s thes e
concerns . First , th e EP

A i s proposin

g a nexclusion fro

m majo r NS R base d o na les s inclusiv e an d simplified emission s tes t fo r emission s unit s tha t ar e subjec t t o BAC T o r LAER , equivalen t mino r NS Rcontro l requirements , o r comparabl e "clean " emission s contro l technology . Thi s propose d revisio n

'+* et j- I, H \ toirr>6

hurHtrenvS5/or\ )frr» fit* He r\ 4jJQtjJc* k> * recognize s th e reduced environmenta l ris k fro m change s at : 

### ocV.)c<strd

by HS*. oh these o*>'/s ^e«#'<initi P an

d provide s furthe r incentive s fo r source s t o -£r*.i5Sr6t~. (jir)ch:) mee t th e current , contro l tJacJmologjt r requirement s o f thes e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.1 2

3 4 "greenfield " sources , applicabilit y i s a fairl y straightforvard proposition . Th e Act , a s implemented b y th e EPA' s regulations , set s applicabilit y threshold s fo r nonattainmen t area s (potentia l t o emi t above 10 0 ton s pe r year , o r smalle r amounts , depending o nth e nooriattainmen t classificationor 25 0 ton s pe r year , depending o nth e sourc e type) . A

ne v sourc e vit ha "potentia l t o emit " i nexces s o f th e applicabl e threshol d amoun t trigger s majo r NSR. 1 Th e determinationo f vha t shoul d b e classifie d a s a modificationsubjec t t o majo r NS Rpresent s mor e difficul t issues . Th e modificationprovision s o f th e NS Rprograms i n part s C an

d D ar e based o

nthe broad definition o f modificationi nsectio n111(a)(4 ) o f th e Act : the ter m "modification " mean s "an y physica l chang e in , o r chang e i n th e method o f operatio nof , a stationar

y sourc e vhic h increase s the amoun t o f an y ai r pollutan t emitted b y suc h
sourc e o r vhic hresult s i nthe emissiono f an y ai r pollutan t
no t previousl y

emitted. " Tha t sectio ncontemplate s a tvo ste p tes t for determinin g vhethe r activitie s a t anexistin g

1 "Potentia l t o emit " i s currentl y defined a s the "maximu m capacit y

o f a stationar

y sourc e t o emi t a pollutan t unde r it s physica l an

d operationa l design. " An y physica l o r operationa l limitatio

n onth e capacit y

o f th e sourc e t o emi t a pollutant , includin

g a permi t limitation , i s treated a s par t o f it s design provided th e limitatio no r it s effec t o

nemission s i s Federall y enforceabl e (e.g. , se e curren t rule s a t 4 0 CFR51.165(a)(l)(iii) , 51.166(b)(4)) . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * 

# ©P.1 3

3 5 majo r facilit y

constitut e a majo r modificationsubjec t t o majo r NS Rrequirements , i n the firs t step , th e permitting authorit y

determine s vhethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e vil l occur . I f so , thenth e permitting authorit y proceed s i nth e secon d ste p t o determine vhethe r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e vil l resul t i nanemission s
_ _ increas e ove r baselin e levels . v
— ^ Th e referenc e t o "an y physica l chang e .. . o r chang e i nth e method o f operation " insectio n111(a)(4 ) o f th e Ac t coul d — read literall y

— encompas s th e mos t mundan e activitie s a t anindustria l facility (eve nth e repai r o r replacemen t o f a singl e leak y pipe , o r aninsignifican t chang e i nth e vay

tha t pip e i s utilized) . Hovever , th e EPA ha s recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d t o mak e ever

y activit y

a t a sourc e subjec t t o nev sourc e requirement s unde r part s C an

d D . A s a result , th e EP A ha s adopte d
severa l exclusion s fro m th e "physica l o r operationa l change " componen t o f th e definition . Fo r instance , th e EP A ha s specificall y

recognized tha t routine maintenance , repai r an d replacement , an

d change s i nhour s o f operationo r i nth e productionrat e ar e no t b y themselve s considered a physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e method o f operatio nvithi n th e definitiono f majo r modificationfsee curren t rule s a t

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P. M



### eZf^/ss/ai^Tf*) 3 9
used th e 2 year s immediatel y precedin

g the propose d chang e t o establis hth e baselin e [see 4 5 FR52676 , 52705 , 52718] . Hovever , i nsom

e case s i t ha s alloved us e o f anearlie r period . Wit hrespec t t o modification s a t existin g sources , a predictiono f vhethe r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e vil l resul t i na significan t ne t increas e i nthe source' s actua l emission s follovin g th e modification i s thu s necessary . I npar t thi s involve s a straigh t forwar d an d &**.tf- r="N readil y predictabl e engineerin g judgmen t —

ho w muc hai r (J) pollution , the modifie d sourc e coul d emi t onaninstantaneou s basi s unde r th e planne d productionprocesse s an d pollutio n controls . I t als o necessaril y involve s a predictiono f utilizationrate s — hov muc ho f the source' s ful l productioncapabilitie s a s modified vil l b e used pe r hour , an d ho v man y hour s pe r yea r the sourc e vil l b e operated . Th e curren t regulation s provid e tha t vhe nanemission s uni t "ha s no t begu nnorma l operations, " actua l emission s equa l th e "potentia l t o emi t o f th e unit. " See , e.g. . sectio n52.21(b)(21)(iv) . The EP A an d State s interpre t thi s provisiona s creatin g aninitia l presumptio ntha t becaus e th e changed uni t "ha s no t begu nnorma l operations " follovin g th e change , i t vil l operat e a t it s ful l capacity yea r round , i.e. , a t it s ful l potentia l t o emit . The ovne r o r operato r PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.1 5

4 0 i s fre e t o rebu t thi s presumptio nb y agreein

g no t t o increas e it s leve l o f actua l emission s ove r pre-modification level s throug

hthe us e o f som

e combinatio

no f federall y enforceabl e operationa l restriction s an d pollution controls. • Qy Th e effec t o f thi s methodolog y i s t o plac e onth e ovne r o r operato r th e burde no f assurin g tha t actua l emission s vil l
no t increas e above baseline level s follovin g th e physica l o r operationa l change . 2 . Litigationove r th e Actual-to-Potentia l Tes t Industr y ha s lon

g beenconcerned tha t mos t physica l o r operationa l change s vil l initiall y registe r a s emission s increase s unde r the actual-to-potentia l tes t becaus e mos t
source s ar e operated a t les s thanful l capacit y o na nannua l basis . A s a result , a chang e a t th e sourc e tha t doe s no t affec t instantaneou s emission s rate s shov s u p a s a presume d emission s increas e becaus e th e pre-modificationactua l utilizationi s les s thanpost-modificationutilization , vhic hi s presumed t o reflec t ful l capacit y a t al l times . Hence , ther e i s a videspread nee d t o accep t federall y enforceabl e limit s onpost-modificatio n emission s o r operation s t o overcom e the presumptio

no f increased

PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.1 6

4 9 requirement , NS Rrevie v canb e expected t o resul t i nan appreciabl e leve l o f additiona l contro l an d therefor e resul t Sua-Sih o , ii-t*l i nmeaningfu l reduction s i nactua l emission s t o the atmosphere . 2 . Descriptiono f th e Proposa l Th e EP A i s toda

y proposin

g a nexclusion fro m majo r NS R fo r certai nqualifyin g emission s unit s based onth e leve l o f emission s contro l a t th e unit . Thes e unit s voul d have thei r
ov ntes t t o determine vhethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e voul d occur . Th e proposed exclusion voul d appl y t o emission s unit s vhic hhav e state-of-the-ar t emission s contro l technology . Permittin g authoritie s ar e no t require d t o adop t thi s exclusio na s the

y may retai nthe mor e stringen t actual-to-potentia l tes t for thes e clean units. . Hovever , i f the cleanuni t exclusioni s promulagated , th e EP A plan s t o incorporat e th e cleanuni t int o Federa l NS R rule s an

d vil l likel y

encourag e permittin g authoritie s t o als o adop t the

m int o thei r NS Rrules . Fo r thes e units , th e EP A i s proposing t o us e a maximu m hourl y emission s tes t patterned afte r th e NSP S tes t foun d a t 4 0 CFR60.14 . Unde r today' s proposa l change s vhic hd o no t increas e th e unit' s hourl y potentia l emission s voul d no t b e considered a physica l o r operationa l chang e an d thu s voul d

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * 

# ©P.1 7

_5 1 hourl y potentia l emissionrat e may requir e considerabl e tim e t o conduct , complet e analyi s o f samples , reviev an d qualit y chec k th e result s an d eve nretes t th e emission s uni t i f pos t tes t analysi s indicates(thet/origina l tes t va s flaved . OT)' Therefore , unde r the^^^^|p^p|^|||^ , th e pre-chang e hourl y potentia l emissionrat e may b e establishe d o r verified a t an

y tim e 6 month s prio r t o th e activit y o r projec t vhic hmay

resul t i nanemission s increase . Th e EPA solicit s commen t o nalternativ

e period s fo r establishing th e pre-chang e hourl y

emission s rat e particularl y period s (e.g. , annual ) vhic hmigh t allo v the us e o f routin e complianc e emission s tes t t o determin e the emission s rate . Als o unde r |||§§§ § vher e th e uni t i s subjec t t o a federall y

enforceabl e limi t o noperation s o r emission s vhic h limit s th e unit' s hourl y potentia l emission s t o les s tha n the maximum , physicall y achievabl e hourl y rate , th e unit' s love r allowabl e rat e mus t b e used i ndetermining i f an emission s increas e wil l occur a t th e unit . Thi s exclusionmay appl y t o unit s vit hBAC T o r LAE R limit s an

d unit s vhic hhav e no t beenpermitte d unde r majo r NSR . Th e EP

A i s avar e tha t i nman y case s a nemission s uni t
no t subjec t t o majo r NS Ri s constructed o r retrofitte d vit h
a contro l technolog y or strateg

y nevertheles s equivalen t t o the bes t control s applied i npractice . Usually , thi s occur s PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOB S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e FREAMJL.116 ] ** *P.1 8

5 2 vhe na sourc e need s t o minimiz e emission s i norde r t o "net "
a uni t ou t o f revie w o r applie s control s t o compl y vit h othe r provision s o f th e Act . I naddition , a fe v state s have BAC T an d LAERequivalen t contro l technolog y requirement s a s par t o f thei r mino r NS Rpermittin g program . Fo r thi s exclusiont o function , i t i s necessar y t o 

### less distinguis ha vei l controlled uni t fro m a poorl y

controlled
one . I nothe r words , vha t criteri a distinguis ha uni t eligibl e fo r thi s exclusio nfro m on e vhic hi s no t b e entitled t o rel y

o nit ? Criteri a vhic hallo v a broad rang e
o f unit s t o qualif y coul d largel y

transfor

m th e existin

g applicabilit y

syste m int o on e based solel y o npotentia l emissions . Th e EP

A solicit s commen t o nth e lega l an

d policy implication s o f suchanapproach . On e startin

g poin t for determinin g vha t i s a vei l controlled uni t i s th e leve l o f contro l representativ e o f
curren t BAC T o r LAER . Tha t is , i f the uni t i nquestionha s
anemission s leve l equa l t o th e mos t recentl y permitted BAC T
o r LAERfor it s clas s or categor y o f sourc e the ni t generall y

voul d qualif y

for th e nev

exclusio

ntest . , Th e EP

A believe s tha t sucha stringen t requiremen t may , hovever , eliminat e man

y unit s tha t vhil e no t controlled t o th e exac t BAC T o r LAERlimit , stil l shoul d qualif y a s veil-controlled units . PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** •P.1 9

5 3 Fo r thi s reason , th e EP A i s considerin

g severa l othe r
mean s fo r qualifyin g unit s fo r th e exclusiontest . Th e firs t voul d b e based onanaverag e o f BAC T o r LAER fo r equivalen t o r simila r source s ove r a recen t period o f tim e (e.g. , mos t recen t 3 years) . Th e secon d voul d b e based o n th e unit' s contro l leve l bein g vithi nsom

e percentag e (e.g. , five o r te npercent ) o f th e mos t recent , o r averag e o f th e
mos t recent , BAC T o r LAERlevels . Th e EP A i s proposing rul e languag e an

d solicitin

g comment o

nthe thre e differen t method s describe d above . Se e proposed section s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(lfl)(ly) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(L)(±) , 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(L)(41 , an d 52.24(f)(5)(iii)(J)(1) . I n addition , th e EP

A i s als o solicitin

g commen t onan

y othe r alternative criteri a for differentiatin g betvee n vei l 

### less y~r\ controlled an

d poorl y

controlled unit s fo r purpose s o f th e (3 / cleanuni t exclusion . Fo r al l o f th e abov e tests , the EP

A realize s tha t ther e
ar e man y sourc e an

d emissio

nuni t categorie s fo r vhic hBAC T
o r LAERdetermination s do no t exist , le t alon e recen t determinations . Fo r thes e sources , th e EP A propose s tha t thei r leve l o f contro l be gauged agains t th e control ' leve l associate d vit hBAC T o r LAE Rfor emissio

nunit s vit hsimila r emissionstrea

m characteristics . Tha t is , i f the emission s uni t ver e t o underg o a BAC T o r LAERrevie v today , vha t PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.H6 ) ** *P.2 0



### 5 4 technologie s voul d b e evaluate d an d vha t ar e th e curren t BAC T o r LAE Rlevel s associate d vit hthos e technologies ? Sinc e thi s i neffec t essentiall y require s th e permittin g authorit y

t o engag e i na BAC T o r LAE Rrevie v i norde r t o qualif y a uni t fo r thi s exclusion , th e EP A i s askin g fo r
commen t o nothe r approache s fo r qualifyin g units . Thu s i n additio nt o th e "brigh t line " test s fo r th e clea nuni t tes t propose d above , th e EPA solicit s commen t o nth e feasibilit y
o f a "genera l comparability " tes t fo r designatin g clea n units. 7

7 

### On e suc htes t coul d conside r th e existin g sourc e configuratio nand cost s o f retrofi t controls . Th e objectiv e voul d b e t o determin e i f th e uni t fit s a profil e o f vei l ujo\/)^ controlle d unit s fo r vhic ha BAC T analysi s voul d indicat e tha t f t

### i-> cC



### , additiona l contro l i s o f littl e o r n o adde d benefi t t o th e ^ tr 

### * i

### n.>0* i 

### '. environmen t an d voul d involv e a considerabl e cos t t ci v upgrade , an IJ

,, existing , goo d controls . On e advantag e o f thi s approac hi s i t s\>p,^ /•> migh t bette r incorporat e assessmen t o f technologie s use d fo r c^fcri ) differen t sourc e categorie s tha na "brigh t line " test . Fo r i

_} 

### example , installin g th e same contro l technologie s o nunit s i nbJ'f "

. differen t sourc e categorie s ma y resul t i nidentical'benefi t t o /^ j ^^'^T ^ the^environmen t bu t th e permi t limit s fo r unit s ma y b e ver y

(J3 y f C djj!*^ differen t and difficul t t o compar e du e t o th e natur e o f th e (\\j) sources . Also , some Stat e and loca l agencie s hav e issue d "vhit e \Jy papers " o nvha t i s considere d goo d contro l fo r ne v o r significantl y

modifie d unit s permitte d unde r mino r NS Ro r require d a s RACT . A s thi s voul d b e a leve l o f contro l require d fo r ne v and reconstructe d units , bu t no t necessaril y adequat e fo r Federa l BAC T o r LAE Rrequirements , thi s coul d als o b e a benc h mar k fo r determinin g vha t margina l improvemen t i ncontro l coul d b e expecte d fro

m retrofi t contro l o f a nexistin g unit.and*henc e a measur e o f th e valu e adde d by upgradin g a unit' s Controf P . technology. * (©*«f ) (hy
PRELIMINARY8TAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.2 1

5 7 emissionincrease s o f pollutant s subjec t t o NSR . Therefore , th e EP A i s considerin

g expandin

g th e cleanuni t presumption t o unit s vit hrecentl y MAC T bu t ma

y als o require , an

d solicit s commen t on , safeguard s t o addres s concern s ove r possibl e significan t disparitie s betveenBAC T o r LAE Rlimit s
an d MAC T limit s fo r a nidentica l unit . Th e EPA ha s greate r concernvit hFedera l RAC T limit s on
a uni t qualifying tha t uni t fo r a presumptiv e cleanuni t designation . I nnonattainmen t areas , a RAC T emissionlimi t i s almos t alvay s muc hles s stringen t tha nLAERand , i nth e 

### <froa(ih-y EPA' s viev , ofte nvoul d no t equa l a s a BAC T limit . Whil e ( /c ? solicitin

g commen t onextendin g th e clea

nuni t presumption t o unit s vit hFedera l RAC T limits , the EP A i s no t inclined t o adop t it . Today th e EP A i s als o proposin

g tha t permitting authoritie s ma

y submi t contro l technolog y requirement s unde r mino r NSR.programs fo r certificatio nb y th e EP A tha t th e mino r NS Rprogra

m require s technolog y tha t voul d satisf y th e requirement s fo r th e cleanuni t exclusion . Se e propose d section s 51;165(a)(1)(v)(C)(lfl)(x) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(L)(5J , 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5 J , an d 52.24(f ) (5 ) (iii ) (J ) (5_) . Th e EP A solicit s commen t o nth e appropriat e procedur e an d criteri a fo r reviev

an d approva l (o

r certification ) b

y th e EP A an d publi c reviev

o f a permittin

g authority' s progra m PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.2 2

6 7 result s i nemission s o f ai r pollutant s fro m th e activit y vould , hovever , b e considered a physica l o r operationa l change . Likevise , th e replacemen t o f a non-emittin g uni t wit hanemission s uni t o r activit y voul d b e a physica l o r operationa l chang e unde r today' s proposal . Se e porpose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (H ) fiill , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(M)(2) , 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(M)(2) , an d 52.24(f)(5)(iii)(K)(2) . Th e constructiono f a ne v non-emittin

g activit y

vould , hovever , no t b e excluded i f the activity required an existin g emission s uni t t o increas e it s leve l o f operation t o accommodat e the nev activity . I nthi s typ e o f ' circumstance , the EP A believe s i t i s no t reasonabl e t o exclud e nev

non-emittin

g activitie s vhic hvil l caus e th e
sourc e t o increas e it s operations , evenvher e th e nev operationa l level s ar e consisten t vit hthe source' s permitte d allowabl e emissions . Th e EP A i s proposing tha t the magnitud e o f the increas e b e measured a s the expected increas e i nemission s a t th e sourc e vhic hrelate s t o the maximu m leve l o f operationo f th e ne v activity . Fo r example , a ne

v non-emittin

g proces s line a t it s maximu m rated capacit y

voul d requir e 1*>

» te npercen t o f the tota l ( ) 3 outpu t fro

m th e plant' s pove r boiler . I nthi s cas e th e tota l emission s associated vit hth e ne v activity

voul d b e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.2 3

7 2 Fo r thi s reason , th e EP Ai s toda yproposin g tha t source s calculat e th e baselin e b yusin g thei r curren t emission s facto r i n combinatio n vit h th e utilizatio n leve l fro mth e tim e perio d selected
. Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(Xii)(B) , 51.166(b)(21)(ii) , 52.21(b)(21)(ii )
and 52.24(f)(13)(ii)
. Thi s safeguar d insure s tha t n o /ocfcOS C it\ ShO^t- ferrr > &.rr.tSS>Or\S ^- —^ significan t los s o f environmenta l protection * vil l resul t (J-y fromth e propose d change
. Unde r th e propose d provision , EP Aals o voul d limi t th e
ne v baselin e i n nonattainmen t area s and ozon e transpor t region s t o n o soone r tha n th e enactmen t dat e o f th e 199 0 Amendments , Novembe r 15 , 1990
. Th e 199 0 Amendment s include d

a numbe r o f change s i n ho v emission s ar e t o b e inventorie d

an d tracked , particularl yi n nonattainmen t area s an d ozon e transpor t regions
. Th e change s strengthe n reasonabl e furthe r progres s trackin g requirements , offse t limitation s
and RAC T requirement s fo r nonattainmen t area s and establis h enhance d emission s inventoryrequirement s fo r al l areas . Th e EP Abelieve s tha t allowin g baseline s prio r t o th e 199 0 Amendment s ma ycomplicat e and imped e Stat e and'loca l effort s t o trac k and reduc e emission s fro ma 199 0 emission s baselin e whic h i n manycase s ma yb e love r tha n pre-199 0 emissio n levels
. Therefore , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o limi t
us e o f a n expande d baselin e i n nonattainmen t area s an d ozon e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.2 4

10 2 unde r today' s proposa l based o nth e post-modification potentia l t o emi t o f th e uni t considerin g th e applicatio no f th e propose d control s (i.e. , the "actual-to-potential " test) . ££ £ proposed section s 51.165(a)(1)(xxvii)(B)(2) , 51.166(b)(43)(ii)(B) , 52.21(b)(44)(ii)(B ) an d 52.24(f)(25)(ii)(B) . I n suc hcase s th e permitting agenc y voul d conside r th e projected increas e i nemission s a s collatera l t o th e projec t an d determine vhether , notvithstanding th e emission s increases , th e projec t i s stil l environmentall y beneficia l an

d meet s al l applicabl e &SCv\ safeguards . Thus , eve m whena projec t vil l resul t i na significan t emission s increas e unde r the actual-to-potentia l

» tes t th e projec t ma y b e dtermined t o stil l b e environmentall y

beneficial . I f the projec t i s stil l determine d t o b e environmentall y beneficial , the n th e effec t
o f th e provisionvil l b e tha t projec t i s exempte d fro m BAC T
o r LAERrequirement s bu t subjec t the projec t t o offse t an d ai r qualit y

impact s analysi s requirements . Unde r today' s proposal , a permittin g agenc y

coul d tak e action , i ncertai nlimite d circumstances , t o impos e , federally-enforceabl e limit s o hthe magnitud e o f a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e t o ensur e tha t al l safeguard s
ar e met . Fo r example , vher e the dat a used t o asses s a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e ar e questionabl e an d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * 

# ©P.2 5

10 7 Thes e type s o f project s ver e oftengranted n o action
assurance s prio r t o th e promulgation o f th e WEPC O rules .
^ -<~rr. ( SSrO*^f=?2 Whil e th e installationo f temporary^^ollutic^ i contro l Q_y demonstrationproject s ma y b e partiall y

addressed i nothe r section s o f today' s proposa l concernin g PCPs , thes e project s pos e uniqu e difficultie s a s thei r temporar y an d usuall y highl y experimenta l natur e mea ntha t th e project s ar e likel y t o b e removed an

d dismantled no t lon g afte r being installe d
an d completed . Whil e suchproject s cansometime s becom e permanent , th e mor e likel y situatio

ni s tha t th e cost s o r technica l difficultie s i noperatin g system

s designe d fo r experimenta l application s ar e no t practica l fo r continue d operation . Unde r curren t rules , th e remova l o f th e projec t
ma y constitut e a majo r modificationan d thereb

y expos e th e projec t t o a potentia l NS Rpermittin g requiremen t o r enforcemen t action . Th e potentia l for majo r NS Ro r an enforcemen t actiona t the en d o f th e experimen t ca nserve a s
a significan t disincentiv e t o thes e projects . Hovever , th e EP A als o recognize s tha t safeguard s ar e necessar y t o ensur e tha t n o suc hprojec t i s permitted t o caus e o r contribut e t o unchecke d violation s o f th e NAAQ S o r othe r environmenta l impacts . Th e EP

A believe s temporar

y demonstrationproject s shoul d b e encouraged an d significan t disincentive s remove d

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y *• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.2 6

10 8 vhil e a t th e sam

e tim e assurin

g tha t th e project s vil l no t resul t i nenvironmenta l harm . Th e WEPC O rul e provision s fo r temporar y PCP s achieved a balanc e betvee nfosterin g developmen t o f ai r pollution reducin g technologie s an

d allowin

g potential , albei t temporary , exceedence s o f ai r qualit y standards . T o date , th e EP A i s no t avar e o f an y temporar

y demonstration projec t excluded fro

m majo r NS Runde r the WEPCO rule s vhic hcaused
o r contributed t o a NAAQ S violation . Toda y th e EP A i s solicitin

g commen t o

nvhethe r the temporar y demonstration projec t exclusionpromulgated inth e WEPCO rulemakin g shoul d b e extended t o simila r project s funde d b y othe r Federa l agencie s an

d departments .

b . Th e Proposa l

' The EP

A propose s t o exten

d th e temporar

y demonstration projec t provision s t o mos t temporar y c&^rjpoilutlojf

r reduction project s funded b

y a Federa l agenc

y or department . Today' s proposa l voul d appl y th e four condition s tha t currentl y • appl y t o excluded temporar y DO E an d EP A demonstration projects : 1 ) 2 0 percen t funde d b y a federa l agency

o r department , 2 ) operated n o mor e tha n5 years , 3 ) compl y vit h th e SI P fo r th e locatio no f the project , an d 4 ) fulfil l an

y othe r requirement s necessar y t o attai no r maintai nNAAQ S PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY •* * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * 

# G)P.2 7

11 0 furthe r extended t o temporar y project s o f researc h organization s sucha s universitie s an d industr

y technica l groups . Fo r example , vhil e project s conducted b y suc h group s a s th e Electri c Pove r Researc hInstitut e (EPRI ) ar e ofte nco-funde d b

y DO E an d th e EPA , ther e ma y b e EPR I funde d project s tha t canno t b e co-funded du e t o budge t constraint s
an d ye t voul d contribut e t^pollutionjcontro l technolog y \Jy development . Conversely , th e EP A solicit s commen t o n vhethe r curren t NS Rrule s ar e sufficien t suc htha t th e propose d expanded exclusio ni s unnecessary . Th e EP A als o solicit s comment o nvhethe r additiona l safeguard s ar e necessar y t o assur e protectiono f NAAQS , increments , an

d AQRV's . Whil e ther e i s n o apparen t recor d
o f temporary(pollutionjicontro l demonstrationproject s fTy causing a violationo f a NAAQ S o r incremen t o r a nadvers e impac t o

nAQRV' s or visibility , the EP A i s concerne d vhethe r the curren t rule s ar e adequat e t o preven t suc hviolation s
an d impact s an

d vhethe r the

y voul d b e sufficien t t o preven t
suc himpact s i f the exclusio nver e broadened a s proposed . Th e 2 0 percen t minimu m co-fundin

g requiremen t Q f th e
curren t rule s i s contained i nsectio n415-o f th e Ac t and applie s onl y

t o cleancoa l technolog y projects . Th e EPA believe s thi s represent s th e leve l o f Federa l involvemen t tha t Congres s believe s i s essentia l t o establis ha clea r PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLIC Y *• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.2 8
r^SA'^'7x^-''C"'A .,,"•'•••',•'

- • - X • f^^df^;;..!

.'Tf-Tv'.-, ;

, . 11 5 x ; .".J'T ;•' PSEL s fo r al l Stat e an d Federa l regulate d pollutant s ver e Incorporate d int o al l Federall y enforceabl e Stat e operating permit s a s a mean s o f managing airshed capacity . A PSE L fo r a facility , i s established fo r simila r type s
o f emissionunit s rathe r tha nfo r th e entir e facility . Currently , abou t 120 0 facilitie s ar e permitte d unde r th e PSE L rule , an

d Oregonissue s abou t fou r majo r NS R permit s
eac hyear . Th e PSEL s have bot hshort-ter m (lb/h r o r lb/day ) an

d long-ter

m (tons/year ) emissio nlimits . Th e PSEL s ar e used
a s th e baselin e emission s vhe ndeterminin g vhethe r a modificatio na t a facility i s subjec t t o NSR . Stac k testin g i s th e primary

method used i n determinin g complianc e vit h th e PSEL , bu t som

e continuou s emissio nmonitor s ar e used a s veil . J J Th e OregonPSE L rul e differ s fro m th e traditional%h e (yjy EP A progra m i n tha t th e PSE L rul e doe s no t limi t , considerationo f increase s an d decrease s i n emission s t o a

• r
. contemporaneou s tim e perio d vhendeterminin

g vhethe r a significanc e leve l ha s beenexceeded . Th e EPA rule s generall y

limi t consideratio no f increase s an

d decrease s t o
a 5-yea r contemporaneou s tim e period . , x
c . Area-vid e an

d Voluntar

y Source-specifi c Plantvid e Applicabilit y

Limit s : ; , . -. ^ Xx; PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRE8ENT OFFICIA L BPA POLICY .** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — - [filenam e PREA M 1.116 ] •>*

* . ,P.2 9

A ••_--"-•« • ,T,7.;.-*- • • :*«;. '

• '-•••"'- •;••,., -f

'Zx.



### '• x.... 12 5 ' ' r 

### ;.;J. th e curren t regulations . Th e curren t regulation s allo v source s t o ne t ne v

unit s and sometime s larg e modification s HA C t r o / " L A&--2 

### ou t o f reviev , vithou t mandatin g th e applicatio no f contro l K 

### technology . Th e member s fel t tha t NS Rha s tv o purposes : first , a nai r qualit y purpos e fo r protectio no f standard s
and preventio no f ai r qualit y deterioration , and ; second , ensurin g tha t a s industria l equipmen t turn s over , ne v equipmen t include s th e applicatio no f ne v pollutio n- [Jy reductio no r contro l strategie s o r technologies . Some member s contende d tha t t o allo v source s t o ne t ou t o f revie v vithou t requirin g some "good technology " i s contrar y t o th e
second purpos e o f NSR . I nligh t o f th e incentive s offere d by thi s approac hand th e abilit y o f th e State s t o impos e technolog y

requirements , th e EPA.request s commen t o n vhether , fo r al l ne v unit s o r fo r al l ne v unit s vhic hne t
ou t o f majo r NSR , t o requir e tha t State s requir e some contro l technology

o r t o provid e i nth e Federa l regulation s
a nindependen t mandat e fo r th e applicatio no f contro l technology . Th e EPA als o request s commen t o nho v t o appl y th e majo r NS Rrequirement s a s a resul t o f a nincreas e no t directl y

associate d vit ha particula r modificatio no r physica l chang e t o a nemission s unit . Majo r NS Rcoul d be . applie d to : (1 ) al l change s tha t hav e occurre d unde r th e PAL ; (2 ) al l change s tha t hav e occurre d unde r th e PA L sinc e PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 ~ [filenam e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

vx". - J* 'f.P.3 0

•yfrAp ; ; V3-
. -T

V - • . " • . ,'»rv,-- « .- • •• - ;ay ;

•V-: : :• 13 2 ;•'.'.' • '

complianc e informationshoul d b e mad e availabl e t o th e . public , includin

g th e proces s fo r making i t available . 3 . Proposed Regulator y Revision s Th e proposa l voul d incorporat e the PAL approac hint o th e NS Rrule s b

y adoptin

g nev PA L rule s i nsection s 51.165 , 51.166 , an

d 52.21 . A

numbe r o f ne v

provision s hav e bee n develope d t o specif y th e requirement s o f using a PA L approach . Th e EPA request s comment s o nthes e provisions . Th e propose d rule s allo v th e us e o f a PAL fo r NS R applicabilit y

i nlieu o f th e applicability provision s i n section52.21 16 . Similarly , revision s t o section s 51.16 5
an d 51.16 6 ar e propose d t o provid e a nalternative applicabilit y

approac htha t State s ma y adop t int o SIP s t o facilitat e us e o f PAL's . Unde r th e proposed PAL rules , State s may

choos e t o adop t o r accep t delegationo f PA L approache s a t source s t o appl y onl y i nlieu o f othervis e pff.hco\o(t applciabl e Federa l majo r NS Rapplicability rule s o r t o appl y i nlieu o f Stat e SI P mino r NS Rrequirements . Whe nadopting th e PA L approach , State s may choos e i nthei r SIP s o r delegationagreemen t t o adop t th e PAL approacho n a'limite d

w Unde r anothe r rulemakin g proposa l t o implemen t 199 0 CA A Amendment s t o th e NS R an d PS D requirement s th e EP A i s proposing t o ad d a nev Federa l nonattainmen t NS Rrul e a t 4 0 CFR52.10 . Th e EPA als o propose s t o ad d Federa l PA

L rule s to . section52.1 0 an d th e rule s voul d b e nearl y identica l t o the PA L provision s propose d t o b e added t o section52.21 . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ) ** *

A.J:*ZA£- --?-•!*• c •**< • •'.*" ' »••' '
'-•'
. c.2 2-.-}-Tx7iZ^^'%.^r : m^^i^,c:.:~^c '7-'7'-'~7-. r '7y-j2i'-r*(^.-^7j^.>A-' ; prTT -*•' •P.3 1



### 13 5 participatio nrequirement s o f part s 7 0 an d 7 1 wil l als o b e take nint o accoun t i nth e EPA' s consideratio no f additiona l publi c notice requirement s fo r PAL's . Publi c notice and
commen t ma y

b e involve d a t eac hpar t 7 0 permi t renewal ; therefore , i f adjustment s t o th e PA L ar e mad e a t tha t time , publi c notice i s alread y a require d component . A PA L approac htha t applie s onl y i nlie u o f majo r NS Rma y resul t i nchange s a t th e sourc e triggerin g mino r NSR , a t vhic htime th e publi c notic e requirement s o f mino r NSR , section s 51.16 0

- 51.164 , ma y

b e triggered . Th e EP A request s commen t o n vhethe r t o buil d specifi c publi c notic e requirement s int o th e PA L approac hi nadditio nt o th e one s already provide d fo r i nthes e existin g programs . Th e definitio no f PA L implie s tha t publi c notic e i s require d i norde r t o establis h th e PAL . Hovever , i t ma y no t b e clearl y

stated . Severa l definition s ar e propose d t o b e change d o r adde d fo r PAL' s i nth e NS Rrules . A definitio no f "majo r PA L modification " voul d b e adde d unde r propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiii) , 51.166(b)(46 ) and 52.21(b)(47 ) vhic h

differs * £.**- * " , yZ-7 A i s significantly , tha nth e non-PA L definitio no f majo r ( ^ V modificatio nt o reflec t th e PA L treatmen t o f modifications . Fo r example , "physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operation " voul d no t b e include d unde r th e propose d definitio no f "majo r PA L modification " vhic hvoul d contai n PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORXINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.3 2

T

. - * -^Tr? * .r^.y^-- '' 2 '. A- • '- '

'7

. • Ar

: --A? • •'• • '"'• '2... -riK-f ••••' • .•c77:TrT^22^>jT-.2-^T~ : 'r.'\A'-''.' Jr X X '

'

7 •" ^"•'

•••'•'-.•-.'' • ' ''

. '-"" ' ' "-JA ?'"•:• 7

•;-'.•*•''--'J

'"•''•• T'TZ'. 7:T7£r '.;' --z-- K '-\ *• 7

•;

• . . - ' ' T 2 ' '

'•' • - . • - • .... . " '•' . c' '-**.'• ~- : ' '

f.Z'---- • '

. ~ - "

13 7 \ actio no na methodolog y fo r determining vhethe r a sourc e ha s undertake n a modificationbase d o na source' s potentia l emissions . A s discusse d above , th e exac t regulatory languag e th e EPA

va s t o propos e va s se t fort hi nExhibi t B t o th e Settlemen t Agreemen t vhic hi s containe d i nth e docke t fo r thi s rulemaking . Unde r thi s methodology , source s may calculat e emission s increase s an d decrease s base d o neithe r th e existing actua l emission s methodolog y o r th e unit' s potentia l emissions , measure d i nterm s o f hourl y emission s (i.e. , pound s o f pollutan t pe r hour) . Source s coul d us e thi s potential-to-potentia l tes t fo r bot hNS R applicabilit y
an d fo r calculatin

g offsets , netting credit s and ERCs . I ncomplianc e vit hth e Settlemen t Agreement , th e EP A solicit s publi c commen t o nth e CM A Exhibi t B propose d regulation s (see belo v an d footnot e 16) . Th e EPA als o note s tha t th e propose d cleanuni t exclusioni s simila r t o th e CM A Exhibi t B methodolog y though t mor e limited i nscop e t o avoi d po^cnhlttl

foC t^crcaStd

0*\r.<jctt

etr-iSSronf

/* th e advers e ai r qualityximpact s expecte d unde r th e CM A ^ Exhibi t B methodology . , . Th e follovin g discussio ndescribe s th e alternative i nmor e detai l an d provide s th e EPA' s preliminary

assessmen t o f thi s alternative . : 1 . Descriptiono f th e Exhibi t B Methodology Exhibi t B contain s a serie s o f revision s t o th e EPA' s NS Rregulation s al l designe d t o provid e source s vit hth e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * D0E 8 NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M i . 116 ] *• *

- /TV
.P.3 3

'...'•••••„.

- .":' • -''.'i'...'_•-• '..." ' '••'•
. " " 3.X X r X '
.. r " :- . " -.;V3a&¥?» ! v> > -? > X''X'.' " '-• '
. '



### '•''"' . ' •

• X . > • -:=' : 

### .'. " '' • XX ; X . ' .'"

> : v 

### .'•." '

' 16 0 d o so—durin g facilit y desig nand construction . Requirin g stric t control s ensure s tha t state-of-the-ar t control s ar e employe d i nconjunctio nvith . majo r capita l investmen t i n ne v industria l processes , internalizin g th e cost s mt -air & J cH- Tl, %\ pollutio nprotectio na s industria l processe s ar e replace d
an d expanded . Further , th e "technology-forcing " aspec t o f th e BAC T and LAE Rrequirement s promote s advance s i nai r • /tm 

### . pollutio ncontro l technology tha t vil l benefi t othe r ai r qualit y protectio nprogram s and ma y b e transferabl e t o othe r
sourc e categories . Th e reform

initiative s propose d i nthi s notic e ar e intende d t o reduc e significantl y th e burde no f meetin g BAC T
and LAE Rvhil e retainin g th e fundamenta l benefit s o f thes e requirements . Th e EPA i s proposin g severa l action s t o foste r clarit y

an d certaint y

i nBAC T an d LAER determinations . Th e EP A i s proposin g t o explai nand codif y , curren t policie s s o tha t th e relevan t requirement s ar e clear . Th e EP A

i s proposin g t o reduc e th e burde nt o permi t applicant s o f explorin g ne v contro l technologie s identifie d afte r a complet e permi t applicatio nha s bee nsubmitted . Th e EP A i s addressin g th e CAAAC' s recommendatio ntha t th e EP A develo p th e existin g databas e historicall y knovna s th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e int o a comprehensiv e nationa l databas e o nBAC T an

d LAE R(fo r th e purpose s o f thi s notice , PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

•:'• ' J *- •• - 7

•'.

... .T~'- : c:'T2 

### A. 'A^y0^z^^0mZTT: ;;-•';;
."• • 16 5 ' •

4 0 CF R124.1 9 (i nth e cas e o f Federa l permits ) t o remed y . suc hdeficiencies . I nth e sprin g o f 1990 , th e EPA mad e availabl e t o th e publi c a draf t document , entitle d "Top-dov n Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y Guidanc e Document, 1 1 detailing th e top-dov nBAC T method an

d i n Octobe r b f 199 0 issued a Draf t Ne v Sourc e Reviev

Worksho p Manua l setting ou t th e top-dov

nmethod fo r determinin g BACT . T o promot e certaint y an d clarit y

an d t o addres s commitment s arising ou t o f severa l lavsuits , th e EP A i s proposing t o codif y formall y

th e interpretation o f th e BAC T requiremen t i t ha s expounded oVe r th e pas t severa l years . 2 . Overvie

w o f th e EPA' s Curren t Polic y fo r Determining Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y an d Propose d Regulatory.Clarification s an d Revision s BAC T require s th e adoptio no f anemissionlimitatio n base d o nth e "maximu m degre e o f reduction. " Sectio n169(3 )
o f th e Act . Further , i nadoptin g th e PS D program , Congres s emphasized th e importanc e o f thoroug han d publi c analyse s i n PS D decision-making , statin g tha t on e o f th e purpose s o f PS D i s t o assur e tha t an y decisio

nt o permi t increased %ir> £**csS<0^ $ pollution * i nan

y are a t o vhic hPS D applie s i s mad e only ' Q]y afte r carefu l evaluationo f al l th e consequence s o f suc ha decisio nan

d afte r adequat e procedura l opportunitie s fo r

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.3 5

stringen t technolog y i s no t "achievable " i ntha t case , se e section 169(3 ) o f th e Act . I f th e mos t stringen t technolog y

-y i s eliminated , the nth e nex t mos t stringen t technologie s ar e similarl y

considered , i ndescending orde r fro m th e to p t o love r level s o f stringency , unti l a nachievabl e technolog y i s identified . Th e EP A propose s clarification s an d revision s t o section s 51.166(j ) an d 52.21(j ) tha t se t ou t th e preceding essentia l element s o f th e top-dov nanalysis . Thi s analysi s
ma y b e furthe r segregated int o th e follovin g five ke y

steps : STE P 1—IDENTIF YAL L CONTRO L TECHNOLOGIES . Th e firs t ste p i na "top-down " analysi s i s t o identify , fo r th e emission s uni t i nquestion(th e ter m "emission s unit " shoul d b e read t o mea nemission s unit ; proces s o r activity) , al l "available " contro l options . Availabl e contro l option s ar e thos e ai r pollutioncontro l technologie s
o r technique s vit ha practica l potentia l fo r application t o th e emission s uni t an d th e regulated pollutant ^ unde r ( Zf 

### €rr.,s5ro* evaluation . Air ^ pollution ^ contro l technologie s an d (Ty technique s includ e th e applicationo f productionprocesse s
o r availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , including fue l cleaning , clea nfuel s o r treatmen t o r innovative fue l combustiontechnique s fo r contro l o f th e affected pollutant, S (& ? Th e RACT/BACT/LAERClearinghous e (RBLC ) (discusse d i n PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * 

## (L>

# o 16 8 par t I V

belov ) ma y

b e th e startin

g poin t i nidentifying availabl e contro l technologies , bu t shoul d no t b e th e exclusive sourc e o f technolog y information . I nsom e circumstances , inherentl y lower-pollutin

g processe s ar e appropriat e fo r considerationa s availabl e contro l alternatives . Th e contro l alternative s shoul d includ e no t onl y existin

g control s for th e sourc e categor y i nquestion , bu t als o (throug

htechnolog

y transfer ) control s applied t o simila r sourc e categorie s an d ga s streams , an

d innovativ

e contro l technologies . Technologies'required unde r LAE R determination s ar e availabl e for BAC T purpose s an d mus t als o b e included a s contro l alternative s an d usuall y

represen t th e to p alternative . Ne w o r emergin

g technologies , includin

g technologie s tha t have evolved outsid e th e Unite d States , shoul d b e considered i f they have bee n"demonstrated i npractice. " Se e proposed ne w definition a t section s 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) , 51.166(b)(42 ) an d 52.21(b)(43) . For a contro l technolog

y t o b e "Demonstrated i nPractice, " i t mus t satisf y th e followin

g criteria : (1 ) I t ha s bee ninstalled
an d operatin

g a t a minimu

m o f 5 0 percen t o f it s nameplat e capacit y

fo r a t leas t 6 months , an d (2 ) It' s performance , i n 

### -t,r*\izs(0r\ N 

### rr\
term s o f pollutio n "reducin g efficiency , ha s bee nverifie d \\J wit ha performanc e tes t o r performanc e dat a collecte d vhe n operating a t 9 0 percen t o f it' s nameplat e capacity . I n th e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *
-' v• -.; . " ,

- : .• ••'•'

'^xTr-i^r

- .- . •. .P.3 7

18 0 emissionlimits ; (2 ) th e RBL C shoul d b e redesigned t o ensur e tha t i t comprehensivel y catalog s al l BAC T an d LAER determination s vhic har e issue d b y the variou s States , loca l agencies,.an

d th e EP

A Regions ; (3 ) the EP A shoul d see k out , ' research , an

d ente r foreig

ntechnologie s int o th e Clearinghouse , independen t o f th e us e o f suc htechnologie s i npermitting ; (4 ) th e EP A shoul d communicat e throug h vritte nguidanc e tha t certai ntechnologie s tha t have bee n sufficientl y

demonstrated for , certai nindustrie s shoul d b e considered i nth e BAC T an d LAE Rdeterminations ; an d (5 ) th e EP A shoul d increas e it s fundin g o f the RBLC . Som e o f th e CAAAC' s recommendation s concernth e EPA' s substantive BAC T an d LAE Rpolicie s an

d ar e addresse d elsewher e i ntoday' s proposa l i nth e discussiono f ne v an d revise d BAC T o r LAERrequirements . See , e.g. . propose d revision s t o section s 51.165(a)(2)(ii) , 51.166(j)(5)(ii)(A )
an d 52.21(j)(5)(ii)(A)) . Man y o f th e recommendation s addres s improvement s t o th e conten t o f th e RBLC' s databas e
an d bea r o nth e EPA' s managemen t o f it . Thes e recommendation s ar e summarize d an d addressed immediatel y belov . ' ' • - i

• CAAA

C Recommendation , permittin g ^uthority Q \%Q/ shoul d b e require d t o submi t fina l BAC T determination s t o th e RBL C uponissuanc e o f a permit . PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.H6 ] ** *

""" : , . '•> '

' '..-. ' '','•• • Z "AJ A '.'• > '•• • • A
•.- • ' X • T •..-• .> • -,-••• . -.•••*:• \.-rATyyjr- •. \'

.T : <J*^ , i^J'-i'-."ZAJ' : .r"• ••">• '"• •"<••'•.'.'•.• -.-" - . Z&^^W&-*- &'TT P ~-•''•x 7*&- - '- • x7"~7'• ' 2 '-

. P.3 8
I^^TSZ^TA ^Tr-:-..'•• ^r,<xx7ir.r - - ..^ov-.y-r^r— ; • . ' • .. '

. '• • :•?/•' • = - v<
. •• • • •-••• ••7T:c2:7^A-%^.---;-7.T-r-. v--. , ..•• •
3?: ; r * :•;'.: . •;.:/:*
.

'.'1 , .'/• • 1 8 9 ;'-x - •'.•'••• • - availabl e contro l technologies . Thes e ma y b e ascertaine d fro m th e RBLC , trad e literature , existing majo r NS Rpermits , nationa l standard s o f performanc e issued unde r section s il l
and 11 2 o f th e Act , an d othe r publication s b y th e EPA . Se e section s 52.21(b)(12 ) an d 51.166(b)(12) . Sinc e LAERi s predicated onth e mos t stringen t o f eithe r SI P requirement s o r emission s rate s tha t ar e "achieved i n.practice, " th e nonattainmen t permi t applican t i s oblige d t o reviev th e sam

e source s o f informationi n additiont o bein

g awar e o f al l SI P requirement s fo r it s clas s o r categor

y o f sources . Th e EPA' s curren t polic y als o call s fo r considerationo f availabl e contro l techniques , includin

g emergin

g technology , i nmaking BAC T an d LAE R determination s unti l th e tim e tha t th e fina l permi t i s issued . (See J . Seit z memo , "BACT/LAER DeterminationCutof f Date, " January

11 , 1990 , Docke t No . ) . . I nman y case s a s muc ha s a yea r elapse s betvee nth e dat e anapplicationi s complet e an d th e fina l permi t issuance . Consequently , considerationo f emerging technologie s unti l th e tim e tha t th e fina l permi t i s issued maximize s th e opportunit y fo r publi c participationi n identifying th e existenc e availabl e contro l method s o r (oi) developmen t o f nev technologie s tha t may har e ai

» eavironmenLa l Uunufl L i a a particula r installation . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

• •' • *-Z"

, \7'-J •> : ""*.- , - • ~- -i 1 -*•**•*•*.*. * -'.' * ' - '• • ' ' •- * ••••• " *
. v.'* ! "
. . r • ' ' "" • •"
. - ' " , •P.3 9
• 1

19 5 generall y

d o no t creat e substantiv e requirement s bu t contai n contro l measure s required unde r othe r Clea nAi r Ac t programs . Therefore , Titl e V permi t voul d likel y no t w provid e significan t nev contro l technolog

y information . A t th e sam e time , ther e ar e thousand s o f permit s tha t vil l b e issue d unde r th e EPA-approved Titl e V programs an

d th e burde no f examinin g thes e woul d b e substantial . Th e EP A is , nevertheless , concerned tha t contro l technologie s tha t ma y no t implemented i na regulator y fa contex t o f a substantiv e Ac t progra

m may nevertheles s b e available . Fo r example , source s ofteninstal l state-of-the ar t technolog

y t o be classified a s a mino r sourc e o r t o avoi d NS Rrequirement s for majo r modifications . (Inthi s
cas e permitting authoritie s ar e encouraged t o repor t th e technolog

y t o th e RBLC. ) Furthermore , nev technologie s an

d innovation s ove r existin g technologie s occasionall y evolve vithou t vid e publicit y i nth e regulator

y arena . Suc h technologie s als o deserve consideration . Therefore , th e EP A als o propose s t o requir e consideratio no f contro l alternative s tha t have been"demonstrated i npractice. " A s describe d previously , th e EP A propose s t o defin e "demonstrated i npractice " t o meantechnolog y tha t ha s bee n installe d an

d operatin

g a t 5 0 percen t nameplat e capacit y fo r 6 month s an

d vhos e performanc e ha s beenverifie d vit ha PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] *** .

•P.4 0 2^^$^A-T^--T : ' 

### - 'T^^T-Zj^JJATAm^''ZPJ^

: - 191-.

- -T'AJ.- :'"AJA :'
. informationvoul d b e technolog y tha t appear s t o b e transferrabl e fro

m anothe r sourc e o r sourc e category an d an y emerging technologie s tha t ar e "demonstrated i npractice " t o perfor m a t level s tha t varran t thei r consideration . On e subgrou

p o f th e CAAA

C recommended tha t a technology b e demonstrate d i npractic e a t leas t si xmonth s prio r t o th e cut-of f dat e i norde r fo r i t t o b e included i n th e univers e
o f technologie s t o b e considered fo r BAC T o r LAER . Representative s o f som e State s an

d environmenta l groups , hovever , expresse d concerntha t si xmonth s i s to o lon g a perio d an

d voul d inappropriatel y exclud e technolog y alternative s tha t ver e demonstrated adequatel y fo r th e purpose s o f considerationa s BAC T o r LAER . Whil e industr

y representative s generall y acknowledge d tha t a comprehensiv e revie v o f availabl e contro l alternative s shoul d b e conducted if . furthe r consideratio no f emerging technologie s voul d b e cut-of f earlie r i nth e permi t applicationreviev process , the

y nevertheles s expresse d
concer ntha t th e comprehensiv e reviev

no t b e overl y burdensome . Fo r example , th e subcommitte e activel y debate d vhethe r th e contro l requirements/i«reflecte d i nal l State , Triba l an

d loca l permit s shal l b e mad e a mandatory par t o f th e comprehensive technolog y search . Th e subcommitte e als o recommende d tha t onc e th e RBL C databas e i s improved an d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] •* *

*
.P.4 1 1

•'.-' TZ-Z''-'" : -x.ZJ'- 27''

•'•''
. X

2 5 1 justif y a BAC T limi t using pollution preventio n alon e tha t i s les s stringen t tha nthe limi t tha t voul d b e availabl e using conventiona l technolog y alone , becaus e th e energy , environmental , economi c o r othe r benefit s compensat e fo r th e highe r emission s level . Hovever , fo r a nonattainmen t are a permit , th e Agenc y interpret s th e LAERdefinitio na s requiring al l emissioncontro l option s necessary t o achieve emissionlevel s i ncomplianc e vit hLAER . Th e Agenc y

revieved th e CAAA C s recommendationt o creat e separat e categorie s fo r demonstrate d an d undemonstrate d BAC T an d LAE Rcontro l option s i nregard t o th e recommendation s concernin g th e UT/ A

vaiver . A s discusse d above , the Agency' s interpretatio no f th e definition s fo r BAC T an d LAERprovid e fo r th e inclusiono f pollutionpreventiontechnique s vhe nconsidering availabl e contro l options . Also , a s previousl y mentioned , th e Agenc y consider s th e selectio no f a pollutionpreventionoptiona s BAC T o r LAER, . i nan y givensituation , t o b e governe d the [3$. requirement s o f applicabl e lav . I nregard s t o a separat e category

fo r undemonstrated pollutionpreventio noption s an d
a s discusse d i nth e UT/ A vaive r section , th e EP A consider s al l undemonstrate d contro l options , includin g pollutio n prevention , t o b e eligibl e t o qualif y fo r thi s vaiver . Thus , becaus e th e Agenc y interpret s BAC T an d LAE R t o allo

v PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] *>**

mTr-^-iii. A'P.4 2

25 5 process , an

d affected source s ar e prohibite d fro m beginning constructionunles s a permi t ha s bee n issued addressing PS D requirements . Specifically , new

an d modifie d majo r stationar y source s
mus t appl y

bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) fo r eac h pollutan t subjec t t o regulationunde r th e Act.(Th e Act , ( JU -

. ^ ^ \_ X subsection165(a)(4) , 169(2)(C) ^ Th e BAC T requiremen t i s addressed i n detai l i n sectionI V o f thi s preamble . Anothe r fundamenta l aspec t o f th e PS D progra m i s a n ai r qualit y analysi s vhic hcall s fo r an assessmen t o f a propose d source' s complianc e vit hallovabl e "increments " o f ai r qualit y deteriorationan

d th e NAAQS , describe d belov . Th e PS D progra

m applie s t o ne v

an d modifie d majo r stationar

y source s i n area s designated pursuan t t o section10 7 o f th e Ac t a s "attainment " o r "unclassifiable" . Th e Act , section161." \ Area s designated "attainment " o r C***J "unclassifiable " ar e area s tha t eithe r mee t th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s (NAAQS ) o r fo r vhic hther e i s insufficien t information t o reac ha conclusionabou t thei r ai r qualit y

status . <^fheAct7~section 107(d ) (l ) (A ) (ll ) k (iii)^ > Thes e area s ar e commonl y referre d t o a s "cleanai r
-areas " o r "PS D areas. " Al l PS D area s ar e furthe r categorize d or."designated "
a s eithe r Clas s I , I I o r HI.c^Th e Act , section16 p Th e C^^J 

# (S>

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *

..,•_;.-..• ' ri.-j.f- -,..- v - ':* • ,-• •'.
. r'Xli-'f..-

... .• if;' f.\.i-. ~ 7: • - ,'S

t
.'25 6 " - classificationo f anare a determine s th e corresponding "maximu m allowabl e increases " o f ai r qualit y deterioration ("increments") . Th e Act , section163 . Onl y a relativel y smal l incremen t o f ai r qualit y deteriorationi s permissibl e i nClas s I area s an d consequentl y

thes e area s ar e afforded th e greates t degre e o f ai r qualit y protection . A n increasingl y

greate r amoun t o f ai r qualit y deteriorationi s allowed i nClas s I I an d II I areas . I nal l instance s th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s represen t th e

f . r overarching ai r qualit y ceilin g tha t may

no t b e exceeded , notwithstandin

g an y allowabl e increment . Th e PS D progra

m provide s anadditiona l laye r o f specia l protectionfo r Federa l Clas s I areas C S,e e th e Act . _ section16 5 (d) y

Mandator

y Federa l Clas s I area s ar e nationa l park s greate r than600 0 acre s i nsize , nationa l wildernes s area s greate r than500 0 acre s i nsiz e an d othe r
area s specified i nsection162(a ) o f th e Act . Thes e Federa l Clas s I area s ar e mandator y i ntha t they

may no t b e redesignated a s an y othe r classification . Whil e al l othe r PS D area s i nth e countr y ver e initiall y

designated a s Clas s I I areas,<Cth

e Act , sectio

n16 2 (b£

y Federa l land s no t alread y (^£). designate d a s Clas s I area s unde r sectio n162(a ) may

b e redesignate d a s Clas s I areas . ('Th e Act , section1647 ^ ( h b,

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e FREAM_l.ll6 ] *• •

I-JJ^-TKI V yV

*21. 

# J.- :zzf^-P.4 4

" S •••''''.-'• •'• '• ' 7 1'3'V

- • v -c'~ r -'--T-Jp--Z..'''--i. : -,7.7 •

725 7 ••'"-• / .•.".••• • Th e Federa l Lan

d Manage r (FLM) 9 1 an d th e Federa l officia l charged wit hdirec t responsibilit y fo r managemen t
o f an y Federa l land s vithi na Clas s I are a hav e a n "affirmativ

e responsibility " t o protec t th e ai r qualit y related value s (AQRV's ) (includin g visibility ) o f suc h lands . <TTh

e Act , section165(d ) {2 ) (B ^ Th e FL M protect s AQRV' s througha prescribe d statutor y rol e i n assessing th e potentia l impact s o f a propose d PS D source . (The Act , sectio n165(d) (2)^0)2 ) I f a propose d sourc e doe s no t caus e
o r contribut e t o a Clas s I incremen t violation , th e FLM may , nevertheless , demonstrat e t o the satisfactionb f th e permitting authorit y tha t th e sourc e vil l have a nadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV' s o f a specifi c Federa l Clas s I are a and , i f s o demonstrated , th e PS D permi t shal l no t b e issued . Conversely , i f th e propose d sourc e vil l caus e o r contribut e t o a Clas s I incremen t violation , the n th e ovne r o r operato r
mus t demonstrat e t o th e satisfactiono f th e FL M tha t ther e vil l b e n o advers e impac t t o AQRV' s and , i f th e FL M agrees ,

3 1 Th e "Federa l Lan d Manager " i s defined a s th e Secretary o f th e departmen t vit hauthorit y ove r suc hlands , i.e. . Departmen t o f th e Interio r an d Departmen t o f Agriculture . Se e CA A S 302(i) . I t shoul d b e noted tha t FL M authority

ha s bee ndelegate d t o othe r official s vithi nthes e Departments . Fo r example , th e Assistan t Secretar

y fo r Fis han

d Wildlif e an

d Park s i s th e FL

M fo r area s unde r the jurisdictiono f th e Nationa l Park Servic e an d U.S . Fis h an d Wildlif e Service . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.4 5
XilTTTi'-S^.i---?-: ' - • '

- ' • '"' • 7 " • -•-.- . ." 2 A •• " ; '... ' ' '••'"

- "~T
. XX' X X"«L> X -



### 25 8 t h e PS D permi t ma y

b e issued.(Th e Act , sectio n 

# © 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) an d (iii i T h e Ac t provide s additiona l protectio nfo r visibilit y i nmandator y

Federa l Clas s I areas . Whil e thes e provision s onl y appl y t o visibility , the y ar e broade r tha nth e PS D progra m b y providin g direc t authorit y t o requir e reduction s
a t existin g source s tha t impai r visibilit y i nmandator y Federa l Clas s I areas . . Thes e provision s establis ha s a nationa l goa l th e preventio no f an y future , an dth e remedyin g o f an y

existing , manmad e impairmen t o f visibilit y i nmandator y

Federa l Clas s I area s (j Th e Act , _(-^o) sectio n169A(a ) (1J

_ I n1980 , th e EP A

promulgate dregulation s addressin g visibilit y

impairmen t unde r sectio n169 A o f th e Act . 4 5 F R 80084 , Decembe r 2 , 1980 . I nbroa doutline , th e regulation s require daffecte dState s t o (1 ) coordinat e developmen t o f SIP s vit happropriat e FLM's ; (2 ) develo pa progra m t o asses s
a n dremed y

visibilit y

impairmen t fro m

ne v an dexistin g
sources ; an d (3 ) develo pa long-ter m strateg y

t o assur e reasonabl e progres s tovar dth e nationa l visibilit y goal . 4 0 CF RPar t 51 , subpar t P . • • '» . I nth e preambl e t o th e 198 0 regulations , th e EP A state d tha t i t voul dimplemen t sectio n169 A i nphases . Phas e I include dth e contro l o f visibilit y impairmen t "tha t ca nb e PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam e FREAM^l.116 ] *• *

•:.' • " • • ' • ~ -X'X^Xv X•'...

: X- ~ 2-T.~'.'':-'Z,-y-'- •

.r'l

.
• . • - ••. C.'*.*r-?r^2 TC-^'rCC'C,..'-'"-. e -ift M ^ " ' • " * '*.'-.'- •-. - . ^CLV&-2*\---^:.-Z<*X--- - -'•.: • : •"-'••- X^3 ^ ^XvXviXT-;••,"•• .P.4 6

•'•"'•.. • 25 9 •- • -,••. " ••:.••'••• . 

### trace d t o a singl e existin g stationar y facilit y

o r smal l grou p o f existin g stationar y facilities. " 4 5 F Ra t 80085 . Th e term

o f ar t fo r thi s typ e o f impairmen t i s "reasonabl y attributable " impairment . See , e.g. . 4 0 CF R51.301(s ) an d 51.302(c)(4)(i) . Th e EP A deferre d addressin g othe r type s o f impairmen t suc ha s regiona l haze . Th e Act , a s amende d i n1990 , no v provide s fo r th e establishmen t o f interstat e region s and associate d commission s t o addres s th e potentia l interstat e transpor t o f visibility - impairin g pollutants . Se e th e Ac t sectio n169B . Th e EP A ha s establishe d a visibilit y transpor t commissio n fo r th e regio naffectin g th e Gran d Canyo nNationa l Par k an d th e othe r Clas s I area s i nth e "Golde nCircle " o f nationa l park s and vildernesse s o nth e Colorad o Plateau . C^Se e th e (^ 3 b^ Act , sectio n169B(f) ; 5 6 F R5752 2 (Nov . 12 , 1991)5 ) Thi s Gran d Canyo nVisibilit y Transpor t Commissio ni s t o issu e a repor t t o th e EP A

b y Novembe r 199 5 tha t examines , amon g othe r measures , th e promulgatio no f regulation s establishin g long rang e strategie s fo r addressin g regiona l haz e i n affecte d Clas s I areas . (JTh e Act , sectio n169B(d ) (2JT^J> (Sb 2 . Improvin g Protectio no f Air Qualit y Relate d Value s i nClas s I Area s / Ove r th e pas t severa l year s Congres s and th e FLM' s hav e expresse d increasin g concer nvit hth e ai r pollutio nrelate d PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.4 7

26 0 impact s being observed an d documente d i nClas s I area s an d th e failur e o f CleanAi r Ac t program s t o adequatel y protec t Clas s I areas . Th e U.S . Genera l Accounting Offic e ha s issued report s addressin g thes e issues , /se e U.S . Genera l Accounting Offic e Repor t t o th e Chairman , Environment , Energy , an

d Natura l Resource s Subcommittee , Committe e o n Governmen t Operations , Hous e o f Representatives , "Ai r Pollution : Protectin g Park s an

d Wildernes s fro

m Nearb y PollutionSources " (Februar y 7 , 1990 ) reprinted l n 13 6 Cong . Rec . S2879-288 0 (Marc h21 , 1990) ; U.S . Genera l Accounting Offic e Testimon

y befor e the Environment , Energ y an d Natura l Resource s Subcommittee , Committe e onGovernmen t Operations , Hous e o f Representatives , "Ai r Pollution : Regiona l Approache s Ar e Needed t o Protec t Visibilit y i nNationa l Park s an

d Wildernes s Areas " (Apri l 29 , 1994 ) federa l Lan

d Manager s have sough t t o protec t Federa l Clas s I area s by , amon g othe r efforts , identifyin g concern s abou t th e potentia l impact s associated vit hemission s fro m
nev sourc e growth . Permittin g authoritie s examining permi t application s i nth e fac e o f objection s b y FLM' s have complained t o th e EP A abou t th e lac k o f ,guidance onClas s I
are a protectionan d th e consideratio

ntha t shoul d be give n t o FLMs ' concerns . Similarly , FLM' s have indicated tha t thei r failur e t o receive timel y notic e o f relevan t permi t PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *ZJTJ'ZTTZ. •'"'••• ' ' " T^J"ZZ'"'"'-- JJ' T : '..j'-T'-'-TJ

'.J' • ' Z^Z^^^f^zZ^- Z : " > 2 6 1 •-.'';'''••;

• /• ' ••'••« % '•

\ .•••. , " i , ' application s ha s undermined thei r abilit y t o exercis e thei r affirmative responsibilit y t o protec t Clas s I area s an d tha t permitting authoritie s have give ninsufficien t weigh t t o
concern s o f FLM's . Recen t permi t controversie s associate d vit hth e Departmen t o f th e Interior' s effort s t o protec t th e AQRV' s
o f ShenandoahNationa l Par k ar e illustrative . Th e FL M conclude d tha t curren t ai r pollutionlevel s ver e causing visibilit y

impairment , acidificationo f aquati c ecosystems , an d folia r injur

y an d significan t grovt han d yiel d reduction s i nsensitiv e species . (

Se e generally . 5 5 F R3840 3 (Sept . 18 , 1990)^f ) Th e FL M concluded that^EEe'additiona l emission s associated wit hnev sourc e grovt hvoul d exacerbat e th e impact s onresource s tha t ver e alread y adversel y affected . Th e FL

M determined , unde r section165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) o f th e Act , tha t severa l propose d facilitie s i nVirgini a voul d have anadvers e impac t onth e AQRV' s o f Shenandoa hNationa l Par k an d recommended tha t Virgini a no t issue PS D permit s fo r th e source s unles s
measure s ver e take nt o mitigat e thei r impacts .

3 3 A s t o visibility , th e Departmen t had,alread y determine d tha t advers e impact s existed a t Shenandoa hNationa l Park , ge e Novembe r 14 , 198 5 lette r fro m Actin g Deput y

Asst . Secretar

y fo r Fis han d Wildlif e an

d Parks , U.S . Departmen t o f th e Interio r t o Acting Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiation , U.S . EPA ; se e als o 5 2 FR7802 , 7804 , Marc h12 , 1987 . PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

.•V-rri . •P.4 9

'26 3 i nClas s I area s are , i nlarg e part , attributabl e t o emission s fro

m existin

g source s i t becam e clea r tha t certai n issue s associate d vit hClas s I area s coul d no t b e resolve d throug hchange s t o th e PS D program . Therefore , th e Subcommitte e established a fourt hsubgrou p t o examin e strategie s fo r addressin g th e impac t tha t existing source s have o nClas s I areas . Base d o nth e wor k o f thes e subgroups , th e Subcommitte e agree d upona numbe r o f recommendation s vhic hver e adopted b y th e CAAA

C an d transmitted t o th e EPA . Hovever , fo r som e issue s vhic hproved t o b e mor e controversial , consensu s fo r specifi c recommendation s coul d no t b e reached . 1 . Procedure s an

d Coordination . Th e CAAAC' s firs t serie s o f recommendation s focu s o n vay s t o bette r coordinat e th e role s o f th e FLM , th e permitting authorities , permi t applicants , an d th e genera l publi c t o ensur e tha t Clas s I are a issue s ar e raise d an d addresse d i na . timel y an d appropriat e manner . a . Th e EP

A shoul d issu

e guidanc e t o facilitat e th e earl v involvemen t o f the FL M i nth e PS D permitting process . Thi s recommendationinclude s tv o specifi c action s vhic h enabl e th e FL

M t o identif^QcnoviQcias s i f are a issue s prio r t o th e tim

e vhe nth e ovne r o r operato r o f a sourc e formall y submit s a PS D permi t application . First , th e recommendation PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *.ll^X^^r X ' ?Z...xZ'~7A --A-, ••-•-•.fe

- '• A-:-- -.. T/Z

i ZJZ A.. >•". ' •A7*-Sl&£W'TT~'~ -: ZTJ*-- -^?'-* e X -:. ATT^TuTA :'y^TT-JZZJATJJ- -:T.^7T' f '2Ac '"

•'• • >V—^-•••V:* ^ - - P.5 0

' '; •'•:.. ,281'-

. o r phon e cal l fro

m th e permittin

g authorit y

t o th e FL

M ma y b e appropriat e vher e th e informationabou t th e potentia l projec t i s onl y

very preliminary . Thes e propose d revision s ar e simila r t o th e existing pre-applicationnotificationrequiremen t a t section52.21(p)(l ) vhic hcall s fo r the Administrato r t o notif y th e FL M vithi n3 0 day s o f receip t o f an y advanc e notificationo f a PS D permi t applicationfo r a propose d
source , "the emission s fro m vhic hmay

affec t a Clas s I
t • area. " By

contrast , sectio

n51.16 6 currentl y contain s n o requiremen t fo r th e permitting authority t o provid e pre applicationnotificationt o FLM's . Accordingly , th e EP A i s proposing t o establis hanentirel y nev pre-application notificationrequiremen t fo r Stat e PS D programs , an d i s proposing t o clarif y th e existin

g notification procedure s unde r th e Federa l PS D regulation s b y stipulatin

g tha t th e mandatory

notificationmus t appl y t o an y advanc e notificationinvolvin g a sourc e tha t voul d construc t vithi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e permitting authority—-eithe r th e EP A o r th e applicabl e Stat e o r loca l agency—wil l b e required t o notif y an y affecte d FL

M vithi n.

• / ' ' 3 0 day s o f receip t o f an y suc hadvanc e notification o f a PS D permi t application , /fiee . proposed section51.166(p)(1)(iv)(A ) an d sectio

n52.2 1 (p)(1)(iv)(A ) PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y * W Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

•/•A > v

. - . •_. • •_• • ,. :

- '••'-• .xA": •_'• ".

_• x ••''•JAr:.^&T* 7 *WA''r '~TA:^'- •;• J •'••'. --- • •,f.'-r'22 : \--~ '•' .- X '.'X

. ' X .-.- • .'!' A ^f^'iiS^^VX'-l^r-'iis ^ •^•:

- '< X '•

- A,A Ay TT

J'J-. •: •. -•• ZT-J- - AZ^^TJ.Jr-T^JJJxZA ' \ '.-• .- " "••-.•:••'

• T'' A. : '•'•• X'

. .•';'•'

. 'J<-.y.--':Z..jTAZT&T\AAAT2.yT7^7T2JZj. A X

. ',' 7 -T

T ZyT2Z

: ]ZTATZ.. '- AZZ-4:T2AZ..A7JZJ; ; ::> pT^§^^2^^^^'W: X • • •• :

• • •;: • -X- ; ,y"

- --rr-'Z

-AZZ. T'

• ZT. X v • ' • .''"J- T 7 i%*^^X';X?&$>.* ^ --^xTZ^Z^^iAZ •'^P.5 1 •^^^^^^•Ux

- %:XX-..
. -T3,,.;.. V ',, : V-X;X-~; ' -T.^[J TCZT-XAJZJ

~T''Z:^''JJZ'T

••• •

• AAZAZZTZ

Z 'ZZ ; •:•'••"•:•''••.•;

y-^-ATA

- v-x-x% x .Z. - : J;Z

L ; x ' ^yT^'^^^Ayl/T-:-"'^

.. • 

### '"'.''-. • ••''•

" "'• ' 'T

28 7 ' ' . ../..• that , whe na FL M

allege s tha t a propose dsource' s emission s
ma y affec t th e ai r qualit y i n a Federa l Clas s I area , a t a minimum , eac hpermi t applicatio nmus t includ e informatio no n th e ai r qualit y

impact s (ambien t pollutan t concentration s fo r affecte dpollutants ) an d mus t contai nsufficien t informatio nt o determin e vhethe r th e propose dsource' s emission s vil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f an y Clas s I increment / fififi propose dsectio n51.166(n)(4 ) an d *^ > sectio n52.21(n)(4 ) ^/Elsewher e i n thi s preambl e th e EP A i s als o proposin g ne w

significanc e level s fo r Clas s I increments . Thes e significanc e level s ma y b e use dt o shov . tha t th e ambien t concentration s fro m a source' s emission s
ar e insignifican t i n th e Clas s I are a an d vill , therefore , no t contribut e t o a violatio no f an y Clas s I increment . I f
a propose dsource' s emission s vil l resul t i n a significan t ai r qualit y

chang e i n th e Clas s I area , the na ful l incremen t analysi s voul db e needed . A s explaine di n sectio nV.C.2. , "Determinin g an d Documentin g Advers e Impact s i n Clas s I Areas, " th e statu s o f th e Clas s I increment s establishe s th e burde no f proo f i n term s o f vh o (th e FL M o r th e applicant ) mus t demonstrat e vhethe r th e source' s emission s vil l caus e an y advers e impact s t o ai r qualit y relate dvalue s identifie di n th e Clas s I area . I f th e applican t bear s th e burde no f PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam e PREAM

1.116 ] ** *

/
. . • -.\yc7iP.5 2

28 9 affecting Federa l Clas s I areas.^Th e Act , ~"""""""~"-< ^ {*~?~^\ ^sectio n 165(d ) (1) . ££ £ proposed section51.166(g ) (ljj I n^ - ^ moving th e existin g provisiont o it s nev locationi nth e Par t 5 1 regulations , it s coverag e o f al l PS D permi t application s vil l b e clarified . Th e scop e o f th e secon d proposed notification requiremen t i s broade r i non e respect , ye t narrowe r i n another . Th e EPA

recognize s tha t th e FLM' s ma y hav e a n interes t i nrevievin g th e potentia l ai r qualit y relate d effect s associate d vit hsource s proposin g t o locat e mor e tha n10 0 kilometer s fro m a Clas s I area . Hovever , a genera l requiremen t t o transmi t copie s o f al l permi t application s t o th e FLM' s voul d b e quit e burdensom e an d overl y

inclusive . Accordingly , th e EP A i s developin

g a specia l electroni c databas e an

d proposing t o requir e tha t a summar y o f eac hPS D permi t applicationb e entered int o thi s database . Se e propose d section5l.l66(n)(5 ) an d section52.21(n)(5) . Unde r th e PS D regulation s i npar t 51 , th e propose d requiremen t doe s no t specif y vhethe r th e applican t o r th e permitting authorit y i s t o ente r th e dat a summary . Th e EP A believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e i nthis,situation t o allo w permitting authoritie s t o exercis e thei r discretion i n determining vha t specifi c procedure s they vil l adop t an

d implemen t t o ensur e tha t th e dat a i s entered int o th e EPA' s PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 1994 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *

^ ' ;.•..' ' X ' X.XXX' ' ZrklAT'^2Zi:'i'v2y i 7T -• 29 1 X ' ^ Th e EP A i s als o proposing tha t th e FL M vil l b e afforde d
a t leas t 7 day s t o reviev th e information containe d i nth e databas e an

d t o reques t th e ful l permi t applicationi f s o desired , fieje. propose d section51.166(p ) (1 ) (ii ) an d section52.21(p)(1)(ii) . Th e propose d revision s includ e th e stipulationtha t th e permitting authorit y may procee d t o issue a determinationtha t th e applicationi s complet e an y tim e afte r th e 7-da

y perio d fo r FL

M reviev , i f th e FLM fail s t o reques t additiona l informationrelevan t t bimpact s i nth e Clas s I area . Fo r an y permi t applicationvhic hth e FL M request s vithi nth e propose d 7-da y period , th e EPA

i s proposin g tha t th e FL M b e allowed 2 1 days , fro m th e dat e o f receipt , t o revie w th e informationpertaining t o impact s i nth e Clas s I
area , t o identif y

an y concerns , an

d t o reques t additiona l relevan t information befor e a forma l completenes s determinationma y

b e mad e b

y the permitting authority , 'propose

d section51.166(p)(1)(iii) . /Th e permittin g authorit y

may issue it s completenes s determinationan y tim e (eithe r befor e
o r afte r th e 21-da y period ha s ended ) afte r th e FLM' s

, 3 I •

• ' ' comment s have bee nreceive d an d considered . A s describe d above , th e applicationshoul d contai n sufficien t informationt o determin e vhethe r th e propose d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.5 4

29 2 source' s emission s vil l caus e orTcontribut^t o a violatio n o f
an y Clas s I increment . Man y source s located a t distance s greate r tha n10 0 kilometer s fro m a Clas s I are a vil l no t significantl y

affec t suc harea . Nevertheless , th e FLM , upo n revieving th e sourc e informatio navailable , may

reques t tha t
anincremen t analysi s b e completed a s a prerequisit e fo r th e permittin

g authority' s decisiont o conside r th e application complete . Th e EP

A believe s tha t i t voul d b e i nth e bes t interes t o f th e applican t t o estimat e it s ambien t pollutan t concentration s i nth e Clas s I are a i f ther e i s an y doub t a s t o the source' s potentia l impacts . Th e EP A request s publi c comment s o nit s propose d requirement s t o improv e th e notification procedure s vhic h infor m FLM' s abou t incomin g permi t applications , an d change s vhic hclarif y

vha t constitute s a complet e application relative t o Clas s I are a impacts . I nparticular , th e EPA request s publi c comment s addressin g th e propose d requiremen t t o transmi t permi t application s t o th e FLM' s fo r an y Federa l Clas s I are a vithi n10 0 kilometer s o f the propose d sourc e o r modification . Th e appropriat e distanc e cutof f va s activel y debated during th e Subcommittee' s deliberation s an d ther e
va s muc hdiscussionabou t th e relativ e merit s o f a 100 - kilomete r versu s a 200-kilomete r cutof f point .

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e FREAM_1.116 ] ** *

•-<;• ' C'-iPY-'-

7 -cZ7f ;v : -'*$>:Aj.t

~->.;.T

:

.P.5 5



### 29 5 i t may b e substantiall y

les s bursensom

e an d costl y

t o resolve Clas s I are a concerns . I nth e fina l analysis , th e EPA i s proposing t o engag e i ndifficult , bu t necessary , iine-draving . Th e Ac t squarel y place s o n th e Administrato r th e responsibilit y t o provid e FLM' s vit hnotic e o f permi t application s fo r propose d facilitie s tha t may affec t a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e Act , section165(d)(2)(A ) ("[t]h e Administrato r shal l provid e notic e o f th e permi t applicationt o th e Federa l Lan d Manager . . . o f an y land s vithi na clas s I are a vhic hmay b e afected b

y emission s fro

m th e proposed facility." ) /se e J also , th e Act , sectio n165(d)(1 ) ("[e]ac hStat e shal l transmi t t o th e Administrato r a cop y o f eac hpermi t applicationrelating t o a majo r emittin g facilit y

received . b y suc hStat e an

d provid e notic e t o th e Administrato r o f
every actionrelated t o th e considerationo f suc hpermit.") . Th e EP A i s proposing t o establis hrequirement s tha t vil l
ensur e tha t i n virtuall y al l instance s th e FLM' s vil l have
acces s t o som

e relevan t informatio nabou t propose d PS D
sources . (2 ) FLM/Permittin

g Authorit y

Consultation \ Th e CAAA

C recommendation s als o addresse d th e importanc e
o f broade r coordinationbetveenpermitting authoritie s an d FLM's , afte r receip t o f a permi t applicationan d prio r t o a PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L BPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 1994— - [filenam e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.5 6 fTx-x-T- T

•

298 . ;•"• " involvemen t i nth e reviev o f th e permi t application ; an d a
summar y o f an y concern s raise d b y th e FLM , includin g hov th e
concern s havebee naddresse d b y th e permitting authority . Se e propose d section51.166(q)(6)(ii ) an d |ection_5^21(q ) (6 ) (ii) . Th e propose d approac hva s discussed i nth e Subcommittee' s deliberations . Th e EP A believe s tha t thi s

. provisionshoul d appl y t o an y preliminar

y determinationfo r
source s an

d modification s located vithi n10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a (fo r vhic hautomati c transmitta l o f th e permi t applicationt o th e FL M i s required) , an

d fo r source s
an d modification s whos e permi t application s ar e requested fo r revie

w b y th e FL M (base d o nth e FLM' s revie

w o f th e
summar y informatio

nrequire d t o b e entered int o the electroni c databas e describe d previously ) i naccordanc e vit h propose d paragrap

h(n)(6 ) i nbot hset s o f PS D regulations . I nthi s vay , th e permitting authority i s obligated.t o identif y

fo r th e publi c record th e natur e an d exten t o f an

y consultationvhic hma y have takenplac e vit hth e FL M i n consideration o f a potentia l source' s impact s ona Federa l Class: I area . » Again , th e EP

A i s proposingxthi s particula r approac h becaus e i t represent s a mor e flexibl e an d les s intrusiv

e va y t o encourag e coordinationbetveenpermittin g authoritie s an

d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l,116 ] ** *

-•'••' : • . ' • • -•." • I r-^fAj^T-ci&i'T; C;.'"-

. ' -:••-.• . . . - . -, • .;;• : . . A '•7^7Ax.T- : 77--':7*iXT'~ 2" iZ- •<'.-$.;..- • 29 9

FLM's . Moreover , instead o f dictating specifi c consultation requirement s tha t may o r ma y

no t mak e sens e i n particula r circumstances , publi c disclosur e o f a permitting authority' s consultationvit hFLM s vil l promot e publi c accountabilit y
an d creat e incentive s fo r appropriat e coordination . 2 . Determinin

g an d Documenting Advers e impact s i n Clas s I Area s A s noted , th e FLM s hav e a n "affirmativ e responsibility " t o protec t th e AQRV' s (includin g visibility ) associate d vit h Federa l Clas s I areas . <Th e Act , section^IB B (d ) (2 ) (B)7 \ I n /S( ^
s o doing , FLM' s ar e directe d t o consider , J. n consultation vit hth e EPA , vhethe r propose d PS D source s vil l hav e a n tyS advers e impac t o n AQRV's . Id . I f th e FL M conclude s tha t a n advers e impac t vil l occur , th e FL M ma y nee d t o demonstrat e
suc hadvers e impac t t o th e satisfaction o f th e permitting authorit y

i n orde r t o preven t th e permi t fro m being issued . Th e burde no f demonstratin g th e presenc e o r absenc e o f a n advers e impac t o

n th e AQRV' s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a depend s upon complianc e vit hth e Clas s I increments . Tha t is , i f th e proposed sourc e o r modificationvil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violationo f an incremen t i n a Federa l Clas s I area , th e FL M ha s th e burde no f demonstrating t o th e
*
. satisfactiono f th e permitting authorit y tha t a propose d

.
_'
. . , , .'-m-m'T-Jk, A. sourc e vil l hav e an advers e impac t and , i f s o demonstrated , PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.5 8

T&rZJ'*-*'T

'^•'^V^* ' *'/'Z.< "* •

" -JA'^r*'} ,\ '2-Z-'- *':-• '• ''-JZ'^x'i-r.: • '->•"' •- '•-.''.

. . -... . 7. , i -> , ^.£Vv/^>» > •*-**
. . . . " ' ' • /:

- \"*:J '• s "' t '**'
. *» ' '


### 30 2 '-Z :


### - J th e FL M receives " advanc e notificatio n fro mth e permittin g authority , o r vh o directl yrequest s tha t suc h informatio n b e provlded^yse e propose d sectio n 51.16 6 (p ) (2 ) (ii) , (iii ) an d »ectio n 52.21(p)(2)(ii) , (iii)
. ie proposa l stipulate s tha t th e FLM.shal l provid e th e affecte d permittin g authorit y
an d prospectiv e applican t a curren t listin g o f th e AQRV' s
an d othe r relevan t information , includin g sensitiv e receptor s an d critica l pollutan t loadings , fo r th e affecte d Clas s I areas . Th e FL M voul d als o b e require d t o provid e copie s o f al l previou s finding s o f advers e impac t o n AQRV' s tha t hav e bee n mad e fo r othe r PS D permi t revievs
. Th e proposa l als o provide s that , i n lie u o f providin g thi s informatio n directl yt o th e affecte d permittin g

. authorities , th e informatio n ma yinstea d b e entere d int o th e EP Adat a bas e fo r publi c availability
. Thi s databas e i s describe d i n sectio n V.C. 7 o f thi s preamble
. Hovever , th e EP Ai s no t proposin g regulation s tha t dictat e ho v th e FLMs ' identif yAQRV' s an d associate d critica l pollutan t loading s o r mak e advers e impac t determinations
. Th e EP Abelieve s tha t these r responsibilitie s ar e closel ytie d t o th e rol e o f th e FL M mandate d b yth e Act , .an d ar e a^Lso integra l t o .the managemen t
o f thos e AQRV' s unde r th e mandate s o f othe r statute s a s vei l (e.g. , Wildernes s Ac t and Organi c Act)
. Furthermore , PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y 

### ** * Novembe

r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PR£AM_l.H6 ] ** *

j - . • .£^c'< •;.*':/v H •*'- " 7

. • t.
.P.5 9

,".~.:"t
. •fciX ? l .rZ''?•••&-'&•• J

J T. UT "JTcxcA- •>•'x. *<'---i

30 3 • /X' . ' ";_ : - becaus e o f th e vid e variet y o f Federa l Clas s I areas , AQRV's , sensitivitie s o f critica l receptors , an d th e inavaliabilit y

o f dat a i nman

y cases , th e EPA

believe s tha t th e FLM s mus t hav e sufficien t latitud e t o addres s thes e issue s o na narea-by-area , a s vei l a s a permit-by-permit , basi s a s th e nee d arises . A t th e sam e time , th e EPA encourage s FLM s t o identif y AQRV' s o n a regiona l o r nationa l basi s vher e appropriate , an d t o establis hgenera l procedure s fo r identifyin

g AQRV's . A s noted belov , FLM' s have alread y accomplishe d thi s latte r goa l i npart . Th e EP A agree s vit hth e concernexpresse d b y som e member s o f th e CAAAC' s NS RRefor m Subcommitte e tha t th e FLM s shoul d b e encouraged t o provid e ampl e opportunit y fo r publi c inpu t i nth e identificatio nan d protectiono f AQRV's . I n fact , th e FLM' s have addressed thi s concerni nprocedure s alread y publishe d t o identif y an d protec t certai nAQRV's . Thes e procedure s ver e the resul t o f a publi c proces s o r expressl y

provid e fo r publi c input . \ See . eTgT T 

### r.s . 'Department o f Agricultur e "Screenin g Procedur e t o Evaluat e Effect s o f Ai r Pollutiono nEasternRegionWildernesse s Cite d a s Clas s I Ai r Qualit y Areas, " Northeaster nFores t Experimen t Station , U.S . Fores t Servic e Genera l Technica l Repor t NE-151 , (September 1991) ; U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e "Guideline' s fo r Measuring th e Physical , an d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ) ** * \

:-*Tt7.T& A$zJy.T77?Jrr--, ^.--t'.n <: 

### z^mz^pTrnT, TZATZ



### • AT 

### v..-, : y- r -. ; -.•-*

-

•/•
. - • - - P.6 0

•'•- " 309 . •-• * ' , . ' conside r suchmaput)an d decid e vhethe r th e regulation s ( 3 5 . ) shoul d specificall y addres s thes e particula r roles . I nadditio nt o th e propose d chang e t o th e timin g o f th e FLM' s submittal , th e EP A i s proposin g t o expan d th e scop e o f t h e demonstratio nunde r sectio n52.21(p)(3 ) t o includ e coverag e o f th e advers e impact s fo r an y AQRV' s tha t ma y hav e bee nidentifie d b y th e FLM . Whe nth e Federa l PS D regulation s wer e originall y promulgated , visibilit y va s th e onl y specifie d AQRV ; hovever , th e FLM' s hav e sinc e identifie d variou s ai r qualit y relate d value s fo r vhic ha n analysi s an d a demonstratio no f advers e impac t mus t b e completed .
c . Ai r qualit y

model s T h e FLM s an d PS D applicant s ofte nmus t us e model s vhic h

ar e no t specifie d i nth e EPA' s "Guidelin e o nAi r Qualit y Models " i norde r t o estimat e ambien t pollutan t concentration s i nClas s I areas . Fo r example , th e EPA' s modelin g guidanc e doe s no t contai na napprove d mode l t o estimat e ambien t concentration s resultin g fro m th e long rang e transpor t o f pollutants . I naddition , i t i s sometime s
necessar y

t o conver t ambien t concentration s t o value s tha t reflec t effect s o nspecifi c AQRV's . Question s hav e arise n abou t vhethe r specia l modelin g analyse s performe d t o asses s t h e impact s o nClas s I area s (PS D increment s an d AQRV's )
PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORXIN GDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •* * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * X•. " -.JZZ--'';>' ; HX.;X ; • c ••.••• .

Z'.'T'ZfZ.A-'---

'•-. • • .j-r.,-.. " ,<*!f

7-y : r

•••;'•'. ' •'? i 3;-.-v«7 fc "»j-;V ' • •

- \ .'• -v . -• :Ji ' :

-; '

- • •- - • • • •~-^T'.~»T-'

'tf.'^T' * c -j,-

- '•'J&fcTS*:'$?&--.. '.' • P.6 1

31 0
mus t underg o th e sam e typ e o f approva l b y EP A t o whic hth e
mor e standard analyse s fo r NAAQ S an d Clas s I I increment s ar e subjected . During subcommitte e deliberations , individua l subcommitte e member s expressed th e viev tha t an

y tool s employed i nanFLM' s analysi s o f AQRV' s shoul d b e subjecte d t o th e sam

e EP A approval s tha t ar e required fo r othe r ai r qualit y dispersionmodel s use d unde r th e PS D program . Th e EP A believe s tha t i t i s reasonabl e t o requir e tha t model s an

d technique s used fo r predictin g ambien t pollutan t concentration s i nClas s I area s b e subjec t t o th e sam e requirement s tha t appl y al l othe r ai r qualit y dispersion model s used fo r PS D purposes . Moreover , th e EP A ha s concluded tha t the applicabl e provision s i nth e existing PS D regulation s ar e broad enoug ht o suppor t thi s interpretation vithou t proposing an y changes . Unde r th e existing requirements , "[a]1 1 application s o f ai r qualit y modeling involved i nthi s subpar t shal l b e based onth e applicabl e models , dat a bases , jSngdjothe r requirement s specifie d i nth e [EP A modelin

g guidelines]. " Wher e an y suchmode l i s • inappropriate , th e regulation s provid e tha t "the mode l may b e modifie d o r anothe r mode l substituted. " Further , the— - requirement s provid e tha t whe nsuc hmodification s o r substitution s ar e proposed , vritte napprova l o f th e

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC B O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 1994 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

-..- . ; •• : ..-J ; X ; X .. . ; J '. tP.6 2

31 3 If . a propose d sourc e doe s no t caus e o r contribut e t o a n incremen t violatio ni na Federa l Clas s I area , section165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) o f th e Ac t provide s tha t th e FL M
ma y nevertheles s demonstrat e t o th e satisfaction o f th e Stat e tha t th e emission s fro m th e propose d sourc e vil l hav e
a nadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV' s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a
an d th e permi t shal l no t b e issued . Recen t permi t controversie s have underscored th e need fo r nationa l guidanc e addressing th e State' s rol e i nassessing a FLM' s advers e impac t determinationi nthes e circumstances . Th e EP A policy currentl y

provide s that , i nligh t o f th e FLM' s expertise , th e permittin g authorit y

mus t give reasonabl e considerationt o a FLM' s advers e impac t determination . Hovever , th e fina l decisionrest s vit hth e permitting authorit y an d i t ma y rejec t th e FLM' s assertion
a s lon g a s i t ha s a rationa l basi s fo r doing so . /ge e 5 0 F R [4 7 2854 9 (July

12 , 1985) ; se e als o Ol d DominionElectri c f(3 £ > Cooperative f PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 a t 8 and n . 9 (Jan . 29 c 1992 1 I nHadsonPove r 14—Buen a Vista . PS D Appea l Nos . 92-3 , 92- 4 & 92- 5 (Oct . 5 , 1992) , th e EPA' s Environmenta l Appeal s Boar d hel d tha t Virgini a erred i nsummaril y rejecting th e findin g o f th e FLM' s fo r th e Shenandoa hNationa l Par k an d

. Jame s Rive r Fac e Wildernes s tha t th e propose d facilit y voul d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *,.cT' : r'--'-.'^^2'-7'-':

~T'77'S'r- ••••.''• ^1% •"..'... -.22 'J<Z'T:/.~J*}7-.>J A AMC,.::- Z, ^2T^:jTTA^jimj^T

'"'- : '' ; P.6 3

31 7 essentiall y

th e sam

e SI P an

d permi t deficiencie s tha t th e FL M woul d pursu e directl y unde r th e firs t option . Third , ther e may

b e federa l questionjurisdictionunde r 2 8 U.S.C . section133 1 fo r Federa l court s t o entertai nclaim s brough t b y FLM' s arising unde r th e substantive and procedura l provision s o f th e Act . Th e EP A plan s t o conside r thes e option s an

d addres s thi s issu e i nth e NS RRefor m rulemaking proposal . 3 . Mitigating Advers e Impact s o nth e AQR

V o f Clas s I Area s
a . Backgroun

d I ngeneral , a PS D permi t may no t b e issued vher e th e emission s fro

m a proposed facility , vil l hav e a nadvers e impac t o

nth e AQRV' s o f a Clas s I area. T Se e th e Act , section165(d)(2)(C).^A s discusse d i nsectionV.C.2. , th e 

# (g)

burde no f proo f fo r suc hadvers e impac t demonstration s varie s depending onvhethe r th e nev sourc e o r modificatio n voul d caus e o r contribut e t o pollutan t concentration s vhic h violat e th e PS D "increments " fo r Clas s I areas . Ther e hav e bee nsevera l instance s ove r th e pas t fev

t year s vhere , i nth e absenc e o f a Clas s I incremen t / violation , th e FL

M ha s concluded tha t a'proposed sourc e voul d have anadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV' s o f a Clas s I
area . Thes e issue s have bee naddressed throughnegotiation s PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

& ' ; ; :?^V^^.^t : :•. :'•*•-. m »'\ t .."••''*•'..''*•
. *• " •31 8

betwee nth e FL

M an d th e permi t applican t and , i nothe r instances , have bee nth e subjec t o f controversia l administrativ

e litigation . Se e Ol d DominionElectri c Cooperative . PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 (Januar y 29 , 1992) ; Hadso n Pove r 14—Buen a Vista . PS D Appea l Nos . 92-3 , 92- 4 fc 92- 5 (Octobe r 5 , 1992) . A t times , negotiation s have led t o mor e amicabl e resolutiono f th e FLM' s concern s abou t a Clas s I area . Th e partie s haye negotiated measure s tha t have mitigate d th e advers e impact s o f a proposed source . Permi t applicant s have mitigated impact s b y obtainin

g emissio

nreduction s fro

m
anexistin

g sourc e tha t "offset " th e impact s o f th e propose d
source , adoptin

g mor e stringen t contro l measure s o r som e combinatio

n o f both . Fo r example , i nMultitrad e Limited Partnership . PS D Appea l Nos . 91- 2 e t ali a (Januar y 21 , 1992) , th e FL M preliminaril y

foun d tha t constructiono f a proposed ne v
sourc e voul d hav e anadvers e impac t o nth e Shenandoah Nationa l Park . Multitrade agreed t o mitigat e it s impac t throug ha combinatio

no f reduced emission s fro m th e ne v
sourc e a s originall y proposed an

d emissio

noffset s fro

m an existin g source . /Multitrad e a t 5? ) Based o nthes e changes , th e FL M concluded tha t th e emission s fro m th e propose d
source , a s modified , voul d no t have a nadvers e impac t o nth e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

### •xf^iiv" - >V;'' r ; 

### . x''. ; x.^x'.' . '^zJ-: ^r^zMAf?..^
. •

i31 9 .' • ' Shenandoa hNationa l Park . /id . 1 I nadjudicatin g a nappea l o f th e permit , th e Administrato r conclude d tha t mitigatin g th e impact s o f a propose d sourc e throug hoffsettin g emissio n reduction s a t a nexistin g sourc e "i s a reasonabl e [approach] ' fo r th e purpose s o f protectin g existin g AQRV' s pursuan t t o sectio n165(d ) (2) ." ^Jultitrad e a t 7 . nT^s V b . Genera l Polic y

for Mitigatin g Clas s I Are a Impact s A s noted , th e CAAA

C ha s recommende d th e us e o f offset s t o mitigat e th e advers e impact s o f a propose d sourc e o na Clas s I are a and ha s mad e recommendation s abou t th e amoun t
o f offset s tha t shoul d b e required . Th e CAAAC recommende d tha t vher e th e emissio noffse t rati o va s les s tha t 1:1 , a
ne t ai r qualit y

benefi t analysi s shoul d b e require d t o suppor t th e specifi c offse t rati o proposed . Th e CAAAC recommende d that , vher e th e emissio noffse t rati o i s greate r tha n1:1 , a standardize d emission/distanc e adjustmen t facto r fo r offset s coul d b e use d instea d o f demonstratin g tha t a
ne t ai r qualit y

benefi t result s fro m th e offsets . I nligh t o f th e CAAA C recommendations , th e EP A i s i n today' s notic e reaffirmin g th e Administrator' s viev s abou t th e reasonablenes s o f offset s t o mitigat e impact s o nClas s I
area s and adoptin g th e positio nstate d i nMultitrad e a s a genera l policy . Th e EP A als o agree s vit hth e CAAAC' s overarchin g concer ntha t th e EPA provid e guidanc e o n th e PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIAL BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *"'-.Z'T. 2.\.,..-,.Z7. : .--C'TIT.', •J~.::

. '•
. t.-.-~.-rz-. -IT ±.-C --•-J r-yvrfA-C

' P.6 6

32 2 mitigating Clas s I are a impact s i s th e fac t tha t on e purpos e
o f th e PS D progra m i s t o "preserve , protect , an d enhanc e th e ai r qualit y

i nnationa l parks , nationa l vildernes s
areas , nationa l monuments....' • \ Se e th e Act , sectiorTTBTTf^ . Thi s suggest s tha t emissionreduction s shoul d no t onl y offse t propose d emissionincrease s bu t "enhance " th e ai r qualit y i nClas s I areas . A genera l prohibitiono ndoubl e counting offset s use d fo r mitigatin g advers e impact s i n Clas s I areas , vhic hi s simila r t o th e section17 3 offse t requiremen t ma y

advanc e thi s purpose . I Som e restrictiononthe doubl e countin g o f emission s reduction s use d t o mitigat e advers e impact s onAQRV' s ma y b e appropriate . Fo r example , vher e anadvers e impac t .alread y exist s prio r t o th e nev impact s resultin

g fro m a propose d
nev o r modifie d source , emission s reduction s alread y require d t o b e obtained b y anothe r sourc e fo r othe r statutor

y purpose s perhap s shoul d b e counted agains t existing advers e impact s and , thus , no t credite d tovar d an y
nev contributiont o anadvers e impact . On th e othe r hand , vhe na propose d nev o r modified sourc e locatin g nea r a Clas s I area"find s itsel f required t o obtai noffset s fo r othe r purpose s (e.g. , a N0 Z sourc e required t o obtai n offset s i n
anozon e transpor t region) , i t may b e appropriat e t o allov 

# \J>

V T PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.6 7

32 3 th e propose d sourc e t o coun t th e othervis e require d offset s
a s creditabl e offset s fo r th e mitigationo f it s advers e impac t o nanAQR

V a s veil . Thus , th e EP A i s proposing t o allo v fo r certai noffsets/feuiredjunde r othe r Clea nAi r Ac t (<\\ programs t o b e credited tovard th e mitigationo f a propose d

. source' s advers e impac t o nAQRV's . Th e ke y tes t fo r allowin g case s o f doubl e countin g voul d b e tha t th e offset , althoug halread

y required b

y anothe r statutor

y provision , voul d b e required o f th e proposed source , itself . Th e EP A request s publi c comment s o n th e EPA' s propose d polic y t o allo

v certai noffset s t o b e doubl e counted fo r mitigating impact s ona Federa l Clas s I area . Th e EPA als o request s publi c commen t onvhethe r the EP A shoul d eve n provid e th e guidanc e being proposed , o r furthe r guidance , o n creditabl e mitigationoffset s o r allo v thes e issue s t o b e i decide d entirel y

a d ho c i nth e contex t o f individua l permittin

g decisions . Th e EP A believe s tha t certai nadditiona l basi c consideration s shoul d alvay s b e observed i nmitigating
sourc e impacts . Mos t importantly , emissio nlimitation s tha t

. • x . . • t
. ar e th e basi s fo r a conclusiontha t a sourc e vil l no t caus e / i anadvers e impac t mus t b e enforceabl e throug ha federally enforceabl e permit , regulationo r othe r federally enforceabl e requirement . Thi s i s a necessar y adjunc t o f PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.6 8

' «#• " : i"»?5Vr t

32 5

combinationo f both , ma y b e appropriat e t o mitigat e a propose d source' s impac t o na Clas s I area . Thi s polic y

statemen t abou t mitigationo f Clas s I are a impact s represent s aninterpretatio no f existing statutor y
an d regulator

y requirements . A

narro w reading o f th e statutor

y languag e generall y suggest s tha t a determination tha t a proposed sourc e vil l have a nadvers e impac t o na Clas s I are a result s i non e o f tvo possibl e outcomes : rejectiono f th e findin g o r a denia l o f th e particula r permit . I norde r t o avoi d thes e hars houtcomes , th e EP A ha s interpreted th e relevan t provision s broadl y i nkeeping vit h th e statutor

y goal s o f preserving , protecting , an d enhancing ai r qualit y

i nClas s I areas , an d o f providing opportunitie s fo r economi c growt htha t ar e consisten t vit hth e preservationo f existin g cleanai r resources.XSe e th e Act , f l^y section160(2 ) an

d (3). ) Specifically , measure s suc ha s emissionoffset s fro m existin

g source s represen t a reasonabl e approacht o mitigatin g th e advers e impact s on Clas s I area s tha t migh t othervis e occur fro m ne v o r modifie d sources . Th e EPA' s mitigationpolic y provide s neede d flexibilit y b y allowin

g th e ne

w Sourc e o r modificatio nt o b e constructed vhil e addressin g concern s that , absen t mitigative measures , ther e voul d b e a ne t

. advers e impac t follovin g constructiono f th e ne v source . * PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 1994 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *7

S T2 '••



# f 32 6

Th e adoptioifb f thi s policy i s als o intended t o promot e certainty

and dispatc hi nth e PS D permi t proces s b y X providin

g a clearl y

availabl e mechanism t o avoi d potentiall y contentiou s an

d protracted permitting dispute s vher e a proposed sourc e voul d othervis e hav e anadvers e impac t o n a Clas s I area .

c . Post-constructionMonitoring Th e CAAA

C recommendation s addressin g mitigationo f advers e impact s on Clas s I area s include d considerationo f post-constructionmonitoring fo r Clas s I areas . Post constructionmonitoring alone voul d no t directl y mitigat e advers e impact s o

n a Clas s I area . Hovever , suc hmonitoring
may provid e critica l informatio nabou t a source' s impac t on
a Clas s I area , includin g informatio

ntha t ma

y facilitat e mitigation . Th e EP A i s proposing t o amen d it s PS D regulation s t o clarif y tha t post-construction ambien t monitoring.ma y b e required fo r th e purpos e o f determinin g vhethe r emission s fro m a -facilit

y have,-o r ar e having , a n advers e impac t o n a

•.•/:•••-• • Federal,Clas s I area . /Se e proposed sectio n51.166(m)(2 ) an

d section52.21(m)(2) Q Th e existin g PS D regulation s currentl y requir e th e owne r o r operato r o f a majo r stationar y sourc e PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** * *P.7 0

f^mZZ- -*** * -* 1

- •'.-•'-• j. i

•^.-'•::c7-J--Z.'-'-Jx'Z'- •••-• ' '• • ••.'•
. XXi ' XL,
. -2T- r-\.~y- r

,;., • . - • ..... ; • - —• • -.- ,iC -ji.; ••~x.'-.
• - ••.•;.;•'•-:•./<.. As....- .-'. I I • •:.-3.-:^ - T : : > . "T , 3 ••' * • > • • • Tf '*.'.**' * •' . . a •

' --' • T 3 2 8 recommended tha t th e EP A identif y

a leve l o f contribution tha t i s d e minimi s o r insignificant , s o tha t a propose d
sourc e having a contributio n les s thantha t vil l kno w vit h certaint y

tha t i t vil l no t b e subjec t t o th e requirement s fo r a nincremen t analysi s l nFedera l Clas s I areas . Th e EP A believe s tha t i t i s reasonabl e t o exten d th e us e o f significanc e level s t o th e Clas s I increments . Significanc e level s ar e alread

y use d a s a matte r o f polic y i nth e PS D progra m fo r determinin

g vhethe r a proposed sourc e may b e excluded fro

m certai nrequirement s (e.g. , significan t emission s rates , an d significan t ambien t impac t level s fo r NAAQS) . (See als o discussioni nsectio nV.A.5 , belov. ) Administrativ

e agencie s ma

y exemp t "trul y

d e minimis " situation s fro

m a statutor

y comman d "vhe nth e burden s o f a regulationyiel d a gai no f trivia l o r n o value. " - Alabam a Powe r Co . v . Costle . 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 360-61^ ? C*)U>) _(D^^Cir^l9792_^/Therefore , th e EP A i s proposing t o ad d Clas s I incremen t significanc e level s t o bot hset s o f PS D regulations . Se e proposed section51.166(b)(23)(v ) an d section52.21(b)(23)(v) . Th e proposed significanc e level s voul d appl y

t o th e existin

g Clas s I increment s fo r PM-10 , SC^ , an d N0 2 i nth e PS D regulations . Th e significanc e level s woul d be used t o determine vhethe r a ne w majo r sourc e o r

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

• - ; i

. •••'

.-ik.-
. .. V

x-Ti^.'P.71

'-.'

. - y

X*-T. *..'.' * ', ;•- "' • - . r^^i.'^7i:-X!-J.C.i-_.iL '". .; , i , •-.. - •..-.• ; - .- . •••\ • .-.- •' . =5S^«l , ! "J«# , !tfl J , 3 . 1

. .-J.' J T '-T'-T ; -''•• ' '-' • ''•..'.•-...'••Jr

. i--.

. •;•-• • ,—f. XX-'—jaTi. -IIA.: — 1
. .-•.- . \ % '. . ".. . ;- . ' '.I— • '-' " " - ( • 7c S'--• x-f'i-r.^v ;..-

- •,.••: , - • . ' ••,\.--r; .- • • .-.•----> » -.- . .z. •- ••.... Z'-i^>riA ; "'.'.'

• -1^-7. • •.'""' . A'--'y-7: TA : -~f.c-J "'•'' '

• X v ~^X v

'•-'"' • "*^^t^*^^ ^ ^ X '

x. 33 8 • . • ••••.'".:. .. ; . Section164(d ) o f the Ac t als o direct s th e FLM' s t o reviev al l nationa l monuments , primitive areas , an d nationa l preserve s and.recommen d appropriat e area s fo r redesignation
a s Clas s I area s vher e AQRV' s ar e importan t attribute s o f th e area , (fifi

a th e Act , section^!64(d)V ) Th e FLM' s ar e directe d t o repor t thei r recommendation s t o Congres s an d th e affected States , afte r firs t consultin g vit hth e States . Certai nFedera l land s currentl y designate d Clas s I I may onl y b e redesignated a s Clas s I . Thes e particula r Clas s I I "floor " area s include nationa l monuments , nationa l primitive
areas , nationa l preserves , nationa l recreationareas , nationa l vil d an

d sceni c rivers , nationa l vildlif e refuge s
an d nationa l lakeshore s o r seashore s vhic hexcee d 10,00 0
acre s i n siz e an

d nationa l park s an d vildernes s area s established afte r Augus t 7 , 197 7 vhic hexcee d 10,00 0 acre s i nsize . <^Se

e th e Act , sectio

n164(a) . Section164(c ) o f th e Ac t als o give s federally recognize d IndianTribes 4 0 broa d authorit y

t o redesignat e land s vithi n th e exterio r boundarie s o f reservation s a s Clas s I areas . Severa l IndianTribe s hav e alread y redesignate d land s vithi nreservationboundarie s a s Clas s I

x . X• • - • .?•'' • " : ' • areas . Th e Northern Cheyenne IndianReservation , th e $

40 Th e Departmen t o f Interio r periodicall y publishe s a lis t o f Federally-recognized Tribes . Se e 5 8 F R 5436 4 (Oct . 21 , 1993) . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

Z-i^i!\-Z '•'-...• £• ":•'• •" • • AA-.' Ti.y:r.rrffC\.f*'\... -. . ••u^.-.T.r ."•C-.-Ai ;•'.o:/--\ - . .' : - >. -P.7 2



### 33 9 Flathea d India nReservation , th e For t Pec k India n Reservatio nan d th e Spokan e India nReservatio nhav e bee n redesignate d a s Clas s I area s fo r th e purpose s o f th e PS D program. (^SSS
. section s 52.1382(c ) and 52.2497> v • • (3C>

> (2 ) Statu s o f AQR

V Protectio nfo r Land s Redesignate d
a s Clas s I Area s Th e Ac t provide s specia l protectio nfo r th e "natura l values " o f "nationa l resource[s]."(^S . Rep . No . 127 , 95th

_ Cong. , 1s t Sess . 3 4 (1977)" } Thes e area s ar e th e "federally-owne d clas s I areas. " /"s^RepTNo.12 7 a t 34 A (}(*> Th e FLM and th e Federa l officia l charge d vit hdirec t responsibilit y

fo r th e managemen t o f suc hland s hav e a n affirmativ e responsibilit y t o protec t th e AQRV' s o f suc h lands . ^jejPEK e Act , sectio n165(d ) (2 ) (B ^ - QQ A s describe d previously , a PS D permi t shal l no t b e issue d i f a propose d sourc e vil l hav e a nadvers e impac t o n
any AQR V i na Federa l Clas s I area . Th e burde no f proo f fo r demonstratin g th e presenc e o r absenc e o f a nadvers e impac t i s determine d b

y th e Clas s I increments . Tha t is , i f a propose d sourc e o r modificatio ndoe s no t contribut e t o a violatio no f a Clas s I increment,_th e FLM bear s th e burde n
o f demonstratin g th e presenc e o f a nadvers e impact . Conversely , i f th e propose d sourc e o r modificatio ndoe s contribute , t o a violatio no f a Clas s I increment , th e burde n PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORXIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.7 3

34 0
o f demonstrating th e absenc e o f a nadvers e impac t o nanAQR V lie s vit hth e sourc e ovner/operator . Thes e provision s d o not , hovever , appl y t o reservationlands . Federally-recognized Tribe s may establis hAQRV' s fo r land s vhic hthey

redesignat e a s Clas s I area s i f the y s o desire . Moreover , th e Tribe s ma y protec t suc hAQRV' s throug ha specia l disput e resolutio nprovision , no t throug h th e specifi c authorit y tha t i s conferred onFLM' s t o protec t Federa l Clas s I areas . I f a federally-recognized Indian Trib e determine s tha t a proposed PS D permi t i n a Stat e vil l
caus e o r contribut e t o a violationo f a Clas s I incremen t o n it s reservation , th e Tribe may reques t tha t th e * Administrato r ente r int o disput e resolutionnegotiation s vit hth e partie s involved. f Se e th e Act , section164(e ] [als o 4 0 CFRsectio n52.21(t ) ]. V

I f requested b

y th e Tribe , th e Administrato r mus t mak e a recommendatio nt o resolve th e / disput e an

d protec t the AQRV' s o f the land s involved . . ^t u' Tribe s may

therefor e establis hAQRV' s fo r thei r land s
an d may protec t thos e value s b y invokin

g th e EPA' s involvemen t i nPS D permi t dispute s a s provided i n section164(e ) o f th e Act . Th e Ac t als o allow s State s t o similarl y

invoke thes e disput e resolutio nprovisions . T o clarif y

thes e issues , the EP A i s proposing definition s o f th e terms "Federa l clas s I area " an d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORXIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *"•YTZ'-^Z -" : ." 34 1 - ; " '- . '•'.••'

•••:- ' - .•--' • • • •.'•'."••:' • ' x " • •• :

"mandator

y Federa l clas s I area, " an d i s making necessar y implementin

g change s t o section s 51.16 6 an d 52.21 . Th e disput e resolutionprovision , i s currentl y codified a t sectio n52.21(t) ; hovever , n o simila r provisioni s currentl y containe d i nth e Par t 5 1 PS D regulation s applicabl e t o Stat e PS D programs . Therefore , th e EP A i s toda

y proposing tha t th e disput e resolutionprocedure s se t fort hi n th e Ac t b e added t o section51.166./^Se e proposed-seotien S*TTS6( t

r , Th e EP A request s publi c comment s o nth e preceeding discussionaddressin g vhethe r AQRV' s ma y b e identified fo r redesignate d Clas s I area s vithi nth e exterio r boundarie s o f
a reservationan

d addressin

g th e manne r i nvhic hsuc hvalue s
may b e protected . Th e EP A als o request s comment s o nth e proposed definition s t o reflec t th e resultin g distinction s betvee nmandator

y Federa l Clas s I areas , Federa l Clas s I
area s an

d "non-Federal " Clas s I area s (i.e. , no t unde r th e jurisdictiono f a FLM) . 6 . Strategie s t o Addres s th e Impac t o f Existing Source s o nClas s I Areas . A s noted , th e CAAAC' s NS RSubcommitte e ha s discusse d

.'..••'. ' • * an d identified severa l differen t option s t o addres s th e impact s o nth e AQRV' s o f Clas s I area s attributabl e to . existin g sources . Whil e th e Subcommitte e ha s no t mad e specifi c recommendations , th e option s i t identified ver e PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y' ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

XX''.--;. ' • ••'•>J-.2Z.2Z2.- t ~\. T\; AT • -• ~.Z'•."'", •

.. . ;.--
- •—rx: t y:.7y; Cj-^if.^±T*r-r--. .--.%•"*'• •"

- 'P.7 5

«*?^wHiftii' ! S • * .-'.• "•' '••'•

'.' V -.:'"rZi ;*?•-". .&;-...
.. ' AZxJ-f7:. 7 •• • .- " •..,- • X : • .7*7T J

Z-7

. ': '•:.;•••• ' ...

- T'^T^^TrA^TiAATZ'-A .-.*•;•;- •.':*->="•<. : ' - ' -f.rX<irm..r'f 7. •••". •'r'.i:-- 

# PT

: 

# S^J?t00c^^^^^^^H

x,.,x.AT?7<J

: '.f2-&'t;r : •

'34 2 '•.•'- . •*-'-' : :;••••'-.•• • generall y

directed a t th e folloving ai r quality-relate d problems i n Clas s I areas : (1 ) regiona l visibilit y impairment , (2 ) aci d deposition , an d (3 ) ozon e damage . Th e EP A ha s recentl y

identified strategie s tha t i t intend s 3 ' , • ' X * t o pursu e ove r th e nex t fe v year s t o protec t an d improv

e ai r qualit y i n Federa l Clas s I areas . Thes e strategies , a s described belov , focu s primaril y o n th e contribution existin g source s mak e t o Federa l Clas s I are a ai r qualit y >an d addres s th e thre e majo r area s o f concer n identified b

y th e Subcommittee . A s noted , th e Ac t call s for th e Gran d CanyonVisibilit y Transpor t Commissio nt o issue a repor t t o th e EPA b y Novembe r 199 5 tha t examines , amon g othe r measures , th e promulgationo f regulation s establishin g lon g rang e strategie s fo r addressin g regiona l haze . T o b e prepare d t o
mov e expeditiousl y onc e th e EP

A receive s thes e recommendations , the EP A plan s t o initiat e th e technica l activitie s needed t o analyz e the appropriat e scop e an d component s o f a regiona l haz e rulemaking . Thus , th e EPA' s immediat e effor t Vil l focu s on * developing th e technica l tool s fo r regiona l haz e planning . f
. Th e nex t step vil l entai l developmen t o f policy option s fo r addressin

g regiona l haz e an d vil l involv

e considerationo f th e Gran

d CanyonVisibilit y Transpor t Commission' s PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL . EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 ~3[filenamePREAH_1.116 ] ** *

• i '- ' : A'lX''

r-";.';-. ' "'•?>.'• - •'•'• ^>~#*i3ir^XX*^/r.--..X-'''" '
.35 0

available , preconstructionmonitorin g canb e usefu l i n establishin

g backgroun

d ai r quality . Th e EP A believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e t o reevaluat e th e regulator

y requiremen t fo r preconstructionmonitoring fo r propose d PS D constructionvher e th e ai r qualit y dat a
canno t feasibl y

b e use d i nth e analysi s o f a source' s impac t upo nai r qualit y

standard s accordin g t o th e EPA

rule s an

d guidance . Th e preconstructionmonitoring requiremen t obligate s a considerabl e amoun t o f an applicant' s resource s
an d ofte nresult s i nsignifican t tim e delay s i n submitting it s permi t application . Th e EP A i s therefor e requesting publi c commen t onth e appropriatenes s o f providing a regulator

y exemptio

nfor som

e case s fro

m PS D preconstruction monitoring . An

y comment s shoul d identif y th e circumstance s vher e a nexemptio

ni s appropriate , an d vher e i t i s inappropriate . Wher e possible , comments^accompanledAshoul d b e accompanied b

y technica l an

d lega l justification fo r providing anexemption . Recommendation s fo r continuing
» preconstructionmonitorin g shoul d b e accompanied vit ha descriptiono f the environmenta l benefi t o f suc hsourc e specifi c monitoring i f possible . ~

PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.7 7

XZ.-^ ff-.^rX.. .A*.-- .. ' .,££.-..\r.-Z7*-- ...•-.' - -r• . . • ' < " --v- ~ C.'—- -Tf

••. .-- rr',- •-- Ac C"C:'ICT. •$'•*--''•-*-•* -•-•• •r-'V'- .' . . - . -'••••-;•—i^'^.' - •?. , • -r• T- •. .... ...*-.-r::r-ir*tf.\.aT,..tf.t.. •-• ••• ••j:...'.— " CA*iV

-;',->"-y- x, :~.&^'&i;Tr~'X-.>-rU7;T AT2y-TT - : .7. ••-•"

'•'AT^^zyfyTrA'Av-A'-A

• 352
. ' ' :•:"'•'- •:-:'.;•_
. ••>. ' > 

### transcrip t o f th e publi c hearin g an d writte nstatement s vil l b e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio nand copyin g durin g norma l vorkin g hour s at th e EPA' s Ai r Docke t i nWashington , D.C . (Se e ADDRESSE S sectio no f thi s preamble. ) C . Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t Revie v Unde r Executiv e Orde r 12866 , (5 8 F R5173 5 (Octobe r 4 , 1993) ) th e Agenc y

mus t determin e vhethe r th e regulator y actio ni s "significant " and therefor e subjec t t o OM B revie v
and th e requirement s o f th e Executiv e Order . Th e Orde r define s "significan t regulator y action " a s on e tha t i s likel y t o resul t i na rul e tha t may : (1 ) Hav e a nannua l effec t o nth e econom y o f $10 0 millio no r mor e o r adversel y affec t in, a materia l wa y th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , publi c healt ho r safety , o r State , local,o r triba l government s o r communities ; (2 ) Creat e a seriou s inconsistenc y o r otherwis e interfer e vit ha nactio ntake no r plahne d by anothe r agency ; (3 ) Materiall y

alte r th e budgetar y impac t o f entitlements , grants , use r fees , o r loa nprogram s o r th e right s and obligation s o f recipient s thereof ; o r (4 ) Rais e nove l lega l o r polic y issue s arisin g ou t o f lega l mandates , th e President' s priorities , o r th e principle s se t fort hi nth e Executiv e Order . Pursuan t t o th e term s o f th e Executiv e Orde r 12866 , i t

/''•'•••' ' 

### ha s bee ndetermine d tha t thi s rul e i s a '"significan t

' " & 

### regulator y

action " because , ma y adversel y

affec t i na .' ' • JA , - '''• • X materia l va y

th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *

AV : .-* > it-.-.'Jj

,"• „ ,-.:.-•• '-'..'

"r--M:_

. AgZ'Tz;-. •: :'J.TT- •

' - -T%

'tA'*'-:'-r- •"'"

* J '•' : T'-"f

• '" ; V . Zj.->^. ''• '•.-!>'»• - -- -' . • *' — X' ; X- 'A.i"'-..

. - X Z-ZATyJZciATAS^TAjT-Z - y7A.y : 7.7.AA,AmmZ^T^mZ:y2AA :

- • 

### T-.'-vy

- A: ZZ.T^MTJtJ.'Zi 'A-Af-'c ' '"