p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

6) ll-F-48 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 6 of 45 
Would you 

kindly 

see that 

this gets to 

the right 

person? 

A -96-37 

P.2 

OFFICE 0 ? MAXAOBBNT AKD BUDGET 

orrzcz or XHTORHATZOH AXD REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

DATE: 

•*-= -

SEHDERs -AjL.-E5£i 

TO I <4>^i ^ Cnxj->fiU^ 

AOEMCYi - • 

FROM! - •• - r 

JttCIPIEKT'S FAX NO.! 

RECIPIENT TELEPHOHE MO. I 

TOTAL HUMMER OF PAGES XHCLUDIMO COYA SBEETt 

eOXKEMT6l • -

WOTS: IF YOU DO KOT RECEIVE ALL TOE PAGES, TLEASE CALL AS SOOK 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION HO.t 202-395-7340 

OZRA FAX HO.I 202-318-7213 
P.3 

. -^2^;:^^m^TS(^& 

1 2 6 •'•.• . 

Subcommittee members recommended that EPA prohibit any 

' '''•'•. " •.' H ' • H ' • 

consideration of new or emerging technologies identified after 

the, permit application is complete. Other members recommended 

that BPA not allow any limitations on consideration of neW or 

emerging technologies prior to the end of the public comment 

period oh a permit application. The EPA ia proposing new 

regulatory provisions that would authorize the permitting 

authority- to cut-off .consideration of technologies that devolve or 

appear' after the permit application is complete. 

fcommenter provides information about a new, technology that 

i.s further consideration. See proposed sections 

51.16.5(a) (2) (ii) (E) and (a) (7) (iii)-, Sl. 166 (j)' ($) (iii) and (q) (3) 

and 52.21 (j).(5)'(iii) and (q) (3) . 

•..' Under the. proposed rules, the permitting authority may 

require commenters to submit a recommendation, accompanied by 

.reasonably, available information, regarding new or emerging, 

control technologies with their recommendations. This 

information could include, the name and location of the source ' 

'.utilizing the control technology, the .manufacturer and type of 

control device, the date on which the technology was installed 

and became operational; and performance requirements and any • 

resulting test or performance data'available. See proposed 

sections 51.1.65 (a.) (7) (ii) and 51.166 (q) (2) . With regard: to the 

implementation of the Federal PSD requirements at' section 52.21, 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 5V 1995 •-.--•' [file name: Masters,29] ••* 

-? 
P.4 

•127 . .••'' • 

the EPA is proposing to require that public commenters. include 

the above information along with any recommendation for further 

consideration of new control technology alternatives. See 

proposed section 52.21(q)(2). 

It should be noted that the existing NSR regulations at 

section 51.165(a) do not contain an explicit provision for public 

participation procedures as do the-PSD regulations in 

parts'51 and 52. Nevertheless, the public participation 

procedures set forth under 40 CFR 51.161 generally apply' for Ifldfth 

major sfft/fojjb&r new source review permitting. In order to make 

clear the regulatory context for today's proposed provisions 

concerning a cutoff date and informational, requirements for 

public commenters, the EPA is today proposing to amend section 

51.165.to refer to the existing requirements at 40 CFR 51.161.. 

< 

See proposed section 51.165(a)(7). The EPA intends also to 

propose additional public participation provisions for part D NSR' 

permits in a forthcoming rulemaking designed primarily to update 

the PSD and NSR rules consistent with the 1990 Act Amendments. 

The EPA today proposes to add the provision concerning public 

recommendations on new and emerging control technologies as part 

of the new.provisions for public participation. 

The permitting authority shall.be responsible for evaluating 

the supporting documentation that has been provided by commenters 

asserting, new or emerging technologies warrant, consideration as 

n*. 

*?. 

4> 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 5, 1995 [file name: Master6.29l *** 
P.5 

130 . 

those applicants that have included a-, thorough review of control 

technologies, in their permit applications. The proposed 

regulations would require consideration of only those postcompleteness emerging technologies whose availability anc 

effectiveness are substantiated to the satisfaction of-the 

permitting authority. 

This proposal also preserves opportunity for public 

participation. In all instances, the p.ublic would have the right 

to submit comments addressing'whether all control technologies 

that were, in fact, "demonstrated in practice" prior to • 

completeness, were adequately considered in the permit 

application and. during review by the permitting authority. In 

addition, public commenters have the opportunity, to recommend new 

or emerging technologies provided that recommendations are 

accompanied with supporting information about the existence and 

capabilities of the technology. The permitting authority-would 

be required to'consider timely and documented public comments 

addressing technologies that emerge after completeness. ^ ' -

Finally, the EPA is revising its policy that sets the permit 

issuance date as the final cut-off for consideration of new and 

emerging technologies. Proposed revisions to the Federal 

regulations would.set the final cut-off at the close of the 

public comment period, unless the permit is reopened for review 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT,FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 5, 1995 [file name: Master.? .29] ***