P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 228 ) ll-F-1 8
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 228 of 250B2

_

• b VV i W

m J 

## £.-30-3 7

w

## 3P * P*-|{ ? Unite dState s Departmen t ofth e Interio r

{__K5 |
NATIONA

L PAR K StKV'IC E P.O

. Bo x -3?li. 7 Washington

. D C .^(10(3-712 7 i s o f P I . s.T. n r

i 

## 3/(6/9 5

NUMBERO F PAGE S T O FOLLOW ; ^7 ^ *^>u*t ^ 

## ' j 

## ^f/ f - *f/-SSd

7 T O

. ^ W7 r 

## ~c/ /u 

## £a&

. /^rr-tf

/fe/g^ s
FRON : fibres. /•'&/£'•- 

### SUWECT t// S<fZ /<*

REMARKS : yyv^rmI F YO U HAV E AN Y PROBLDI

S MIT H THIS FA

X O RTROUBL

E RECEIVIN

G A FA X PLEAS E CAL L TH E II0IVIOUA L FRO

N WHO M YO U AR E RECEIVINf

i TH E FAX.
OEMflS . JO M 202-208-519 3 HALKER , BIL L 202-219-336 6 EADY , WLLETT

E 202-208-464 0 UATKINS, MlUt t202-208-401 3 JOHNSTON

, GAR Y 202-208-588 6 WILSON . RIT A 202-208-388 4 KLIVINSKI . SHINDB

I 202-208-463 9 NAUIN , KARE

N ~ 202-219-338 4 NCCLELLAND

, LINDSA

Y 202-208-495 8 MILE* . ABB

Y 202-208-465 0 PECK , OEBB Y 202-208-462 4V J i o i> 0 1D1 3 "Q'^U J -U J ID^ U "AJ U > K A W>t J i AU.ULl-Pl-'t l ^UU. ' u.' i

NS RvacXage , Propose d NPS/USFW S Insert s t o U/16/.. 4 OM B Versio n Preambl e
P . 314 , Inser t A , firs t ful l para. , afte r "advers e impac t determination" : Th e NS R Clac c I Are a Coordinatio n Subyruu p cam e u p wit h th e followin g criteri a t o b e considere d b yth e permittin g authority ; (a ) Scientifi c basi s o f th e FLM' s advers e impac t determination ; (b ) Existin g statu s o f potentiall yaffecte d Clas s I area s an d thei r AQRVs ; (c ) Presenc e o f mitiyatin yfactors , suc h a s offsets ; (d ) Permi t conditions , suc h a 3 pre - an d post-constructio n monitoring , wit h contingen t correctiv e actio n plan ; (e ) Informa l mediatio n effort s durin g consideratio n o t th e appl i ration ; (f ) Participatio n b yth e FL M durin g completenes s review ; (g ) Publi c cupport/oppositio n t o th e permit ; an d (h ) alternativ e siting
. P . 315 , Inser t B , afte r (2) , deletin g existin g tex t an d substitut e following : Existin g Advers e impact s Previuusl yDocumente d fo r th e clas s 1 Are a Wher e th e FL M ha s previousl ypublicl ydnrnmente d o r certifie d existin g advers e impac t condition s a t a clas s I area , o r determine d that
. r.n

e o r mor e particula r propose d eourcc e woul d constitut e a n advers e impac t t o a n AQR V a t a particula r Class ' T are.* , tha t informatio n shoul d b e afforde d substantia l weigh t b yth e permittin g j authorit y./Th e legislativ e histor yot th e CA

Ainstruct s t o "an un — th e sid e o f protectin g th e air-qualit yrelate d value s ro r futur e generations. " S
. Rep . No . 95-127 , 55t h Cong. , 1s t Sess . 3 6 (1977)
. Th e permittin g authorit yshoul d r.nnside r tha t instruction , i n ligh t o f existin g condition s a L a particula r clas s I area . P . Jit, , inser t C , alte r "52.2 1 (o ) (3 ) , " delet e res t o f para , and substitute : I n recognizin g tha t Federa l Clas s I and I I area s hav e AQRV3 , whic h ar e mandate d unde r variou s statute s fo r preservatio n unimpaire d (e.g. , Organi c Act , Wildernes s Act) , EP Ai s proposin g t o delet e th e las t sentenc e i n (o)(l ) o f bot h curren t regulation:;
. The3 e clarification s shoul d hel p ensur e tha t permi t applicant s consid« r al l potentia l impact s t o Clas s I and I I are a AQRVs
. p . 343 , inser t D , ne w section , beror e "/
. informatio n Clearinghouse" : Generi c Approache s t o Addres s An yAQR V Issu e Th e MS R .Subcommittee , Existin g Source s Subgrou p discusse d severa l option s fu r addressin g specifi c AQR V degradatio n i n Clas s 1 areas . Th e grou p cam e t o consensu s o n th e nee d t o enforc e existin g rule s requirin g SI P revision s in case s wher e PS D incremen t exceedance s hav e bee n documented
. I n particular , th e grou p discusse d th e nee d2A-
•>Ai U .>• * A- l ,>f l "

- AU.UO-ff b ifcjUU j U.' 3

t o enforc e existing requirement s fo r permitting authoritie s t o trac k incremen t consumptio n cumulativel yfo r al l sources . Th e need fo r EP Aguidanc e on methodolog yfo r trackin

g emission s cumulativel y an d periodicall yassessing incremen t consumptio n wa s recognized
. tP Awil l endeavo r t o provid e suc h guidance
. Th e Existing Source s Subgrou p als o discusse d supplementing existing regulation s D

yadding a trigge r fo r SI P revisions , o r eve n adoptio n o f regiona l implementatio n plans , t o addres s existing advers e impac t condition s fo r AQRV s a t Clas s I area s withi n a particula r stat e o r region
. Althoug h FLM s an

d environmenta l grou p representative s pointe d ou t the merit s o f suc h an approac h i n amelioratin g th e "existing source s problem " fo r AQRVs , n o consensu s o f Ihe ful l grou

p coul d be reached on thi s option
.30 7 believe s tha t a 60-da y perio d (beginnin

g o nth e dat e tha t the permittin

g authorit

y determine s th

e applicatio

nt o b e complete) , take

ntogether withth

e improvement s addressed abov e t o faoilitat e earlier FL M an d permittin

g authority coordination , provide s th e FL M witha mor e reasonabl e perio d
o f time . Durin

g thi s period , th

e FL M ma y nee d to conduc t a variety o f technica l analyse s o r perhap s reques t (vi a the permittin

g authority ) that th e applicant provid

e additiona l analyse s t o provid

e sufficient basi s fo r th e demonstratio

n t o b e developed . This'will , o f course , depen

d 6omewha t o

n th e amount informatio nalread

y containe

d i nth e applicatio

n

, a s a reeul t o

f pre-applicatio

nagreement s an

d understanding s abou t th

e AQRV s i

nth e clas s I area . Th e £iP A invite s pub

l ic comment s o

nth e adequac

y o f a 60-da y perio d fo r completin

g a nadvers e impac t demonstration . Th

e EP A wil l consider a differen t tim e perio d i f i t ca

nb e show nthat suc

hdifferent perio

d woul d allo w surricient tim

e fo r th e FL M to complet e an

y necessar

y analyse s without unduly delayin

g th e permi t process , a s wel l
a s a particular tim e whic hca nb e extende

d upo nreques t o

f th e FLM . The FP A als o wishe s to rais e a nimportan

t issu e her e concernin

g th e responsibilit

y fo r carryin

g ou t th e technica l analyse s whichma

y b e necessar

y t o demonstrat e tha t a PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT RBPRBSEN T OFFICIA

L EF A POLIC Y • • • November 16 / 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_I . 116 ] -.-»-

.U J i o Vi

. 15:1 3 S..U.

. iU i 10. m P. 6 'Ai U .\ K

A U M- i AUMD-PP B •fclUU j Oi O

.- ^ ^ * 

## l a 30 6

. S " A ( j , source' s emiBeion B wil l hav

e a nadvers e impac t o

ha nAQRV . o j -T ^5 The EP A doe s no t believ

e tha t th

e PL M shoul d be expected t o

- ^ O ^ ^-^ 1 complet e al l th e necessar

y analyse s independentl y simpl y J p 5 ^ % 4 0 becaus e th e burde no f proo f i s o

nth e FL M t o mak e the

~j _£ * 'V l A require d demonstratio

no f advers e impact . Applicant s fo r

. OJ ^ A-PS D permit s ar e typicall y require

d t o provide inforaatio n < ^ T : Sr j ^ " an danalyse s necessar y t o sake a variet

y o f ambien t ai r V ^ £ \ 5 3 ,^3 U8l ^ t
- ' decisions. , Th e generall y

limite d resource s

" 3 * T ^ availabl e t o FLM' B mak e i t ver

y difficul t t o expec t the m t o 

### / § 

### "'—

r o « t independentl y Complet e al l th

e analyse s neede

d t o aseee e th

e 

## J <4 (L-

_ fafe!

" T ^ potential^lmp^ct s of eac hPS D applicant tha t affect s a 5 ^ Federa l Cla W

I area . Applicants , o nth e other hand , shoul d
no t be expecte

d t o conduc t e

n unlimite

d number o f studie s et th e reques t of th

e FL M i norder^tp accommodat e the informationa l need s tha t th e FL M mayNwve . The EP A solicit s publi c commen t o nthi s issu

e inorde r t o establis ha

nequitabl e approac hfo r completin

g th e require d analyse s fo

r Clas s I area s applicabl e t o individua l PS D applicants . Specifically , th e EP A seek s input in determinin

g wha t th

e respectiv

e responsibilitie s o f at-hwlffa M *n-d-th e permi t applicant shoul d b e fo r carryin

g ou t th

e analyse s necessar

y t o enabl e th

e FL M t o demonstrat e a

n advers e impac t o

nai r qualit

y relate d values . The EP

A wil l -$ 

# y

'ml a ^



### < 5

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EF A POLIC Y • • • November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAN_i.il-> ] •• •P. 7 'i i ..J

. Ju l ToT u "AO U ,M \A U .a»- i Aai.Uij-PP B a£jUUt > ui 5



# ,? '^,

. '-,J * cty/y~ ,-• ,e p a 

# f

conside r suc himpu t an d decid e whethe r th e regulation s /fzltf ^Of,, 

## tyWmyiik'uves v A 

### shoul dspecificall y

addres s thes e partioula r gelgo . I nadditio nt o th e propose dchang e t o th e timin g o f th e 

### Cfa^ L 

### l KGr't^''^- FLM' s submittal , th e EP A i s proposin g to.-wjujan dLU Uoeap uor - dff P th e demonstratio nunde r sectio n52.21(p)(3 ) t o inolud o CLr\UurStmS 

# i 'AjUJrU-*' 3 Q^r 

### ^coyBrsg o n f fehe-adverse impact s fo * an y AQRV*t j tha t ma y

hav e bee nidentifie db

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 dAQRV ; however , th e FLM' a hav e sinc e identifie dvariou s ai r qualit y relate dvalue s fo r whio ha n analysi s and a demonstratio no f ruin n11 1 impac t mus t b e \j / s 

### .ft / 

### completed , ^^A^ ^ W ^ *^ ^
c . Ai r qualltjrmbdel s ^ ' Th e FLM s an

d PS D applicant s ofte naus t us e model s vhio h
ar e no t specifie di nth e EPA' s "Guidelin e o n Ai r Qualit y Models " i norde r t< ^ 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 dmode 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 AQRVs . Question s hav e arise n abou t whethe r specia l modelin g analyse s performe dt o asses s th e impact s o nClas s I area s (PS D increment s and AQRVs ) PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORXINO DRAF T FOROPPIC E O P MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOB S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y •• • Novembe r ifi , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P. 8 U j

. J

. o y 5 1 5 : il l ©TUTTu ! ioT u >'Ai U A K A U Af 5 • AU.Hll-PP b fcl/.i' u.' 5

31 0
muc t underg o th e sam e typ e o f approva l b y EPA t o whic hth e
mor e standar d analyse s fo r NAAQ.< ? an d Clas s I I increment s ar e subjected . Durin g subcommitte e deliberations , individua l subcommitte e member s expresse d th e view tha t any

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

e EPA approval s tha t ar e require d fo r othe r ai r qualit y

dispersio nmodel s use d unde r th e PS D program . Th e EPA

believe s tha t i t i s reasonabl e t o requir e tha t model s an

d technique s use d fo r predictin g ambien t pollutant , concentration s inClas s I area s b e -subject t o th e same requirement s tha t appl y al l othe r ai r qualit y dispersio n model s use d fo r PS D purposes . Moreover , th e EPA ha s conoludc d tha t th e applicabl e provision s i nth e existin g PS D regulation s ar e broa d enought o suppor t thi s interpretatio n withou t proposin g an y changes . Unde r th e existin g requirements , "[a]1 1 application s o f ai r qualit y modeliny involve d i nthi s subpar t shal l b e base d o nth e applicabl e models , dat a bases , angd othe r requ i remp.nt s specifie d i nth e [EF A modelin g guidelines]. " Wher e an y euc hmode l i s inappropriate , th e regulation s provid e tha t "th e mode l ma y b e modifie d o r anothe r mode l substituted. " Further , th e requirement s provid e tha t whe nsuchmodification s o r substitution s ar e proposed , writte napprova l o f th e

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORRIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y 

### ** • Novembe

ri« , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM_l.H6 ] *• •UJlO-l U 13 : j u tS-.O'.

. ! U S Ib-' O «AS O NR'A Q XP S AQMD-PP B a^OO i 0J 5

^v f 

## urn

YmW^ 

# yr 31 1

Administrato r mus t b e obtained , an d thei r us e mus t b e eubjeo t t o notic e an d opportunit y

fo r publi c comment . Th e curren t languag e maKe s n o distinctio nbetwee n model s use d fo r Clan s I I are a analyse s an d Clas s I analyses , an d th e EP A

doe s no t believ e ther e i s an y reaso nt o conclud e tha t euo ha distinctio nshoul d b e made . Thus , whil e n o regulator y

change s ar e bein g proposed , th e EPA wishe s t o emphasiz e it s positio ntha t an y modelin g carrie d ou t unde r th e PS D progra

m t o estimat e ambien t pollutan t concentration s shoul d b e base d o nth e EPA-approve d models , an d subjecte d t o notic e and opportunit y fo r publi c commen t whe na non 

# 1* quidelin e mode l i s used . I t i s sometime s necessar y fo r modele d ambien t pollutan t concentration s t o b e converte d t o 7 1 , , othe r form s i norde r t o compar e the m directl y

t o specifi c AQRVs . Fo r example , model s exis t for predictin g change s i n alkalinit y

(wate r chemistry ) resultin g fro m ai r qualit y change s cause d b

y emission s increases . Othe r model s als o exist , whic har e i nvariou s stage s o f development . Th e FP A doe s no t believ e tha t suc hmodel s ar e automaticall y covere d b y th e existin g PS D regulations . I naddition , th e EP A doe s
no t believ e tha t euohmodel s shoul d be treate d i nexactl y th e same manne r a s model s whic har e used fo r PS D purpose s t o predic t ambien t pollutan t concentrations . Th e specia l model s tha t ma y

nee d t o b

e use d fo r AQR

V analyse s should , i PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D I BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y -.* * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] •• •P.10 .U J 10. U "AJ U .\ K A U :tm- .\U..L>-ttb <fjUUi l u^ o

however , b

e subjecte

d t o some^ubJ^ie__s^r\»tiny , especiall y in
case s wher e a mode l i e i nth e development stage s or ha s no t beenadequatel y

subjecte

d t o peer review . Nevertheless , the EP A doe s no t believ

e that thes e model s shoul d be required t o receiv e prior EP

A approva l a s are ai r quality diapcroio

n model s covere

d b y th e PSD regulation s a t sectio n51.166(1 )
an d sectio

n 52.21(1) . Thus , al l modification s to , an d substitute s for , model s specifie

d i nth e Guidelin

e o nAi r Qualit

y Model s shoul d be adequatel y

describe

d an d mad e availabl e fo

r publi c revie

w
an d comment cither before o r a s par t of th

e publi c record fo r th e preliminar

y determinatio

nprepare

d b y th e permitting authority . Th

e other change s that th e EP A i s toda

y proposing , regardin g early involvemen

t o f th e FL M i nthe applicatio

npreparatio

nprocess , an

d th e FLM' s opportunity t o provide input to th e permittin

g authorit

y prior t o th

e publi c notic e fo

r a propose

d permit , wil l ensur e tha t the technica l analysis—including possibl e us e of non-guideline models—wil l be availabl e fo r publi c inspectio

nan d comment . Furthermore , an

y additiona l technica l analyse s submitte d bYa * -*

T ,>J-£- ( i th e FL M durin g tn e publi c commen

t perio d woul d be trualu

u a u wnul d an

y lathe r publi c eumannf ^ ^ f * SZ-HKAAJ uj'ft, eC^^^^ ^r. d . Rejectio

no f FLM' s advers e impac t findin g g) ^~ r h ~"y .

^ ELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROPFICE OP MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOS S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY • • • November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRZA M 1.11C ] ** *


# JP.1 1

31 3

~ I f 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 , eeotio n165(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 satisfactio no f th e Stat e tha t th e emission s fro m th e propose d eourc e wil l hav e
anadvers 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 hav e underscore d tn e need fo r nationa l guidanc e addressin g th e State' s rol e i naseeeein g a FLM' s advers e impac t determinatio ni nthes e circumstances . Th e EPA

polic y

currentl y

provide s that , l nligh t o f th e FLM' s expertise , th e permittin g authorit y mus t giv e leaSUMdDH j Limsidega-fc1<-> n t o a FLM' s advowe e impac t jde.r-erai*».a*ieft . However , th e fina l decisio nrest s wit hth e permittin g authorit y an d i t ma

y rejec t th e FLM' s assertio n
a s lon g a s i t ha s a rationa l basi s fo r doin g so . Se e s o F R 28544 , 2854 9 (Ju) y 12 , 1985) ; se e als o Ol d Dominio nElectri c Cooperative . PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 a t 8 an d n . 9 (Jan . 29 , 1992 ) . I nHadso n Powe r 14—Buen a Vista . PS D Appea l Nos . S2-3 , 92- 4 & 92- 5 (Oct . 5 , 1992) , th e EPA' s Environmenta l Appeal s Boar d hel d tha t Virgini a erre d i nsummaril y rejectin g th e findin g o f th e FLM' s for th e Shenandoa hNationa l Par k an d Jame s Rive r Fac e wildernes s tna t the propose d facilit y woul d PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• D0E 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRBAM_1.116 ] ** *P.1 2

31 4 adversel y

impac t thos e Clas s I areas . Th e Boar d reasoned tha t State s do no t hav e unfettere

d discretio

nt o rejec t a nFLM' s advers e impac t determination , [citatio n omitted] . I f a stat e determine s tha t a nFL M ha s no t >£ - satisfactoril y

demonstrate

d a nadvers e impac t o

nAQRV s fro m th e propose

d facility , th

e stat e aus t provide a ^rationa l basis ' ro r suc ha conclusion , *give n th e FLMe ' affirmativ

e responsibilit

y an d expertis e regardin

g th e Clas s I area s withi nthei r jurisdiction. ' 5 0 Fe d Reg . 28,54 9 (Jul

y 12 , 1985) . Arbitrar y an d capriciou s rejection s o f advers e impac t determination s ar e no t sustainable . [Hadso n a t p . 21. ] I n a neffor t t o provid

e clearer guidanc e an d promot e
mor e reasoned decision-making , the EP A i s proposing t o establis hconsideration s that mus t infor m a State' 6 rejectio

no f a n FLM' s advers e impactd^te^irrhation . Th e HS Refor m Subcommitteeidis^swfftfed , but did no t take a forma l positionon^thi s approac ht o improvin

g th e permittin

g 

### process . V & ^tw/tfinnU) O 2 

### **- <f.«S*-. ^ ^tUuU As noted , th

e FLM' s hav

e exper t Knowledge abou t th e - , ' 

### « £ * rt;Ur land s the

y manag e an

d are expressly

entruste

d b y th o Ao t \aJ-A

, HX wit ha naffirmativ

e responsibilit

y t o protec t th

e AQR V a of^M^^ A cles s I areas . Accordingly , th e EP A i s proposin

g t o require < **^Cc^ , tha t permittin

g authoritie s giv

e carefu l an

d thoroug

h«*< £ consideratio

nt o a FLM' s judgment . ^ ^ I nparticular , th

e EP A i s proposin

g t o requir e tha t a permittin

g authority' s assessmen t of a FLM' s advers e Impac t

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F NANAGEXSN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

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

e PREAM_1.116 ] •* • 

# AP.1 3 03'16'9 3 13:2 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »'AS O N RA Q NP S —- > AQMD-PP B 1^01 2 02 3

J1 5 determinatio nmus t reflec t thoroug hooncidcratio n o f th e followin g factors : (1 ) Scientific/Technica l Basi s Th e permittin g authorit y shoul d accor d substantia l deferenc e t o a FLM' s scientifi c an d technica l judgments . Th e permittin g authorit y mus t conside r al l relevan t dat a an d analyse s submitte d b y th e FL M

an d offe r a reasone d explanatio nfo r th e rejectio no f an y technica l dat a o r 

### m1 

# ""'frM*-fruphtpt-fs. PTM*'^£>&£<&£ t
(2 ) ^ "importanc e jfJtit^-AQfeV-aTid-^fffctwe^of , thV^dvfir^ e ~ p I Iipp*^^" " ~~ ~ >T ^ Th e permittin g authorit y mus t conside r an d respon d t o th e FLM' s judgment s abou t tk e importanc e o f th e ai r qualit y relate d valu e an d th e natur e O f th e advers e impact . Wher e
a nAQR V

ha s bee npreviousl y identifie d b y

th e FL M

throug ha publi c process , th e permittin g authorit y mus t describ e th e publi c proces s precedin g th e identificatio n o f th e AQR V an d thoroughl y

explai nan y

conclusion s i t reache s tha t ar e inconsisten t wit hthos e reache d b y th e i'i (3 ) Mitigatio n Th e permittin g authorit y shoul d decorib c an y effort s tha t hav e bee nundertak e t o mitigat e th e potentia l impact s
o f a propose d sourc e o nth e Federal:/clas s 1 are a o f concern , y^rJy?>ilm*r- I

eZfiUtfr'M.* ) 4 S

y*m^'tmmfay r-m-*^-\ includin g th e estlmated^&rec t a»£A,n y mitigation . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam e PREAM_l.H6 ] ** *P.1 4

u 3 l b i>

5 15 . .' 2 __©2u 2 JU S Ib^ u »AS O N RA Q NP S AQMD-PP B a£j01 3 U2 5

31 6 Thi s evaluatio

nmus t b

e i nwritin

g en d include

d inth e publi c recor

d accompanyin

g th e permi t determination . Th e EP A i s proposin

g revision s t o sectio n5i.i66(p)(3 ) an

d sectio n52.21(p)(3 ) to require consideratio no f thes e factor s an

d t o require that th e asoeocmcnt b

e made par t o f th e publi c record . The EP A request s publi c commen t addressin

g whethe r a permittin

g authorit

y should b

e require

d t o conside r thes e or othe r criteri a an

d any^other suggestion s t o promot e reasoned ff ' decision-making . e . Protectio

no f Federa l Interes t i nFedera l cour t Unde r a SlP-approve d PS D program , a State' s decision t o rejec t a FLM' s advers e impac t determinatio ninvolve s a Federa l interes t that mus t b e amenabl e t o vindicatio ni n Federa l court . Ther e are severa l ways inwhic hthi s migh t b e accomplished . First , a citize nsui t ma

y li e unde r sectio n.'.04(a)(1 ) an

d (3 ) of th

e Act , sinc e th

e issuanc e o f
a PS D permi t tha t woul d resul t i na n advers e impac t o

na n AQR V woul d violat e th

e SI P an

d woul d rende r th

e permi t invalid—i.e. , a s i f n o permi t ha

d bee nissue d a t all . Second , i

nligh t o f th e EPA' s consultativ e rol e i nadvers e impac t determinations , an d genera l oversight an d enforcemen t authority

under th

e Act , th

e EP A coul d brin

g a nenforcemen t actio nunde r subsectio

n11 3 o r 16 7 of th

e Ac t t o addres s PRELIMINAR

YBTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O P MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y *• * November 16 , 199 4 — (filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] •* *P.1 5 0 3 16-8 5 13:2 3 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 "AS P NR-AQ NP S —• - AQMD-PP B i^Ol l 02 5



# H 31 7 essentiall y

th e sam

e SI P an

d permi t deficiencic c tha t th e FLM woul d pursu e directl y unde r th e firs t option . Third , ther e ma y

b e federa l questio njurisdictio nunde r 2 8 U.5.C . sectio n 13 3 3 fo r Federa l court s t o entertai nclaim s brough t b y FLM' 6 arisin g unde r th e substantiv e an d 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 RReform rulemakin g proposal . 3 . Mitigatin g Advers e Impact e o nth e AQR

V o f Clas s I Area s
a . Background I n genera] , a PS D permi t ma y no t b e issue d wher e th e emission s fro

m a propose d facilit y wil l hav e a nadverse impac t o n th e AQRV s o f a Clas s I area . Se e th e Act , sectio n 165(d)(2)(C) . * s discusse d l nsectio nv.c.2. , th e V burde no f proo f fo r suc hadvers e impac t demonstration s

ic w sourc e o r modificatio n 

# 7^' Atiq/t- ^ i-varie s dependin g onwhethe r th e V i^'* Afi^ wou ^ dcaus e o r contribut e t o pollutan t concentration s whic h

violat e th e PS D "Increments " tor clas s i areas . Ther e hav e bee nsevera l instance s ove r th e pas t fe w year s where , i nth e abccnc c o f a Clas s I incremen t violation , th e FL M ha s conclude d tha t a propose d sourc e woul d hav e anadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV s o t a clas s I
area . Thes e issue s have hfie. n addresse d throug hnegotiat i nn s PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

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

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.1 6 03'16'9 5 13:2 3 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR'A Q NPS —-AQMD-PP B i)015<02 5 

# tf 5 " 31 8 betwee nth e FLM

an d th e permi t applioan t and , i nothe r , u N instances , hav e bee nth e subjec t o f cente r over s i*\L

_(_ / 1 / o^s . administrativ e litigation , gee . 01 a Dominio nElectri c 

# r

I

^ Cooperative . PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 (January 29 , 1992) ; Hadnp p Powe r 14—Buen a Vis^a . PS D Appea l Nos . 92-3 , 92- 4 & 92- 5 (Octobe r 5 , 1992) . i^ A t times , negotiation s hav e led t o mor e amicabl e

^ resolutio no f th e FLM' s concern s abou t a Clas s I area . Th e t o partie s hav e negotiate d measure s tha t hav e mitigate d th e advers e impact s o f a propose d eource . Permi t applicant s
(N . hav e mitigate d Impact s b y obtainin g emissio nreductions , fro m
a nexistin g sourc e tha t "offset " th e impact s o f th e propose d

. J source , adoptin g mor e stringen t contro l measure s o r som e 1,- a combinatio no f both .

Fo r example , i nMultitrad e Limite d Partnership . PS D Appea l Nos . 91- 2 e t ali a (Januar y 21 , 1992) , th e FLM preliminaril y

foun d tha t constructio no f a propose d ne v

• * sourc e woul d hav e anadvers e impac t onth e Shenandoa h

_ L Nationa l Park . Multitrad e agree d t o mitigat e it s impac t throug ha combinatio no f reduce d emission s fro m th e ne v
r- x sourc e a s originall y propose d an

d emissio noffset s fro m an- - rdL-*(*v4

^ Coexistin g source? ) Multitrad e a t 5 . Base d o nthes e changes , th e FLM

conclude d tha t th e emission s fro m th e propose d
source , a s modified , voul d no t hav e a nadverse impac t o nth e PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O P MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

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

e PRSA M 1.116 ] •• •P.1 7 03-16-8 5 15:2 3 ®20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S — • AQMD-PP B ^01 6 02 5



# , - , jUfif^C^^^ 7-r- ^tyT

r si \ i ' LA;
. 4m/\

/ / '->•••

< / > v /•* v

r ^

• si '. i ' LA. \.jiy. 31 0 

## ./// ^ 

# urn-" 31 9

Shenandoa hNationa l Park . Idj . I nadjudicatin g anappea 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 anexistin 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 \^ J sectio n165(d)(2). " Multitrad e a t 7 , n . 3 . / b . Genera l Polic y fo r Mitigatin g Clas s I Are a Impact s \ Al ^ ) f f> A e "©ted , th e CAAAC ha s recommende d th e tlw v u f offset s >y - 

### T \a.^ :ih



### -

- i \\m^ - te-mrtigat e th e advers e impact s nf npropoocr t soure r o na claa s I area i and ha s mad e recommendation s abou t th e amoun t

• yTM o f offset s tha t shoul d be required . Th e CAAAC recommende d 

# h '* tha t wher e th e emissio noffse t rati o wa s les s tha t 1:1 , a 

### £r(e.r.r-^:^c^Zjs/
ne t ai r qualit y

benefi t analysi s shoul d b e lequiro d t o suppor t th e specifi c offse t rati o proposed . Th e CAAAC recommende d that , wher 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 FP A i s in today' s notic e reaffirmin g th e Administrator' s view s abou t th e reasonablenes s o f offset s t o mitigat e impact s o nClas s I iA

area s and adoptin q th e positio nstate d i nMultitrade.-,a s a / rf geiii-.i.dl" puliey . Th e EP A als o agree s wit hth e CAAAC s overarchin g concer ntha t th e EP A provid e guidanc e o nth e PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O P MANAGEMEN T AN O BUDGE T REVIE W

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

e FREAM1.110 ] ** •P.1 8

u - 1 6 • il 5 15:2 1 Q2U 2 20 s 162 0 »AS U N RA U NP S -- - AQMD-PP B ^Ui 7 02 3



### 32 0 implementatio no f mitigatin g offsets . However , a t thi s juncture , th e EP A

decline s t o recommendrigi dtest s fo r assessin g th e adequac y o f offsets . Rather , th e EPA propose s / O tha t genera l principle s alread y establishe dunde r th e PS D * program

guid e th e implementatio no f offsets . I n addition , th a EP A i s proposin g t o add a provisio nt o th e PS D regulation s whic haffirm s th e opportunit y fo r source s t o mitigat e thei r advers e impact s o n AQRV' s i n orde r t o obtai n a PS D permit . &&& propose dS S 5i.i66(p)(5 ) and 52.21(p)(5) . Th e EPA believe s tha t eoun dtechnica l evidenc e ehoul d support a mitigatio ndemonstratio nan d 6houl dsho

w tha t ther e will b e n o -ne

t advers e impac t a s a resul t o f th e propose dsource . Th e offsettin g emission s shoul db e show n/ (^•/vvCMp

UoA is t o be.sufficien t t o i n fac t mitigat e th e propose demissio n A 

### increase s considerin g suc hfactor s a s locatio nand ^r* crtCdr y \ meteorology . Se e /-f-fof t Multitrad e a t 8 , n . 5 . (recognizin g /l/jjx'tha t th e amoun t an d locatio no f th e emissio nreduction s ar e '•fmfmmSr<M<- J



### relevan t i n assessin g th e appropriatenes s o f emissio n 

## Ovfr " offsets) .

Anothe r possibl e consideratio ni n evaluatin g whethe r any potential emissio nreduction s identifie da t existin g source s ca n b e use dt o mitigat e a propose dsource' s advers e impac t i s whethe r th e reduction s ar e already require db

y som e othe r Act-mandate dprogram , i nnonattainmen t areas , PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y
• • • Novembe

r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM_i.U6 ] ** *P.1 9
~cn 1 0 y ^ TT~T\ 'Q!.^r ;u s ib^ u ''AS U .\ K A U NP S AUMD-PP B 4jUl s ui' 5

32 1 sectio n 173(c)(2 ) o f th e Ac t plainl y prohibit s emissio n reduction s otherwis e require d unde r th e Ac t fro m bein g credite d a s offset s fo r new souro c review

purpoccc. 3 5 Se e 5 7 F R1355 3 (Apri l 16 , 1992 ) (guidanc e o ncreditabl e reduction s unde r th e nonattainmen t NS Rprogram) . Thus , ortset s unde r sectio n.7 3 ar e viewe d largel y a s a n additiona l nonattainmen t are a plannin g requiremen t tha t mus t b e addresse d independentl y fro m othe r require d emission s reduction s i nth e area . Thi s restrictio no n"doublecounting " emissio nreduction s i s consisten t wit hth e broade r purpos e fo r nonattainmen t NS Roffsets—t o ensur e tha t sufficien t offset s hav e bee nobtaine d suc htha t th e overal l decreas e i nallowabl e emission s i nth e are a represent s reasonabl e furthe r progres s toward timel y attainmen t o f th e NAAQS . Se e th e Act , sectio n173(a)(1)(A) . -^-l^nlik

e th e nonattainmen t NS Rprogram , offset s unde r th e PS D prograri.^-ar

e no t expressl y

addresse d b

y th e Act . Th e tPA i s intereste d inttm.,nii blie' s view s abou t th e creditin g o f . thos e omissio n reduotion c "aMco^ad y require d fo r othe r purpose s a s offset s fo r mitigating^a-aapropose d source' s advers e impac t o nan AQRV . on e argumen t m-a.ravo r o f no t allowin g th e "doubl e counting " o f emission s reducfl«Q S fo r

3 5 Incidenta l emissio nreduction s no t otherwis e require d h y th e /.et ar e t o b e creditabl e unde r sectio n 173(c ) (2 ) o f th e Act . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORXIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y »• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.H6 ] *-.- >P.2 0
u j l b W

ala : 2 1 ©20 2 20 i 162 0 »AS U N RA Q NP S -— - AQMD-PP B u^jOlf l 02 5

32 2 , ^ -«i\\-\^7t\-\n^ rlm aT num n imp^ff i j ath e f^c±>-the-troi»tB - purpoa e

"•a. , o f th e PS D progra

m i s t o "preserve , protect , an d enhanc e th e ai r qualit

y innationa l parks , nationa l wildernes s
areas , nationa l monuments,... " SSS. *** • Act . sectio n160(2) . Thi s suggest s tha t emissio nreduction s shoul d no t onl y offse t propose

d emissio

nincrease s bu

t "enhance " th

e ai r quality inclas s I areas , A genera l prohibitio no ndoubl e countin g offset s use

d fo r mitigatin

g advers e impact s in Clac c I areas , whio hi o similar t o the eeotio n17 3 offse t requiremen t may

advanc e thi s purpose . som e restrictio

no nth e doubl e countin

g o f emission s reduction s use

d t o mitigat e advers e impact s o nAQRV s ma

y be appropriate . Fo r example ^ wher e anadvers e impac t alread y exist s prior t o th

e ne v impact s resultin

g fro m a proposed
ne v o r modifie

d source , emission s reduction s alread y require d t o be obtaine

d b y another sourc e fo

r othe r statutor

y purpose s perhap s shouldXb e counte

d agains t existin g advers e impact s and , thus, \ no t credite d towar d an y
ne v contributio

nt o a nadvers e impact

w o nth e othe r hand , whe na propose

d ne w o r modifie

d sourceNlocatin

g nea r a Clas s I are a find s itsel f require d to obtai noffset s for othe r purpose s (e.g. , a NO , sourc e require d t o obtai n offset s in
a nozone transpor t region) , i t ma y be appropriat e t o allo w

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

P MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * November 16 , 199 4 ~ [filenam e PREAM_l.il., ] *• •P.2 1 U-J-lb-y-

. 15:2 3 ©20 2 20i , 162 0 U A S Q N R'A Q NP S —. - AQMD-PP B I^j020'02 5

32 3 th e propoKR d sourc e t o coun t th e otherwis e required offset s
a e creditabl e offset ^ fo r th e mitigatio no f it s advcrc c impac t ona

nAQR V a s we\l . Thus , th e EPA i s proposin g t o allo w fo r certai noffsets\euire d unde r othe r Clea nAi r Ac t program s t o b e credite d towar d th e mitigatio no f a propose d source' s advers e impac t onAQRV*e . Th e ke y tes t fo r allowin g case s o f doubl e countin g Woul d b e tha t th e offse t
y althoug halready require d b

y anothe r Statutor y

provision ,

mitigatin g impact s o na Federa l Clas s I area . Th e EP A aift o 7 ^woul d b e require d o f th e propose d source, \ itself .

-^ X*i.--f Th e EPA

requests ^ publi c comment s o nth e EPA' s propose d
1 polic y

t o allow

certairN^ffset s t o be doubl e counte d fo r y.y (y . request s publi c commen t o nwhethe r th e EP

A shoul d eve n L<"provid e th e guidanc e bein g proposed , o r furthe r guidance , o n

creditabl e mitigatio noffset s o r allow thes e issue s t o b e decide d entirel y

a d ho c i nth e contex t o f individua l permittin g decisions . Th e EPA believe s tha t certai nadditiona l basi c consideration s shoul d alway s be observe d i nmitigatin g
sourc e impacts . Mos t importantly , emissio nlimitation s tha t
ar e th e basi s fo r a conclusio ntha t a sourc e wil l no t caus e
a nadvers e impac t mus t be enforceabl e throug ha federally enforceabl e permit , regulatio nor othe r federally tjitfurceabl e requirement . Thi s i s a necessar y adjunc t o f PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D DUDGE T REVIE W

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

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.2 2 -v-j- nvir- i r~5~'.~.T 5 'Q,'r<Jm :o j ToTT u "Aa o > K A U

. v -r aAa/.Uu-t-i- B ifcj02 1 0 2 5

,/.
. 32 4

actua l mitigation—ensuring that mitigatin g emission s reduction s wil l infac t b e secured . A s describe

d insectio

nI V o f thi s preamble , the EP A I s proposin

g t o codify

it s existin

g "top-down " polic

y for BAC T determinations . Th e EPA' s "top-down " polic y i s intende

d t o
ensur e tha t a

nemissio

nlimitatio

nrepreeentin

g the "maximu

m degre e o f reduction... , o na case-by-cas e basis , takin g int o
accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs " i s establishe d a s BACT . Se

e th e Act , section1*59(3) . A

polic y tha t help

e eneur c tha t th e maximu m degre e o f emissio

nreductio

n(considerin

g relevan t factors ) i s established , wil l reduc e th e amoun t o f eaission s resultin

g fro m a propose

d sourc e and , hence , th e effect s o f thos e emission s o

nnearb y Clas s I areas . NeverthelessjT a more stringen t emissio

nlimitatio

ntha n tha t otherwis e require d b y BACT ma

y b e establishe

d t o mitigat e advers e impact s o na Clas s I area . Dependin g upo n th e remainin

g emission s release d an d th e eencitivity

o f th e AQRV s o f a Clas s I area , a nemission s limitatio ntha t woul d otherwis e b

e establishe

d a s BACT under a top-dov no r an y othe r approac

hi f advers e impact s were no t considere d ma y b e inadequat e t o entirel y mitigat e th

e advers e impacts . Thus , emissio noffsets , a stricter emissio nlimitation , or som e

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOB S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY *... . November 16 , 199 4 • • [filenam e PREA M 1.116 ] *• * " XP.2 3 U J • 11 > faaTTTZ b 'tS'.-'. -- ) 1 6 2 U "AS O .\ RA U NP S AQMD-PP B -£j022'U2 5

32 b combinatio no f both , ma y b e appropriat e t o mitigat e a propose d source' s impao t ona Clas s I area . Thi s polic y

statemen t abou t mitigatio no f clas s I are a impact s represent s aninterpretatio no f existin g statutor y ,' • •\J-Iand regulator y

requirements , A narrow

readin g o f th e _•->- .

r^tck-' •- ••••'•' statutor y

languag e generall y suggest s tha t a determinatio n"'•'' tha t a propose d sourc e wil l have a nadvers e impac t o na * j clas s I are a results^i n on e o f tw o possibl e outcomes :
.- - Cch' "•-**• ''•$£**" rejectio n o f th e finding 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 interprete d th e relevan t provision s broadl y i nkeepin g vit h th e statutor y

goal s o f preserving , protecting , and enhancin g ai r qualit y

i nClas s T areas , an d o f providin g opportunitie s fo r economi c growt htha t ar e consisten t wit hth e preservatio no f existin g clea nai r resources , se e th e Act , sectio n160(2 ) an d (3) . Specifically , measure s suc ha s emissio noffset s fro m existin g source s represen t a reasonabl e approac ht o mitigatin g th e advers e impact s o n Clas s I area s tha t migh t otherwis e occu r fro m ne w o r modifie d sources . Th e EPA' s mitigatio npolic y provide s neede d flexibilit y b y allowin g th e ne

w eouro e o r modificatio nt o be constructe d whil e addressin g concern s that , absen t mitigativ e measures , ther e woul d b e a ne t ^s adverse impac t followin g constructio no f th e ne w source . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O P MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ft** Novembe r 16 , 109 4 — [filenam

e PRBA M 1.116 ] •* •m Vm 1 b - w j nTo " 'a'-V. 2u alb.. u "As u .\RAy NP S - —AUMD-PP B £j02 J U2 5

32 6 Th e adoptio

no f thi s polic

y i s als o intende

d t o promot e certainty

an d dispatc

hi n th e PS D permi t proces s b y providin

g a clearl y

availabl e mechanis m t o avoi d potentiall y contentiou s an

d protracte

d permittin

g dispute s wher e a V^^ai. - proposed sourc e woul d otherwis e hav e a nadvers e Impac t ona ( Clas s I area . / \ wia»e » xarea . t \

c . Post-constructio nMonitorin

g Th e CAAA

C recommendation s addressin g mitigationo f advers e impact s o

nClas s I area s include d considerationo f post-constructio

nmonitorin

g fo r Clac o I areas . Poet constructio

n monitorin

g alon e woul d no t directl y mitigat e advers e impact s o

na Clas s I area . However , suc hmonitorin

g
ma y provide critica l informatio nabout a source' s impac t o n
a Clas s I area , includin g informatio

ntha t ma

y facilitat e mitigation . Th e EP A i s proposin

g t o amen

d It s PS D regulation s t o clarif y tha t post-constructio nambien

t monitorin

g ma y b e require d fo r th e purpos e o f determinin g whethe r eaission s fro m a faoilit

y have , o

r are having , a

nadvers e impac t o na Federa l Clas s I area . Se e propose

d sectio

nbl.166(a)(2 ) an

d sectio n52.21(m)(2) . Th

e existin

g PS D regulation s currentl y requir e th

e ovner o

r operato

r of a major stationar y sourc e PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

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

e PREAM_1.H6 ] •* *P.2 5

0 J • l b ' W

o 1 5 : ©..0 2 20 i 'b'2^u

_ »AS U N K A Q .\f- > AQMD-PP B 4l V 2 i 0 2 5



# i/ f 

# ,__ ^

"XJ " 

# ^7 33 7

o r majo r modificatio n t o conduc t suc h post-constructio n ambient monitoring , a s th e permitting authorit ydetermine s t o b e necessary , t o determin e th e effec t emission s ma yhave , o r ar e having , o n ai r qualit yi n an yarea . However , th e
curren t th e EP

Aregulation e d o no t specif ytha t suc h ambien t monitorin g ma

yinclud e th e monitoring o r ai r quality-relate d impact s i n Federa l Clas s 1 areas . Th e EP Aie , therefore , proposin g t o amen

d th e PS D regulation e t o specificall ystat e tha t post-constructio n ambion t monitoring ma yb e require d i n Clas s I area s affecte d b yth e propose d source . Th e EPAals o agree s wit h th e CAAAC' s recommendation s tha t guidanc e o n Clas s T are a monitoring i s necessaryan d tha t th e FT.M

s shoul d establis h suc h guidanc e i n conjunctio n wit h th e EPA . Th e EP Awil l pursu e th e developmen t o f a s,_^ (ji^^ f guideline , fo r monitoring AQRV s similar-t o th e curren t TS D monitorin g guidelin e document
. Th e EP Awil l examin e th e establishmen t o f additiona l mitigatio n policie s a s th e Clas s I are a monitorin g guidanc e i s developed
. 4
. Clas s I Significanc e Levels
. / Th e CAAAC recommende d tha t th e Er Aprovid e criteri a indicating th e circumstance s i n whic h a propose d source' s projecte d contributio n t o ambien t concentration s i n a Clas 6 I are a mayb e considere d d e minimi s fo r certai n plannin g W .y ! requirements
. Member s o f th e NS R Refor mSubcommitte e PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e FREAM_1.116 ] ** •-vu —rc—ii~3 x J • r i 'ti'

- u • 77 7 IO.' U ".-IJ C .\ h A y."-r

i .Ay.'lu-rr o .fcjU«; i u; j

32 8 recommende

d tha t th

e EP A identif

y a leve l o f contributio n tha t l s d e minimi s o r insignificant , s o tha t a proposed
sourc e havin

g a contributio

n lee o tha ntha t wil l kno

w wit h certainty

tha t i t vil l not be subjec t t o th e requirement s fo r a nincrement analysi s inFedera 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 of polic y inth e PS D progra m fo r determinin

g whether a propose d sourc e ma

y be exclude d fro m certai nretirement s (e-g- , significan t emission s rates , an d significan

t ambien

t impac t level s fo

r NAAQS) . (Sg

e als o dieouocio

n i nsectio

nV.A.5 , below. ) Administrativ

e agencie s ma

y exemp t "trul y de minimis " situation s fro

m a statutor

y comman d "whe nth e burden s o f a regulatio

nyiel d a gai nof trivia l o r n o value. " Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle . 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 360-6 1 (D.C . Cir . 1979) . Therefore , th e EP A i s proposin

g t o ad d Clas s I increment significanc e level s t o bot hset s o f PS D regulations . See propose d sectio

n51.166(b)(23)(v ) an d sectio n52.21(b)(23)(v) . Th e propose

d significanc e level s woul d appl y

t o th e existin

g Clas s I increment s fo r PM-10 , S0 } , an d NO , inth

e PS D regulations . Th e significanc e level s woul d be use

d t o determin

e whether a ne

w major souro e o

r

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AM D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S MO

T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y • • * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenao s FREAM_l.H6 ] • • •P.2 7 •..'!•-'.'•r . .-v

y Srs ..y.UU-Kh b •fejOU l y^ J


## '^S i Unite dState. s Departmen t o f th e Interio r

38 S

• nr.n.i KKJK K NA'J-IUNAf . PAT. KiJERMCl i P O J W :^?1^ 7 Washington

. D.C

. ..D O 13-712 7

NUMBE RO F PAGE S T O FOLLOW :
TO : ^fr-££rLf

f/snpr^ 

# £2-

FRONi KfrrlL^

/HAlfcsl
SUBJECT : 

# #$£

/W ^ 

# >/'V : D



### DATE : 3/ 7 6

REMARKS : 

### JYIfir-P.m /'SI'QOE/KAI



### 5s6?ft ^

C!^ry^^/^

. , ,

I F YO U HAV E AN Y PROBLEM S WIT H THI S FA X O R TROUBL E RECEIVIN G AFAX PLEAS E CAL L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRO NWHO

- YO U AR E RECEIVIN G TH E FAX .
DENNIS , JOh a EADY , COLLETT E JOHNSTON , GAR Y KLIMINSKI
. SHARO N HALXIN , KARE N NCCLELLAND
. LINDSA Y NILLER , ABB Y PECK , DEBB Y 202-208-S19 3 202-208-464 0 202-208-588 6 202-208-463 9 202-219-338 4 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-206-462 4 WALKER , BIL L 202-219-338 6

WATKINS
. WILN

A 202-208-491 3 WILSON , RIT A202-208-388 4P.2 8 "a H 1 b • y 3 13771 7 1^20'. .01 la^ u >'AS U > RAy SfS AU.UD-PP B '(ml'JUru 1' J

32 9 majo r modification , due t o th e predicte

d ambien t concentratio

nfro m it a ow nemissions , woul d b e required t o conduc t a Clas s I incremen t analysi s fo

r a givenpollutant , an d whethe r the emission s o f ouc hpollutan t fro

m th e propose d eourc e o

r modificatio

nwoul d b

e considered t o contribut e t o a violatio no f th e applicabl e Clas s I increments . The propose

d significanc e level s fo r Clas s I increment s
wer e derive

d b y takin g fou r percent o f th

e concentration defined fo

r tn e existin

g Clas s 1 increment for eac h applicabl e pollutan t an d averagin

g period . Th

e EP A believe s tha t wher e a propose d eourc e contribute s les s tha nfour percen t t o th

e Clas s I increment , it s projecte d emission s
ar e sufficientl y

lo w s o a s not t o warrant a costl y an d detailed analysi s of th e combine

d effect s o f th

e propose d
sourc e an

d al l othe r increment-consumin g emissions . Th e EP A previousl y

use d a simila

r rational e t

o establis hth

e significan t emission s rate s fo r PS D applicability purposes , concludin

g in par t tha t emission s rate s whichresulted in ambient impact s les s tha nfou r percent o f th

e 24-hour standard s fo

r particulat e matter an d so , wer e sufficientl y smal l s o a s t o be considere d d e minimis . Sa

w 4 5 F R 52676 , 52707-5270 8 (Augus t 7 , 1980) .

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMSN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY


### • • • Novembe

r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM_I.H6 ] 

### •• •P.2 9 U J l b .1 5 15 : 3 i ©T^JTTuT'TbTu"»AS u ,\RAy \P S

. AUMD-PP B i^juu j ui' i

33 0 Th e propose d significanc e levels , expresse d i n,ug/m 3 , ar e t o b e compare d agains t a propose d bource' s predicte d ambien t concentration s i na Clas s I area . I nth e even t tha t th e predicte d concentratio ni s les s tha nit s respectiv e significanc e level , th e source' s impac t wil l b e considere d insignifican t 3 0 tha t n o furthe r analysi s o f Clas s I increment s nee d b e don e fo r tha t pollutant . I f a violatio n
o f a Clas s 1 incremen t i s know nt o exist , th e sourc e wil l
no t b e considere d t o contribut e th e violation. 3 4 Th e ErA emphasize s tha t thes e propose d significanc e level s fo r the clas s I increment s ar e ho t intende d t o serv e
a s threshold s fo r determinin g whethe r anadvers e impact s o n
^ -an y AQR V wil l occur~T~ 7 Suc hadvers e impact s ma y occu r a t i ' I ' . concentration s below th e propose d Clas s I incremen t \-i significanc e levels . / A determinatio ntha t a propose d sourc e \ , VN J ma y

hav e anadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV' s o f a Clas s I are a
^ Jdepend s upo nth e sensitivit y o f th e particula r Clas s I are a
an d involve s a nassessmen t o f actua l har m tha t wil l occur .

' A nambien t pollutan t concentratio ntha t i s deeme d t o b e o f relativel y

insignifican t consequenc e fo r purpose s o f

36 I f ErA o r th e Stat e determine s tha t a Clas s I incremen t i s bein g violated , th e SI P mus t b e revise d t o correc t th e inadequacy . 4 0 CF R51.186(a)(3) . Thi s correctiv e actio nl s require d irrespectiv e o f an

y particula r source' s contributio nt o a Clas s I incremen t violation . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ft--* Novembe r 1« , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.3 0 03'16'9 5 13 : 3 S ©20 2 20 S 162 0

_ _«AS 0 .VR-A Q XP

S --. - AQMD-PP

B .4)00 1 02 3

33 1 incremen t consumptio nshoul d no t automaticall y b e considere d inconsequentia l relativ e t o th e inherentl y fact-speoifi o dctcrmination a upo nwhic hadvers e impac t finding s ar e t o b e based . Thus , th e fac t tha t a source' s predicte d ambien t impac t i s les s tha nth e applicabl e Clas s T significanc e leve l doe s no t reliev e a permittin g authorit y o f th e dut y

t o conside r a FLM' s determinatio ntha t a propose d sourc e wil l hav e a nadvers e impac t onth e AQRV' s i na Clas s I area . Th e EPA i s declinin g t o establis hsignificanc e level s _ fo r £a'c;fc^b<fl-u-(a!i

< site-specifi c AQRV's . Th a FLM s ar a 4- i entruste d wit hprotectin g AQRV' s and th e decisio nt o I T-> J-f- { establis han

y appropriat e significanc e levels,fo r th e AQRV' s



### •„ . **..T*^. ~ W/ 

### T^> ~ . , Shoul d res t wit hth e FLM's* ' An y significanc e level s fo r "~ a ) &"* /y

- AQRV' s wil l necessaril y b e site-specifi c sinc e eac hAQRV and -'V-? , it s associate d critica l pollutan t loading s ma y b e differen t fro m are a t o are a and eve nwithi nindividua l Federa l Clas s I

areas
. n , '-jy*<r rw o «J-ia7

r aLTtvcCc n./<*

_ Th e EPA request s publi c commen t o n.it s propose d Clas s I 

### r* incremen t significanc e levels . I nparticular , th e EP A request s commen t o nth e level s propose d whic har e fou r percen t o f th e applicabl e Clas s I increment . Th e FP A realize s tha t Clae e I increment s ar e somewha t unique , relativ e t o th e othe r PS D increments , i ntha t the y hav e th e additional , independen t effec t o f determinin g wh o bear s th e PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC 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 ] ** *P.3 1 03'16'9 S 15:3 S ®20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS O NR-A Q XP S — - AQMD-PP

B i^]0u 5 02 3

33 2 burdeno f proo f i

ndemonstratin

g th e presenc e o r absenc e o f
a nadvers e impac t o

na n AQRV . The EP A

request s commen t o n the appropriatenes s of establishin g significanc e level s for Clas s I increment s i nligh t of th e offco t upo

nth e burdeno f proof .

5 . Clarificatio

nof Miscellaneou s Issues . The discussio

nwhic hfollow

s addresse s severa l relativel y

discret e iosues . Th e EP A i s clarifyin

g curren t policy inarea s wher e ther e i s significant confusio nor uncertainty

and , i nsom e instances , i s proposin g conformin

g change s t o th

a implementin

g regulations . The EP A i e als o proposin

g change s tha t largel y codify existin

g policy . a . Significanc e Level s fo r NAAQ S an

d Clas s I I an

d II I Increment s The EP A i s proposin

g severa l change s t o the PS D regulation s a t bot

hsectio

n51.16 6 an

d sectio

n52.2 1 t o mak e th e rule s consistent wit hcurren

t practice . First , the EP A i s proposin

g t o revis e th

e provision s o f sectio n5l.l66(k )
an d sectio

n52.21(k ) t o clarif y tha t a source , itGelf , mus t make a significant contributio nt o a violatio

no f an y NAAQ S
or PS D increment before tha t sourc e voul d be denied a PS D permit . Second , th e EP A i s proposin

g t o incorporat e tne significanc e level s currently 6e t fort hinth e broade r PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFIO 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 — [filenaa

e FREAM_1.116 ] • • *O J i o v-, T3TT ? 'tH2-'. iU S TbTI J "AS u ,\

RA Q NPS « - AUMD-PP B i^jOOb' 02 3

33 3 preconstructio

nrevie w permi t requirement s a t sectio n51.16 5 (b) 37—uec d to determin e whethe r source s contribut e t o a violatio nof a NAAQS—s o tha t the y ma y b e directl y

applie d t o th e "significant contribution " tes t i n th e PS D regulations . Se e propose

d sectio

n51.166(b)(23 ) (iv )
an d sectio

n52.21(b)(23)(iv) . Finally , th

e EP A i s proposin

g t o ad d significanc e level s fo

r th e Clas s I I an

d Clas s II I increments . Se e propose d sectio

n51.166(b)(23)(v ) an d sectio n52.21(b)(23)(v) . Th e propose

d level s ar e the sam e
a s thos e level s whic hdefin e a significant contributio nt o a NAAQ S violation , an d simpl y codif y current EP

A policy which allow s th e significanc e level s fro m sectio n51.165(b ) t o b

o directl y

applie d to th e PSD progra

m t o determine a significan t contributio nt o either th

e NAAQ S o

r PS D increments . Th

e tP A request s commen

t o nth e nee d to includ

e thes e significanc e level s i nth e PS D regulation s an d the
nee d fo r significanc e level s fo r Clas s I I an

d Clas s II I increments . Furthermore , th e EP A request s comment o nth e

"Thes e preconstructio nrevie w permi t requirement s are designed to satisfy

th e requirement s o

f sectio

nlio(a)(2)(C ) o

f th e Act , an

d whichaddres s a broader categor y o f "major " stationar y source s (i.e. , in

n ton s pe r year ) proposin g t o locat e ina

nattainmen t or unclassifiabl e area . Th e EP A ha s lon q interprete

d th e "significan t contribution " tes t eet fort hi nthes e requirement s t o appl y t o PS D sources , a s well . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

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

e PREAM_1.116 ] «* *P.3 3

u
- > i* > •* 3 J--

> • J- 1 3T2U. . 4^ui > iti2 u _»AS O ,\ RAO .\PS-- - AQMD-PP B t£jOo 7 02 3

33 4 proposed significanc e level s fo r th e Clas s n an

d clas s m increments , specifically whether the

y shoul d b

e lower tha

n th e level s uoc

d fo r NAAQ S compliance . b . Consideratio

no f Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s 

### Th e NS R Reform

subcommitte e raise d a questio n abou t th e treatmen t o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s i nthe impac t analysi s fo r AQP-Ve . Sectio

n112(b)(6 ) o f th

e Ao t plainl y

provide s tha t th e "provision s of [titl e I, ] par t C (preventio no f significan t deterioration ) shal l no t apply t o [hazardou s ai r pollutants ] liste

d under [sectio

n112].' " Thi s alterationt o th e PS D progra

m wa s addresse

d i nguidanc e issue

d o n March11 , 199 1 (5 7 F R18070 , 18074-18075), M Th e obviou s congressiona l purpos e i nthi s exemptio

nwa s t o substitut e th

e provision s of th

e MAC T progra

m i namende

d
e co t io n11 2 o f th

e Act , an

d i nparticular the provision s fo r case-by-cas e MACT fo r ne w an d modifie

d source s i nne

w sectio n112(g) , fo

r th e previously

applicabl e PS D program . However , th

e MAC T progra

m doe s not addres s th e specia l Clas s I area protectio

nconcerns that are th e subjec t o f portio n
o f the PS D program . Th e EP A mus t b e mindfu l o f thi s fac t i n determinin

g th e scop e of th e sectio

n112(b)(6 ) exemptio ni n

31 The EP

A i s revisin

g th e PS D regulation s t o implemen t thi s ohang c inth

e Ao t under separat e rulemaking . However , tha t rulemakin

g doe s not addres s th e issu e o f th e AQR V impac t analysis . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRS8BN T OFFICIA

L SP A POLIC Y


### •• • Novembe r is , 199 4 —(filenam e PREAM_I.II« ] 

### •• •P.3 4 V J I D < o L.J.J,'

-{^'.02 :u j io« u "AI U > K A y 3t- S Ay.UD-PP B ifcjou i u2 3

33 5 orde r t o avoi d creatin g a regulator

y gap , a s ther e i s n o indicatio

ntha t Congres s intende d suc ha result . Accordingly , th

e EPA' s interpretiv e guidanc e indicate s tha t
an y hazardou s ai r pollutant s liste d i nsectio

n11 2 o f the Act , whic

har e regulate

d a s constituent s of a mor e genera l pollutan t unde r other provision s o f th e Act , suc

ha s th e NAAQS , ar e stil l subjec t t o PS D a s par t o f th e mor e genera l pollutant , se e 5 7 F Ra t 18075 . A S sucn , althoug hhazardou s ai r pollutant s are not directly regulate

d unde r th

e PS D permittin

g program , the EP

A believe s tha t th

e impac t tha t
suc hhazardou s ai r pollutants , whic har e als o particulate s
o r voc' s o

r constituent s of an y other mor e genera l pollutant , voul d hav e o nAQRV s mus t b

e addresse

d i nthe impact s analysis .
c . Analysi s o f Impact s o nFedera l Clas s I I Area s Today' s proposa l als o clarifie s tha t th e requiremen t fo r additiona l impac t analyse s a t sectio n51.166(o ) an

d 52.21(e ) applie s t o Federa l Clas s I I areas . Th e analyse s require d under thes e provision s include s assessin g th e Impairment of visibility , soils , an d vegetatio

ntha t voul d
occu r a s a resul t of th e sourc e o

r modificatio

nan d genera l oomaoroial , residential , industrial , an d othe r growt h associate

d withth

e sourc e o

r modification . Thus , unde r thes e propose

d revisions , vher e a propose d sourc e o r PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S MOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY *-. * Novembe r 16 / 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll« ] •• *P.3 5 U-<J . - v: > 1U -' J -'.-la y.\r v A yA n Ay.HD-i-r n .fc,vu. v U. J

$*> " 33 6

modificatio nma y

impac t a Federa l Clas s I I area , th e additiona l impac t analyse s mus t asses s th e impact s o nth e
area , se e propose d chang e t o sectio n5l.l66(o)(3 ) an d sectio n52.21(o)(3) . \h e propose d chang e als o specifie s tha t th e require d analyeie\inolud e consideratio no f potentia l impact s o nan y vegetatio nwljicl . th e FLM determine s



# - f c 

# \ 

# y^ ypy t o b e o f significan t ecologica l v-iuie . I nexisting

paragrap h(o)(l ) inbot hse£<o f PS D Regulations , th e owne r
o r operato r o f th e prepense d ne w o r modifie d eoura e i c no t require d t o provi^a nanalysi s o f th e impac t o nvegetatio n havin g n o s'lajrl

f lean t commercia l o r recreationa l value . Thus , the/propose d languag e woul d affirmativel y clarif y

tha t th a agistin g exemptio ndoe s no t exclud e th e analysi s impact s o nvegetatio nconsidere d t o b e a nimportan t resourc e / i nFedera l Clas s I an d I I areas . / d . Clarificatio no f PS D Requirement s Applicabl e t o

Land s withi nth e Exterio r Boundarie s o f Reservation s Redesignate d a s Clas s I Area s Individua l CAAA

C member s an

d Triba l representative s hav e aske d the . EPA

t o provid e guidanc e onth e PS D provision s tha t appl y

t o reservatio nland e tha t ar c redesignated b y India nTribe s a s Clas s I areas . I nparticular , question s hav e bee nraise d a s t o whethe r AQKV' S ma y b e establishe d fo r suc hland s an

d ho w thes e value s ar e t o b e protecte d unde r PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOB S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PRBAM_1.116 ] ** *P.3 6
u J 1 0 y al i ; l u ^yyUTTu l l b JU »Ai u .\RA U >P S AUMD-PP B i^jjul u 02 3

33 7 th e "PS D program . Th e discussio nbelo w i s intende d t o clarif y

th e EPA' s view s o nthes e issue s an

d t o describ e th e accompanying , largel y technical , regulator y revision s tha t th e EPA

i s toda y

proposing . Relevan t provision s o f th e PS D classificatio n schem e ar e als o describe d belo v a s 

### background . (1 ) Designatio nan d Redesignatio no f clas s I Area s 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
and otne r area s specifie d i nsectio n162(a ) o f th e Ac t ar e designate d a s Clas s I areas . Thes e Federa l land s ma y no t b e redeeignatc d a s an y othe r claaaificatio n and ar e therefor e "mandatory " Federa l Clas s I areas . Initially , al l othe r PS D areas " inth e countr y wer e designate d a s Clas s I I areas . Se e th e Act , sectio n162(b) . State s hav e broa d discretio nt o redesignat e Clas s I I area s
a s clas s I . Se e th e Act , sectio n164 . Specia l provision s addres s an

y potentia l Stat e redesignatio n tha t include s Federa l lands . Fo r example , sectio n164(b)(1)(B ) o f th e Ac t require s State s t o provid e prio r notic e t o th e appropriat e FLM an d a nopportunit y

fo r th e FL

M t o confe r and offe r vritte ncomment s an d recommendations .

" PS D area s ar e area s designate d pursuan t t o sectio n10 7 or th e CA A a s "attainment " o r "unclassifiable. " CA A S 161 . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF 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

r16 , 199 4 —

[filenam e FREAM_l.ll6 ] •• •P.3 7 .iy.4Li-rJ' b-fejUi l U. J

33 8 "Scotio n 164(d ) of th

e Ao t als o direct s th e FLM' s t o revie w al l nationa l monuments , primitiv e areas , an

d nationa l preserve s an

d recommen

d appropriat e area s fo r redesignatio

n
a s Clas s I area s wher e AQRV' s are importan t attribute s o f the area . ££ e th

e Act , sectio

n164(d) . The FLM' s ar e directe d t o repor t thei r recommendations t o Congres s an d th e affecte d States , after firs t consultin g withth

e States . Certai nFedera l lands currently designate

d clas s I I ma

y onl y b e redesignate

d a s Clas s I . Thes e particula r Clas s T I "floor " area a includ e nationa l monuments , nationa l primitive
areas , nationa l preserves , nationa l recreatio nareas , nationa l vil d an

d sceni c rivers , nationa l wildlif e refuge s
an d nationa l lakeshore s o r seashore s whic

hexcee d 10,00 0
acre s i nsiz e an

d nationa l park

c an d wildernes s area s establishe

d after Augus t 7 , 197 7 whic hexcee d 10,00 0 acre s i nsize , se e th

e Act , sectio

n164(a) . Sectio n164(c ) O f th

e Ac t als o give s federally recognize

d India nTribes 4 0 broa

d authorit

y t o redesignat e land s withi nth

e exterio

r boundarie s of reservation s a s Clas s I areas . Severa l India nTribe s hav

e alread

y redesignate

d lands withi nreservatio nboundarie s a s Clas s I
areas . Th

e Norther

nCheyenn

e India nReservation , th

e

40 The Departmen t of Interio r periodically

publishe s a lis t of Federally-recognize d Tribes , see 5 8 F R5436 4 (Oct . 21 , 1993) . PkELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAF T FO ROFFICE O

F MANAOEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y • * * November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] • * •P.3 8 ».IJ ^ .\i

\ A y.-r o .\UAL)-ftb i&jOl j u.' j

33 9 Flathea d India nReservation , the 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 . SSiS eeotion e 52.1382(c ) an d 52.2497 . (2 ) Statu s c 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 reeouroc[c] . • • S . Rep . No . 127 , 95t h Cong. , 1s t Sess . 3 4 (1977) . Thes e area s ar e th e "federally-owne d clas s I areas. " s . Kep . NO . 12 7 a t 34 . Th e FL M an d th e Federa l officia l charge d wit hdirec t responsibilit y

fo r th e managemen t o f cuc hland s hav e a n affirmativ e responsibilit y t o protec t th e AQRV' s o f suc h lands , se e th e Act , sectio n165(d)(2)(B) . A s describe d previously , a PS D permi t shal l no t b e issue d i f a propose d eouro c wil l hav e a n adverse impac t o n
an y AQR V ina Federal, , Clas s I area . TO.e burde no f proo f fo r demonstratin g th e presenc e o r absenc e of v anadvers e impac t i s determine d b

y th e Clas s I increments . lJha 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 FL M bearsNth e burde n
o r demonstratin g tn e presenc e o f a nadvers e impact s Conversely , i f th e propose d sourc e o r modificatio ndd-a e contribut e t o a violatio no f a Clas s I increment , th e burde n PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *• * Novembe r16 , 199 4 - - (filenam e PREAM_1.H6 ] • • •P.3 9 •^•> u••••• •'•.•'' " -- - ..AXit-rrtt tu n U.' J

34 0
o f demonstrating , th e absenc e of a

nadvers e impac t o

na nAQR V lie s withth

e sourceNc^tmer/operator . Thes e provision s d o not , however , apply t o reservatio

nlands . Federally-recognize d Tribe s ma

y establis hAQRV' s fo r land s whichthe

y 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 the specifi c authorit y that i s conferre

d o nFLM' e t o protec t i^^j^-i Federa l Clas s I arca c I f a federally-recognize d India n Tribe determine s tha t a propose d PS D permi t ina Stat e wil l
caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a clas s l increment o n it s reservation , th e Trib e ma y reques t tha t th

e Adainistrator enter into disput e rccolutio nnegotiation s withth e partie s involved , ge e th e Act , sectio

n164(e ) [als o 4 0 CF

Rsectio

n52.2i(t)] . i f requeste d b y th e Tribe , th e Administrator mus t mak e a recommendatio

n t o resolv

e th e disput e an

d protec t th

e AQRV' s o f th

e land s involved . Tribe s ma

y therefore establishAQRV' s fo r thei r land s
an d ma y protec t thos e value s b y invokin

g th e EPA' S involvement i

nPS D permi t dispute s a s provide d i n sectio n164(e ) o f th

e Aot . Th

e Ao t als o allow

s Statc c t o similarl y

invok e thes e disput e resolutio nprovisions . T o clarify

thes e issues , th

e EP A i s proposin

g definition s of th

e term s "Federa l clas s I area " an d PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE OP MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOB 8 NOT REPRE8EN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y <•• • November 16 / 199 4 — [filenam

e FRBA M 1.116 ] *• •P.4 0 u J -1 b v j15 : 12 ©20 2 .mi 162 0 »AS U ,\ RAO XPS -- - AQMD-PP B i£jol l u2 3

34 1 "mandatoryFedera l clas s I area, " an d i s makin g necessary implementing change s t o section s 51.16 6 an d 52.21
. Th e disput e resolutio n provisio n i s currentl ycodifie d a t sectio n 52.2l(t) ; however , n o simila r provisio n i s currentl y containe d i n th e Par t 5 1 PS D regulation s applicabl e t o Stat e PSI"
. programs . Therefore , tho EP Ai s toda

yproposin g tha t th e disput e resolutio n procedure s se t fort h i n th e Ac t b e adde d t o sectio n51.166 . Se e propose d sectio n51.166(t) . Th e EPArequest s publi c comment s on th e preceedin g discussio n addressing whethe r AQRV' s ma yb e identifie d fo r redesignate d Clas s I area s withi n th e exterio r boundarie s o f
a reservatio n an

d addressin

g th e manne r i n whic h suc h value s
mayb e protected
. Th e EP Aals o request s comment s o n th e propose d definition s t o reflec t th o resulting distinction s betwee n mandatoryFedera 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 jurisdictio n o f a FLM)
. 6
. Strategie s t o Addres s th e Impao t o f Existin g Source s o n Clas s I Areas . A s noted , th e CAAAC' s NS R Subcommitte e ha s discusse d
an d identifie d severa l differen t option s t o addres s th e impact s o n th e AQRV' 6 o f Clas s I arca c attributabl e t o existin g sources . Whil e th e Subcuimuittc e ha a no t mod e specifi c i tiuonunendalLUBn s --_th e option s iJf

c identifie d wer e PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O P MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

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

e PREAM_1.116 ] *<• *P.4 1 U J ' 1 b ii i i o : l i ia' 2 0 i ..u s TbTJ u "Ab U M < A y .\P S -- - AQMD-PP B ,£jol 5 U2 3

34 2 generall y

directe

d a t th e followin

g ai r quality-related problem s inClas s I areas : (l ) regiona l viaibility impairment , (2 ) acid deposition , an d (3 ) ozone damage . The EP A ha s recentl y

Identifie

d strategie s tha t i t intend s t o pursue over th

e nex t fe w year s t o protec t an d improv

e ai r quality inFedera l Clas s I areas . Thes e strategies , a s described below , focus primarily o nth e contributio

n existin g source s mak

e to Federa l clas s I area ai r qualit y deterioratio

nan d addres s th

e thre e major area s o f concern identifie

d b y th e Subcommittee . A o noted , th

e Ac t call s fo

r th e Gran d Canyo nVisibilit y Transpor t commissio n t o issu

e a repor t t o th

e EP A b y Novembe r 199 5 tha t examines , amon g other measures , th e promulgatio

no f regulation s establishin g lon g rang e strategie s fo

r addressin

g regiona l haze . T o be prepared t o
mov e expeditiousl y

onc e th

e EF A receive s thes e recommendations , th e EP A plan s t o initiat e th e technica l activitie s neede

d to analyz e th

e appropriat e scope 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 o n developin

g th e technica l tool s fo r regiona l haz e planning . The next ste

p vil l entai l development of policy option s fo

r addressin

g regiona l haz e an

d vil l involv

e consideratio

no f tii e Gran d Canyo nVisibilit

y Transpor t commission' s PRELIMINAR

Y8TAFF WORXIN

O DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AM D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO

T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y -.* • November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] **<-,.o - . « IO- U "Aa o At v Ay Ai-. ) AUMD-PP B ^ul b U2 J



# D 34 3 

### / -£k?f ^ *.. **•< / recommendation c an d th e wor k o f th e Souther n Appalachia nyf a „ 

### LS<f4$n 7) ^ Mountain s Initiative . / . Th e EPA

vil l continu e t o activel y implemen t th e aci d rai n progra

m unde r Titl e IV

o f th e Act / Ful l implementatio n
o f th e nex t phas e o f th e aci d rai ncontro l program wil l b e a majo r ste p i nimprovin g visibilit y i nEaster nClas s I areas , and reducin g deposition-relate d damage . Th e EP A plan s t o addres s ground-leve l ozon e damag e t o Clas s I are a ecosystem s b y incorporatin g th e technica l informatio nrelevan t t o suc hdamag e int o it s ongoin g revie w
o f th e ozon e NAAQS . Th e EP A i s als o explorin g tn e efficac y
o f a short-ter

m nitroge noxide s incremen t t o addres s th e ecosystem

effect s o f nitroge n loading an d potentia l ozon e formation . 7 . informatio nclearinghous e (Clas s I areas) . Th e CAAAC recommende d tha t th e EP A establis ha clearinghous e o f informatio nabou t Clas s I areas . Th e EPA J,—-i s currentl y

workin g o

na clearinghous e projec t t o b e incorporate d int o th e EPA' s publi c NS Rbulleti nboar d (NS RBB ) whic hi s hoste d b y th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standard s (OAQPS ) Technology Transfe r Networ k (TTN) . User s o f th e NS RB B ma y searc hfor , retrieve , the n
rea d and/o r downloa d ful l tex t o f recen t polic y an d guidanc e material . Thp . user s ma y als o solici t fro

m o r provid e t o PFELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIO E O F MANAOEMEN 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.4 3
v-> - . r. .y.m . I J.-.'r.iu- rTD 4j,i)l , v mJ



# 1 **• 34 4

othe r partie s i n th e NS R permitting community , informatio n pertainin g t o area s o f interes t withi n NSR
. Anothe r NS R B B reside s o n th e Permit s Program s Bulleti n Boar d System(PP BBS)
. Th e P P BB S versio n va s designe d primaril yfo r us e b yth e EPAHeadquarters , th e EPARegiona l Offic e Staff , an

d othe r Federa l an

d Stat e agencies
. Hovever , th e P P BB S i s als o accessibl e t o th e public
. Th e P P BB S provide s th e same function s availabl e o n th e TTN version , bu t ha s mor e sophisticate d searching capability
. Th e TP Ai s expanding th e NS R bulleti n board' s capabilit yi n tw o respect s t o addres s tn e CAAAC s recommendations
. First , consisten t vit h th e propose d requiremen t t o improv e permitting authorit yan d FLM coordination , describe d i n par t V.c.l. , above , a featur e shal l b e installe d exclusivel yfo r posting notic e o f constructio n permi t application s b ypermitting authoritie s / and/o r NS R permi t applicants
. Al l FLM s vil l hav e acces s t o th e database
. Thi s segmen t o f th e NS R B B vil l serv e a s a fac t shee t i n tha t i t vil l provid e ver ybasi c sourc e information , suc h a s th e name an d typ e o f source , it s locatio n vi a UTM coordinates , th e distanc e betvee n th e propose d sourc e an

d al l Clas s I area s withi n 50 0 km , th e propose d emissio n rat e o r ne t emission s increas e o f eac h ai r pollutan t associate d wit h th e project
. I t al6 0 wil l allo w PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O P MANAOEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W t DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP APOLIC Y 

### ** • Novembe

r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM1.116 ] *• *' ~> "~

- .w.w-tr o uUi ) v. j



# w# y34 5 permit , applicant s an d permittin g authoritie s t o addres s question s t o FLM s regardin g ai r qualit y issue s relativ e t o Federa l land s tha t ma y be affecte d b

y th e propose d ne v

o r increase d emissions , and, , conversely , a contac t t o whom th e FLM s ma y

direc t inquirie s and information . Se e propose d sectio n51.166(n)(5 ) sectio n52.21(n)(5) . Second , a dat a bas e addressin g Clas s I area s shal l b e 7availabl e (initiall y onth e P P BBS ) i nwhic hFLM s an d th e EP A wil l pos t th e followin g informatio na s i t become s availabl e relativ e t o Clas s I are a protection : / yX*~ • -Boundarie s an d siz e o f existin g Federa l Clas s I area s 

# y -Area-specifi c AQR V information , includin g sensitiv e receptors , curren t emissio ninventorie s an d curren t an

d critica l loadings , existin g advers e conditions ; -Source-specifi c informatio nonincremen t consumptio n
and impact s onAQRV' s i nspecifi c Federa l Clas s I
areas ; -Reports o f researc han d investigation s abou t th e impact s o f ai r pollutio nonClas s I are a resource s an d contac t person s fo r furthe r information ; -Commen t letter s an d advers e impac t findings issue d relativ e t o specifi c draf t PS D permits ;

Pr.ELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y 

### • • • Novembe

r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM_I.H6 ] 

### -»* •P.4 5 ,-k'm.
. t ^ .-i.wi.--- r rD ±j <J i ti IJ

m J

34 6 -Adjudicativ

e appeal s an

d correspondin

g order s fro

m the EP A Environmenta l Appeal s Boar d an d cour t decision s relativ e t o Clas s I area issues . Al l user s o f th

e NS RB B vil l b

e abl e t o downloa

d al l the document s poste

d inthi s portio

nof th e dat a base . vi . preventio

no f signifleant Deterioratio n Praeoastruetio

n Monitorin

g PrcoonGtructio

n monitorin

g requirement s fo

r PS D source s
ar e se t forthi

nsectio

n52.21(m ) fo

r Federa l a s wel l a s stat e delegated permi t program s an d insectio

n51.16 6 (m ) fo r Stat e adopte

d programs . I

nbot hset s of regulation s the monitorin

g provision s generally require tha t a

napplioan t fo r a ne v

majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio nsubmi t wit h.th e applicatio

non e year of continuou s ai r qualit y dat a fo

r the perio d precedin

g th e applicatio

nsubmittal . Thes e requirement s ste

m fro m Gcctions 165(e)(1 ) an d (o)(2 ) o f the Act . In sectio

n165(e)(1) , Congres s require d fo r eac hPS D
sourc e a preconstructio nanalysi s "o

f th e ambient ai r quality at th e propose

d sit e an

d i nth e are a vhichma

y b e affecte d b y the emission s fro

m suc ha facilit

y for oao

h pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunder thi s Ac t whichwil l be

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORXIN

O DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY *• • November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.4 6

34 7 emitte d fro m suc hfacility." 4 1 Additionally , sectio n165(e)(2 ) require s that th e analysi s "shal l includ e continuou s ai r qualit y monitorin

g dat a gathered fo r purpoee c
o f determinin

g whethe r emission s fro m suc hfacility

vil l
exoee d th e maximu

m allovabl e increase s or maximu m allowabl e concentration s permitte d under thi s part. " Further , sectio n165(e)(2 ) provide s that dat a fo r th e analysi s shal l b e gathere

d over a perio

d of on e calendar year precedin g th e applicatio

no r fo r a shorter perio

d i f a Stat e allow s it accordin

g t o th e EP A regulations . O nJune 19 , 1978 , th e EP A promulgate

d regulatione which require d a sourc e t o submi t a monitorin g analysi s an

d dat a collectio

n only fo r thos e pollutant s emitte d b y th e sourc e whichwoul d impac t a nexistin

g NAAQS . Monitorin g va s no t required t o determin e vhethe r th

e sourc e voul d caus e or contribut e t o a violatio no f a PS D inorcment . The Unite d Stato s Cour t of Appeal s fo r th e Distric t of Columbi a Circui t i nAlabam

a Pove r co . v . EP

A foun d th e June 19 , 197 8 regulatio

nt o b e deficien

t i nthat i t di d no t provid e fo r continuou s preconstructio nmonitorin

g fo r purpos e o f

4 1 Th e 199 0 CA

A Amendment s i

nsectio

n112(b)(6 ) exempt s th e lis t of hazardouc ai r pollutant s i nsectio

n112(b)(1 ) fro

m an y requirement s impose d b y Part C . Therefore , thos e pollutant s are n o longe r considere

d regulate

d pollutant s vithrespec t t o th e eso rules.-

- PFELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO

T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y <-* • November 16 / 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_i.ii6 j •• •P.4 7

" • •• * •* • c J -- - .-laj.UL/- r r D «fe j y• J . v» j

34 8 determinin

g impaot e o

nbot hNAAQ S an

d increments . O

n Augus t 7 , 1980 , th

e EF A correcte

d th e deficienc

y b y promulgatin

g th e current rule s i

npart s 5 1 an

d 5 2 coverin

g preconstructio

nmonitorin

g requirements . The EP A argue d inth e Alabam

a Power cas e tha t monitorin

g ai r qualit

y concentration s wa s technologicall y infeasibl e fo

r al l bu

t a smal l number of pollutant s an d tha t th e the ncurrent monitorin g technique s wer e at bes t o f questionabl e accurac y eve nfo r th e relativel y straightforwar

d measurement o f whethe r a napplicabl e NAAQ 6 ha s bee nexceeded . Th

e Cour t i

nrejectin

g th e EPA' S argument s o

nthi s matter said tha t th e statut e clearl y required monitorin

g fo r determinin

g whethe r PS D inorement o woul d be exceeded . Th e Cour t discerne

d i nth e Ac t tha t Congres s ha

d a technolog

y forcin g inten t inrequirin

g suc h monitoring , congres s intende d "tha t th

e employment o f modelin g technique s b

e held to eart

hb y a continua l prooes e
o f confirmatio

nan d reassessment , a proces s tha t enhance s confidenc e inmodelin g a s a mean s fo

r realisti c projection
of ai r quality. " 63 6 F.2 d a t 372 . However , the Cour t added , n [o] f cours e eve na congressiona l mandate , euo ha c a technology-forcin

g requirement base

d o na congressiona l projectio

no f emergenc e of technolog y fo r the future , l s sablec t t o a justifie d excus e fro

m complianc e wher e aood PRJ.LIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFIC E O P MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * D0E 8 HO

T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y • <-• Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRBA M 1.116 ] *• •- - - .•v»j.-ii > -rr o tj y » « w* J

34 9 fait heffor t t Q Compl y ha s not bee

nfruitfu l o f results. " Id . (emphasi s added) . Th e Cour t pointe

d ou t tha t suc

ha legitimat e "excuse " ha d not bee

npresente

d i nth e case , in whichth

e EP A exempte

d source s fro

m preconstructio

n monitorin

g fo r PS D increment s base d upo ncurrent technologica l infeasibility . Th e Court' s opinio

nthu s allovs th

e EPA , afte r a

n additiona l fiftee

nyear s of experienc e unde r th e PS D progra

m sinc e Alabam

a pover t o foreg

o requirin

g stric t complianc e wit hth e requirement s o f eectio n 165(e)(2 ) wher e a good fait heffor t i

n preconstructio

nmonitorin

g ha s faile

d in producin

g fruitfu l results . Sinc e th

e court' s decision , severa l ai r quality dispersio

nmodel s hav

e bee nimprove

d i naccurac

y o r othe r
mor e accurat e model s hav e bee ndevelope

d suc htha t th

e EP A i nit s Guideline Ai r Qualit y Model s doe s no t permi t calibratio

no f suc hmodel s b

y usin g site-specifi c ai r quality data , wher e suc

hmodel s ar e employe d t o analyz e th

e impac t o f a propose d source , th

e collectio

no f preconstructio

nai r qualit

y dat a i s generall y

o f n o us e excep t inth

e narro v situatio

nwhe nne w constructio

ni s proposed ina

nare a whic hie isolate

d fro m other interactin

g
sources . Wher e there i s n o representativ

e backgroun

d dat a

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOB S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

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

e PREA M 1.116 ] •* »PAI L


# iz n, . <t%TE#**y c 

# >wy>, ... „, 7 

# sfr*7'

available , preconstructio nmonitorin g ca nb e usefu l i n/ /~-> 

## y/ /CN establishin g background ai r quality . '

' Th e EPA

believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e t o reevaluat e J th e regulator y

requiremen t fo r preconstructio nmonitorin g V fo r propose d PS D constructio nwher e th e ai r qualit y dat a cannot/feasibl y

^. e use d i nth a analysi s o f a source' s impac t upo n ai r qualit y

standard s accordin g t o th e EPA rule s and guidance . Th e preconstructio nmonitorin g requiremen t obligate s a considerabl e amoun t o f a napplicant' s resource s
an d ofte nresult s insignifican t tim e delay s i ncubmittin g it s permi t application . Th e EPA i s therefor e requestin g publi c commen t onth e appropriatenes s o f providin g a regulator y

exemptio n fo r som e case s fro

m PS D preconstructio n monitoring . An

y comment s shoul d identif y th e eiroumetance s wher e anexemptio ni e appropriate , an d wher e i t i s inappropriate . Wher e possible , comment s accompanie d shoul d b e accompanie d b

y technica l an

d lega l justificatio n fo r providin g anexemption . Recommendation s fo r oontinuin g preconstructio nmonitorin g shoul d b e accompanie d wit ha descriptio no f th e environmenta l benefi t o f suc hsourc e specifi c monitorin g i t possible . 

# L

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EF A POLIC Y •• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] *«-- »