p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 43 ) ll-J-1 0

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 43 of 142P. 2

Eedera L Registe r/

/ Vai l 5E.I56 . 112 : /

• Monday s June s 11 . 1890
- / BMbtr . and - Regulations ' 2354 7

ENViRaNMEMTALPAOTECXIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Par t 5 2 [KYMJ3T*FRt-3TSSy»T Approva l an d Ptamj/fgaObtVof ln.ptement&tl«>-PfeBatWentucky^Statg ' Regulatio n forPteventlba'o f Slgnifltan tOeferforafldf f amfcV&lWm

y Ne w Sovrc * ITeiirtii O

r Attainmen t Aress > AGENCY : EayiimnnenlalaPiotectia a Agenc y (EP^ : ACTION : Nodcao f

danfieatfci^ . SUM14AKY: In-thifl-nntisy

. KPAnJ9 clarifyin g certai n ialerpcetiv.*8ietenient » containe d i n theFedaml-Kepatar>notic* ' approviiigjswaieaj.tfl.th a Kentuck y Stat e Implementatio n PIan.(S3P);unde r th e QeajiAirAct.4atUJtaS-740tr?842 a Tha taction , rjuhdiafae

d anSepteafee s U 198 3 (54rER.3830Z^.we*«-fibainik r ap^rovin a Kfflitucl^' B regpialieBdbf c preventio n ofsigufuantrdsterioratio n (PSD) , a vuiMrty/manitarin g strategy ^ and'regiTlatinnmfbe viutdlitjfnes w sourc e revie w (NSR

) kLattammfintareaaa-Tie
purpo»oftoaax'acDttB8:i9<to.'duif 2 interpretiv e bMiguj»ffi.f*>n*nm.wi.n'tH» » earlie r notices.Toda^aaction-doeano t alte rEPA-'srarjptovaLaltherSIF-cewaiom whic h wer e thesub^eLaftncetriie r final actio n notice.,hu tjfidoeifcanpeoedf i th e intefrjretive.«tatement»:i n tha t notice. . DATE-S:Tliixnntti^isefectiiw(tn»'Tl . 1990
- 

# ¥, Til l E 1 V E LJU | UAN 2 5I99 5 |
£ EP A AI R DOCKE

T A0DRE8SS T Copie r o f thfrdacumenty relevan tt o thi s actio s are*ava?fla6Ie-fbr publi c inspectio n durin g nonna f busineayhooa'att&efiUbwinyluuatltm : Environmenta l protectio n Agency , Regio n IV , Ai r FTOgrem

* Branch , 34t

r Courtland'Stree tNE. , Atlanta , Georgi a 303BR FO RFURTHEaiNraRUATtQHCONT3kCT t Fo r InffirmnKo n regarding thi s notic e OL C clarification , contactDami a Cnimpler. . EPAa.New Source-Revie w Section. , Offic e of.Ai r Quality Plannin g and . Standards.(MQ-15)..Reaearc h Triangl e Pari^Nbrt L Carolin a 2Z711„teJephane
- (919 ) 54i-oazi,n s 629^0an»For . informatio n jegardingtheSeptember . l „ 1989 , approva l o f

Kentucky' s regjdation . fo rPSD..coniac tBUchardA,3chuUaatth e aboveRegian.I V addresse r telephone * (404 ) 347-2864 , FT S 257-2864. . suPM-EMorrBjr

y iiw-ORi«Ttoi r Followin g a Decembe r 3T £ 1985 . publf

c hearinyi n ccmf6nmly^wtt4?GF R 51.102:{pT8v4.ra84y.4B-GF R5K47 , th * CommonwOTdt

b ofXenftic&y' s Ffetura

T Resource s an d Environmental Cabinet ' P^EPQ,adnnTaedJaBgnlailiOT.diange » involvimyESDia n visibilityran d subrnfltectitlie

m taEP A onFebrnary-20 ; 1988 ? iu c approval'aaimpieroent&t i an- ' pla n reraima . EPA.pxopo«Bdto^pprov e th e reytssBisa n MurciiI7',-IB87 (S7FR ; 8311) . The&nA acnonnoticwo f Septemberi;i93ir(5*ER'363B7T ; finalized : tba tapprova tSpeaScafly, , EMfefwmd tha tKentaeky-' s regulations
fo rPS D (ImiudinaFatack : height » and ! dispersio n tednriqueef

, \risftiiilt y monitorirjg^and'viiibilit j ne w sourc e rewewLin-attainnienllarefl.* are-adequate " t o meettheretpriremenfMontafnet f Iir4 © CF R5rT6fl.5T.305 ; an d ta.387T.a J and-rd) ; res]je<^^VvSee 5*F R3J-3Trt-TT . Tb e DisputedTLanguaga.in:EPAf & ApurosaLo i Kentucky's . SI P Revisions . Th e SeptemBerf

, 1985 Rnotic e describe d EEft? * vie w oftfieTefatidnsfii p betwee n ERA-an

d the-sta^tes-nnder-the Cleat-Ai r Act , an d o f

ih e legal:effec to f EPA' s approval o f

SI Pmeasure s implementBiS'Vtmbus-TJrogram s unde r thetA* * See-5*FTT38307-08 s EF A pofirted : onf

tha ti n adoptingthe-dea n Ai rAct : Cbngretw-designatedEP A aa th e agenc y piiiuarfl y respomrible-fbr interpreting ; the-Ac ttBtd'ovemeihg-it a implementatio n b y the-states . EP A also note d that-it-'mus

tapprarestete * program s thatmeetthe-requirementgof ' 4 0 GFRpartSl 1

. However , th e Agency
algQTefegetfto'th'e'verycompre x an d dynafflioTiatum-of

th e Act' s PSD 1 requirement * (including * tad c heights ' an d oHs^ereiorrftdiniquew) , and'new
sourc e reviewand visibilityprograans : 

# 4 -«?o- M

### "23538
- feflera i KBglBlO r / Vol . 55 . NO . ll Z / Monday , Jun e ii., xaa u f num a uu u ncguiuumi a P. 3
Consequently , EP

A noted , i twoul d b e administrativel y impracticabl e an d legall y unnecessar y t o includ e al l statutory interpretation s i n th e EP A regulation s an d th e SIP

s of th e variou s states , ort o amen d th e regulation s an d th e SIP s everytim e EP

A interprets th e statut e orregulation s orissue s guidanc e regarding th e prope rimplementatio n of th e NSRprogram . Rather , EP A maintaine d thatfedera l approval o f thes e NSR-relate d regulation s an d narrativ e a s parto f

th e Kentucky SI

P require d th e stat e t o follo w EPA' s currentan d future interpretation s o f th e Act' s provision s an d regulations , a s wel l a s EPA' s operatin g policie s an d guidance , butonl y t o th e exten ttha t suc h policie s ar e intende d t o guid e th e implementatio n o f

approve d stat e NS R programs . I

n makin g thi s assertion . EP A wa s careful t

o emphasiz e tha ta s a matte ro f cours e an y fundamental change s i n th e administratio n o f NS R woul d hav e t o b e accomplishe d through amendment s t o th e regulation s i n 4 0 CF Rpar t5 1 an d subsequen tSI

P revisions . EP A the n explaine d th e consequence s o f it s approval o f

thes e portion s o f Kentucky' s NS Rprograms i n ligh tof th e Agency' s view s regarding th e federal
stat e relationshi p unde rth e Ac tEP A note d thati twil l continu e t o overse e implementatio n o f

thi s importan t progra m b y reviewing an d commentin g upo n propose d permit s a s appropriate . Specifically , EP

A stated , i twil l commen t upo n propose d permit s thatd o no t implemen tth e lette ro f

th e law , a s wel l a s EPA' s statutor y an d regulatory interpretation s an d applicabl e guidance . I f a final permi ti s issue d whic h stil l doe s no treflectconsideratio n o f th e relevan tfactors . EP

A state d tha ti tma y vie w th e permi ta s inadequat e fo r purpose s of

implementin g th e requirements o i th e Ac tan d Kentucky' s SIP, an d ma y conside renforcemen t actio n unde rSection s 11 3 an d 18 7 o f th e Ac tt o addres s th e permi tdeficiency . Kentucky' s Lett s o l Novembe r17,1S8 9 O n Novembe r17,1989 , Mr. Willia m C Eddins . Director . Diviaio n o f Ai rQuality , NREP C submitte d a lette rregardin g th e preambl e languag e i n th e Septembe r1 , 198 9 notic e discusse d above . NREP C state d thata n agreemen tb y th e stat e t o compl y wit h future guideline s an d policie s adopte d b y EP

A woul d b e a delegatio n o

f legislativ e powe r prohibite d b y th e stat e constitution , an d sough tt o clarif y certai n point s regardin g th e Septembe r1 Federa l Registe rnotice . In addition , NREP C state d tha tEP A shoul d refrain fro m usin g policie s an d guideline s t o implemen tsubstantiv e change s t o regulator y an d statutory requirements . Litigatio n Regardin g th e Septembe r1 , 198 9 Notic e A compan y sough tjudicial review o f th e interpretiv e languag e i n th e Septembe r1,1989 , Federa l Registe r notice . Westvaco Corp. v . EPA, No . 89
- 397 5 (6t h Cir.) . I n it s brief

. Westvac o asserted , interalia, thatth e interpretiv e languag e i n questio n constitute d a n imprope rimpositio n o

f bindin g regulatory requirements withou tprope r rulemakin g procedures . EPA Clarificatio n o f

Interpretiv e Languag e i n th e Septembe rX, 188 9 Notic e NREP C an d Westvac o apparenti y hav e misinterprete d both th e purpos e an d effec tof

th e languag e i n question . In response t o th e concern s expresse d b y NREPC an d Westvaco , EP A toda y clarifie s tha ti tdi d no tinten d t o sugges t tha tKentucky i s require d t o follo w EPA' s interpretation s an d guidanc e issue d unde rth e Clea n Ai rAc ti n th e sens e tha tthos e pronouncements hav e independen tstatu s a s enforceabl e provision s o f

th e Kentuck

y SIP. suc h tha tmer e failur e t o follo w suc h pronouncements , standin g alone , woul d constitut e a violatio n o f

th e Clea n Ai r Act . Rather , a s discusse d below , EPA' s inten twa s merel y t o plac e th e stat e an d th e publi c a tlarg e a n notic e o f EPA' s longstandin g view s tha tth e Agenc y mus tcontinu e t o overse e an d enforc e th e NS Rprovision s o f

th e Ac tfollowin g approva l o f

a stat e program . A such , strictl y speakin g th e languag e i n questio n wa s neithe rparto f no ra conditio n of

EPA' s approval o f Kentucky' s SIP, an d i tha s n o bindin g effec tRathe rtha n creatin g ne w rights o robligations , i tadvise d th e publi c o f EPA' s view s regarding obligation s tha t alread y exis tb y operatio n o f th e statutor y scheme . Th e issuanc e o f

NSRpermits an d othe raction s b y th e stat e i n th e administratio n of

th e federal Qea n Ai r Ac tmus tconfor

m t o th e requirements o f th e Ac tan d th e SIP. Se e sectio n 16 7 an d 113.4 2 U.S. C 7477 an d 7413 . In makin g judgments a s t o wha tconstitute s complianc e wit h th e Ac tan d regulation s issue d thereunder , EP

A look s t o (amon g othe rsources ) it s polic y statement s an d interpretiv e ruling s i n effec ta tth e tim e o f EPA' 8 actio n regarding thos e statutor y an d regulatory requirements . Itfollow s tha tstat e action s implementin g th e federal Clea n Ai r Ac t whic h d o no tconfor

m t o th e Ac tma y lea d t o potentia l enforcementactio n b y EPA . However , i n defendin g agains t suc h a n enforcemen taction , a part y i s free t o asser ttha tEP A ha s no t reasonabl y interprete d th e underlyin g statutor y an d regulatory provisions . EPA' s approval of

a stat e NS R progra m o rsom e portio n of

i tdoe s no t dives tth e Agenc y of

th e dut y t o continu e a vigorou s oversigh tan d enforcemen trol e unde rsection s 16 7 an d 113 . Fo rexample , sectio n 18 7 provide s tha tEP A shal l tak e whateve r enforcemen tactio n ma y b e necessar y t o preven tconstructio n of

a majo r stationar y sourc e tha tdoe s no t "confor m t o th e requirement

s o r th e PS D program . Thus , a s t o PSD , th e purpos e o f

th e preambl e languag e i n th e Septembe r1 notic e wa s t o advis e Kentuck y an d th e publi c of EPA' s vie w tha tapprova l of

a Btate' s PSD progra

m doe s no tba r EP

A from decidin g whethe r a state-issue d PSD permitconform s t o th e Act' s PS D requirements . Followin g SI

P approval , then . EP

A remains a s th e congressionall y designate d agenc y wit h primar y responsibilit y t o interpre tth e federa l la w unde rth e Ac tan d t o bas e it s enforcemen taction s o n thos e interpretativ e rulings . I

f EP A determine s tha ta state-issue d permi tdoe s no t confor m t o th e Act' s PSD requirements. EP A wil l decid e whethe rt o su e th e stat e and/o rdi e sourc e fo rdeclaratory an d injunctiv e relief. See United States v . SolarTurbines, Inc., No . 88-0924 , (IMD-Pa. ) (sli p op . Nov . 28.1989) . EP A acknowledge s thatstates hav e th e primar

y rol e i n administerin g an d enforcin g th e variou s component s o f th e NS Rprogram . Fo rth e mos tpar tth e state s hav e bee n successfu l i n thi s effor tan d EPA' s involvemen ti n interpretativ e an d enforcemen tissue s i s limite d t o onl y a smal l numberof cases . Consequently , EPA' s continuin g oversigh trol e unde r di e Qea n Ai rAc t leave s Kentuck

y an d othe rstate s wit h considerabl e discretio n t o implemen tth e NS Rprogra

m a s the y se e fitFirs ta s note d i n th e Septembe r1 notice . EP A ma y no tinstitut e fundamental change s i n th e requirements se tfort h i n it s ow n regulation s o rstat e implementatio n plan s throug

h interpretiv e ruling s o r polic y statements . Th e creatio n of ne w rights o robligation s ca n onl y b e accomplishe d b y revision s t o th e regulation s i n 4 0 CF

Rparts 5 1 an d 5 2 an d b y SI

P revisions , i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e rulemakin g procedures . Second , EPA' s interpretation s ofte n ar e intende d i n whol e o r i n par tt o guid e only EP A Regional Offices , an d i n suc h instance s the y hav e n o implication s whatsoeve rfo ra state' s BriTn.nUtrat.n n o f it s program . I n sum . state s remai n free t o follo w thei row n course , provide d thatstat eP. 4



### Federa l Registe r

/ Vo l 55 ; No

. 112

. /

Monday;

. Jun e H,

. 199f l / Rule s and ! Regulation s 2354 S
action : isrconsistaxtrwidxtli s lette r an d spiri t of : th e SIP ; whenreadin : conjunctio n witkthaQeaaAk:Ac t tau t EPA's:regnlations>EPA.believe athatth e languag e i n qmstirmii t

th e Septemberl.

. 1989umticE ; a s darifiedhere, , accurately ; describe s the

- lega l relationshi p between : EP A an dtiie Commonwealt

h of Kentuck y wit h respec t t o th e NS R program . Uhder 5 U.SXZ. 805Tb) , F certif y tha t thi s notic e wil l no t

hav e s significan

t economi c impac t

o n asubstantial numbe r o f smal l enlities

TfeOffice-o f

Managemen t

and : 

### Budge t ha s exempte dthis-role-fromth e requirement s o f

sectio n 3 ofExecutiv e Order 12291

. Lis t o f Subjects.ia4a.CER.Par

t 52 , Air pollution

- control ! Intergovernmental relations. Authority : 4ZHSC."T0I-7S4Z

. Dated : Ma y 31

. IStn

. F

. Henr y Hahkht

. Acting AdaunistratDZx [F RDoc.9&-1343Z5ilai6-a-90 ; tw&am ] Bttinc t