P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 242 ) ll-F-3 2

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 242 of 250P. 2

08/25/95* ' 11:1 6 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S -»- - OGC AI R DIVISIO N _00 1



# UnitecfStates Departmen

to f th e Interio r

I NREPL YKere nTi*

- NATIONi\L PAR KSERVIC

E P.Q

. Bo x 3712 7 Washington , D.C

. 20013-712 7 

# r- .

NUMBE RO F PAGE S T O FOLLOW : ^_^*-<r<_n i 

# ^ ^ BATE : Kl^i/fS AD 

# 'cLt

fatTM, ^C/^/S S

FROM : 

# 7 « 

# SUWECT : fry^fc. ^**fcf~y .

a*** , -fo-fcs-t- <*/•-• & CA^_

. kcvJOm.



### I F YO UHAVE AN

YPROBLEN S WIT H THI S FA

XORTROUBL E RECEIVIN

GA FA X PLEAS E CA UTH E IWIVIDUA L FRO N -HO N YO UAR E RECEIVIN

GTH E FAX .
DEMIS , JOHN EADY , COLLETT E JOHNSTON , GARY KLIVINSKI , SHARON MUCIN . KAREN MCCLELLAND , LIWSA Y NILLER , ABB Y PECK , DEBB Y SOUKUP , NIK E

jfT O -- • £\.TX 3 v -^ ' *



## „ > •*• < ft S. 202-208-519 3 202-208-464 0 202-208-588 6 202-208-463 9 202-219-338 4 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-208-462 4 202-208-388 4 HAUER , BIL L HATKINS , HILN A WILSON . RIT A 202-219-338 6 202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4



# G 3 O
- i AP R

### ^ C 

### 1935 f|j i

P^' V ' 

### / *
Snt ai H

f r. <*

, .. i 

## b e

. i n A QEp&^d ^

5P. 3

08/25/9 5 12:0 8 ®20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S @]01 5

" > 1 4

resolutio

n o f th e issues, , today' s proposed applicability change s buil d upon th

e Subcommittee' s deliberations . Today' s notic e discusse s th e followin

g propose d change s t o NS R applicability : (1 ) a ne w exclusio

n fro m majo r NS Rfor existin g emission s unit s an d facilitie s tha t ar e subjec t t o BAC T
o r lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e (LAER) , equivalen t mino r NS R contro l requirements , or comparabl e "clean " emission s contro l technolog

y (Se e Sectio

n 11(C)) ; (_

) a ne w baseline fo r determinin

g i f a physica l or operationa l change wil l resul t i na significan t ne t emission s increas e an d thereb

y trigge r majo r NS >R / >£ l allowin g source s t o us e an y 1 2 consecutiv

e month s i hthe pas t 10^ / (* , \ year s t o establis hth e unit' s pre-chang e emission s leve l (Se e ^TL / Sectio

n 11(D)) ; (3 ) a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusion , • X J patterned afte r the exclusio nrecentl y

adopted b

y EPA fo r utilitie s bu t coverin g al l sourc e categorie s an d pollution preventionproject s (Se e Sectio

n11(E)) ; (4 ) a ne

w provision allowin g State s t o bas e applicability o nplant-wid e applicabilit y limit s (PALs ) (Se

e Sectio

n11(F)) ; an

d (5 ) extensiono f a.version
o f th e "actual-to-future-actual " test , currentl y onl y availabl e fo r utilities , t o al l sourc e categorie s (ge e Section 11(G)) . Finally , the EP

A i s proposin

g for comment an applicabilit y approachwhic hth

e EPA agreed t o conside r an d take fina l action-
on i n accordanc e wit hth e settlemen t o f a lawsui t wit hthe 

# 1

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OPPICIA L SPA POLICY ** * June 29 / 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• • •08/25/9 5 12:0 8 ®20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S P. 4 1.01 6

6 th e Clean Ai r Ac t Advisor y Committee' s Ne

w Sourc e Revie

w (NSR ) Refor m Subcommittee , a c^mc l o f industr y representatives , Stat e
an d loca l ai r pollution .contro l officials,Yenvironmentalist s an d othe r experts . Thes e proposed revision s t o th e NS Rprogram represen t the firs t comprehensiv e overhau l o f the progra m i n 1 5 years . I f adopted , th e change s wil l significantl y reduc e the numbe r an

d type s o f activitie s at source s subjec t t o majo r NS R permitting . A

t th e sam e time , th

e change s wil l provid e State s wit hgreate r flexibility t o customiz e thei r fi*«__implementation
o f thi s program , wil l addres s concern s raised abou t the permittin

g o f source s nea r protected Nationa l Park s an d othe r wildernes s area s (Federa l Clas s I areas) , promot e the us e o f innovativ

e technologie s an

d pollution prevention , and , i n general , streamline th e overal l NS R permittin g process . The followin

g ar e som

e o f th e ke y element s o f today' s proposal . o Deregulationo f change s at "clean " emission s unit s an d "clean " facilitie s an d o f pollutio

ncontro l an

d pollution prevention project s - - Existin g source s tha t hav e clean , emission s unit s or ar e undertakin g project s t o cleanu p ai r pollution shoul d no t b e targeted for majo r ne w sourc e review . o Promotiono f voluntar y plant-wide limit s - - Rathe r thanfac e complicated , piecemea l applicability decision s ever

y tim e a chang e at a plan t i s contemplated , plan t manager s ma y prefe r t o wor k withi n an emission s ca p o r emission s budget , a n annua l emission s limi t tha t allows manager s t o mak e almos t an y chang e anytim

e a s lon

g a s the plant' s emission s do no t exceed th

e cap . Today' s actio npropose s t o creat e thi s optioni nEPA' s regulations .
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY •• - June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# Aa P. 5

08/25/9 5 12:0 9 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S g ^

2 7 projec t exclusio

nwit ha ne

w pollutio

n contro l projec t exclusion for al l sourc e categories. ' C . Th e "Clea

n Unit " an

d "Clea n Facility " Exclusion 1 . Introductio

n The Applicability

Subgrou

p o f th e CAAAC s NS RRefor m Subcommitte e considered man y applicability

options . Whil e non e
o f thes e proposal s garnered th e ful l Subcommittee' s support , representative s o f Stat e an d loca l regulator s a s wel l a s environmenta l group s expressed genera l suppor t for the ide a tha t "benign " change s at existin g emission s unit s do no t need t o underg o th

e actual-to-potentia l tes t an d th e complicated NS R

•*-,otv_

- **.•? nettin g rule s i n ever

y instance . Ther e wa s als o suppor t fo r the / A 

## oA ^ / proposition tha t the NS Rapplicability tes t shoul d provid e «on e deferenc e t o source s that/nav e alread

y undergone majo r NSR . The EPA , afte r carefu l consideratio n o f thes e discussions , believe s tha t th

e bes t approachfor a ne w exclusio

ni s one tha t focuse s o n the existin g emission s contro l o f a unit , rathe r than 8 I n th

e WEPC O Ruxe , th

e EPA als o created specia l ne w sourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS ) treatmen t fo r certai n repowerin

g project s an

d provided limite

d NS Rexemption s fo r temporar

y an d permanen t Clea

nCoa l Technolog

y projects , an

d fo r certai n "ver

y clean " units . Ss& e.g. . existin g sectio

n 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(i) , (i ) an d (£) ] Al l o f thes e change s implemented specia l p r vision s i nthe Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 . I n th

e rule , th

_ EPA als o amended it s NSP S regulation s (4 0 CF R par t 60 ) t o allo

w a utilit y

t o us e a s it s pre-chang e baselin e it s highes t hourl y

emission s rat e achieved durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th

e propose d physica l o r operationa l change . Th e change s implementin g th e NSP S baseline chang e ar e neithe r discussed no r affected b y today' s rulemakin

g proposal . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *_08/25/9 5 12:0 9 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ®01 8 ^

3 3 Durin g consideratio

n o f th e Clea nUni t Exclusion , severa l participant s suggeste d tha t unit s subjec t t o maximu m achievabl e contro l technolog

y (MACT ) o r reasonabl y achievabl e contro l rj\ technolog

y (RACT ) shoul d als o automatl__y)quali_ y a s cleanunits . A recentl y

required MAC T emission s limit , whil e no t necessaril y equa l t o BAC T or LAER , i s likel y t o resul t i n significan t emission s control s suchtha t a BAC T o r LAER revie w woul d no t necessaril y

resul t i nsignifican t additiona l emission s reductions . However , th e EPA i s als o concerned tha t a MAC T limi t coul d b e significantl y les s effectiv

e i nlimitin

g volatil e organi c compoun

d (VOC ) emission s tha nBAC T or LAERi n man y circumstances . A

MAC T emissio

n limi t ma

y adequatel y

contro l a toxi c VO C bu t coul d resul t i n emissio nincrease s o f pollutant s subject ' t o NSR . Fo r example , anincinerator installed t o reduc e
a toxi c VO C wil l increas e nitrogenoxide s (NOx ) emission s emitte d t o the atmosphere . The EPA als o ha s concern s wit husin g Federa l RAC T limit s t o presumptivel y

qualif y

i uni t a s a clea

nunit . I n nonattainmen t
areas , a RAC T emissio n limi t i s almos t alway s muc hles s stringen t than curren t LAER and , i n th e EPA' s view , oftenwoul d b e les s stringen t than a BAC T limit . Further , i nsom e instance s RAC T i s base d onth

e attainmen . need s o f th e are a an

d no t a specifi c contro l technolog

y standard . Whil e EPA solicit s commen t o n presumptivel y

applyin

g th e clean uni t exclusio n tes t t o unit s

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L SPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *

ZmL08/25/9 5 12:1 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/AQ NP S P. 7 l_01 9



# n 4 2

instanc e in th

e -automobil e industry , wher e lo w utilization rate s hav e persisted at som

e plant s for severa l years , EPA' s baselin e presumption s hav

e the effec t o f leavin g plan t manager s wit hthe choic e o f surrenderin g capacity

(tha t woul d no t b e considered representativ

e o f norma l operation s unde r the curren t NS R rules )
o r takin

g the tim

e an d expens e t o secur e a majo r NS Rpermi t fo r
even small , non-excluded change s t o a portio n o f the plant . Provision s i n th

e existin

g regulation s which , a t th e discretio

n o f th e permittin

g authority , allo

w th e us e a different , "more , representative, " perio d hav e no t alleviated the .proble m i hth e vie w o f man y Subcommitte e members . A s wit hothe r aspect s o f current nettin g rules , establishin g representativ

e baseline period s othe r than th e tw o yea r period precedin g the propose d chang e ca n b e comple

xan d time-consuming , an d ofte n involve s disputed judgment calls . Severa l industr

y applicability

proposal s included changin g t o a nettin

g baseline tha t allows source s t o us e the highes t yea r
or twelv

e consecutiv

e month s out o f th

e previou s te nyears . Generally , th

e participatin

g Stat e ai r pollutionmanagemen t official s favore

d thi s increas e i nflexibility . Som e o f the environmenta l grou

p representative s als o recognized tha t th e existin g baseline approachha s the impac t o f takin g awa y "use d
an d useful " capacity t .an d "tha t a loiigeaaLJaas-elin - perio d would-be LapproprTgrgT" " O

nthe othe r hand , som e participant s wer e concerne d

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 / 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] *• *



# '608/25/9 5 12:1 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ft02 0

4 8 for netting . The EP A solicit s commen

t on th e effec t o f the differin

g loo k bac k an

d contemporaneou s period s an d an y reason s wh y thes e period s shoul d be consistent , ove r eithe r fiv e o r ten years . 3 . Protectio

no f Short-ter

m Increment s an

d NAAQ S I n discussion s o f a longe r baseline , environmenta l grou p representative s linked an y change fro

m the existin

g baselin e wit h the adoptio

n pt safeguard s for short-ter m NAAQ S an

d PS D increments^ 1 1 Thes e representative s suggeste d tha t th

e curren t nettin g analysi s b e change d t o requir e a sourc e t o g o throug h majo r NS Rwhe n ther e i s a ne t increas e i nshort-ter m (e.g. , hourly , daily , weekl y or monthly , dependin g o nth e emission trackin g capability

o f th e source ) emission s whe n pas t actua l emission s represented b y th e highes t short-ter m emission s i nthe previou s year . Thi s ste p coul d provide assurance s tha t pea k emissions , whic hcoul d caus e violation s o f short-ter m NAAQS , woul d no t be allowe d t o increas e withou t majo r NSR . Som e applicability

subgrou

p member s argued tha t th e short-ter

m tes t shoul d be a

n ai r quality

screenin

g tes t rathe r tha

n ahNS R applicability

trigger . The EPA carefull y

considered the possibilit y o f addin

g a short-ter

m n increase " tes t t o the nettin g calculation ; however , ultimatel y

decided agains t thi s i n the proposa l fo r tw o reasons . P. 8

.. PS D increment s ar e explained i n sectio nIV.B.l , below . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Ma_t«r6.29 ] •• *



# 6P. 9

08/25/9 5 12:11 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NPS 

# * * V 1-02 1



### 5 2 includes,/unlik e th e WEPC O rule , pollutio npreventio n projects /

o Delete s on e requiremen t tha t add-oncontrol s an d fue l switches^b e subjec t to an"environmentall y beneficial " test ; instea d onl y pollution preventio nproject s ar e subjec t to thi s additiona l safeguard ;
o Incorporate s th e safeguar d tha t n o project , whethe r Add-o n controls , fue l switches , o r pollutio n prevention , ca nresul t in a n increas e i nactua l emission s tha t wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , an d extend s th e polic y t o protectio n o f AQRV s i n a Clas s I areas.. 1 4
EP A encourage s commenter s t o addres s EPA' s propose d decisio n to supersed e th e WEPC O pollutioncontro l projec t exclusio nwit ha singl e exclusio napplicabl e t o al l type s o f sources . Specifically , EP A invite s commen t on two alternativ e approaches : (1 ) i n addition to today' s propose d exclusionfo r al l sourc e categories , retai nth e WEPC O pollution contro l projec t exclusio n fo r utilitie s onl y o r (2 ) i nlie u o f th e comprehensiv e exclusio n

1 4 Th e WEPC O rul e refer s specificall y t o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r tha n "ai r qualit y relate d values. " However , EP A clearl y

state d i n th e preambl e t o th e fina l rul e tha t permittin g agencie s hav e th e authorit y to "solici t th e view s o f . other s i n takin g any othe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessar y

t o protec t Clas s I area s EP A emphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , includin g thos e o nClas s I areas , ca nb e considered.... " (5 7 F R 32322) . Further , th e statutor y protectio n i n sectio n 165(d ) o f th e Ac t plainl y ar e intende d t o protec t agains t any

"advers e impac t on th e AQRV o f suc h[Clas s I ] land s (includin g visibility). " Base d o nthi s statutor y provision , EP A believe s tha t any ai r qualit y

assessmen t fo r a pollutio ncontro l projec t shoul d conside r impact s onvisibilit y an d an y

othe r relevan t AQRV's i f.o r .an y Clas s I area s tha t ma y b e affecte d b y

the . propose d pro j ect.. . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** • Jun e 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# 1P.1 0

08/25/9 5 12:1 1 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S (2)02 2

6 6
4 . Procedura l Safeguard s Nothin g i ncurrent'guidanc e o r i ntoday' s proposa l void s o r
create s a nexclusio nfro m an y applicable'mino r NS R preconstructio n revie w requiremen t i nan y SI P tha t ha s bee n
approve d pursuan t t o sectio n110(a)(2)(C ) o f th e Ac t an d 4 0 CF R 51.160-164 . Accordingly , th e EP A believe s tha t a pollutio n
contro l projec t qualifyin g fo r today' s propose d exclusio n generall y

wil l b e require d b y th e applicabl e SI P t o obtai na mino r NS Rpermi t prio r t o beginnin g construction . Th e EP A expect s th e mino r N_ Rpermittin g proces s t o b e th e mechanis m b y |/AI^£*V« \ _W>IV_V^*^
. 

### uu.f

- *^ H 

### *fflo W P.U7.
whic hth e permitting~

_ agency / . review s th e pollutio ncontro l projec t
t o ensur e th e projec t desig ni s consisten t wit hstandar d an d reasonable , practices , determine s i f a significan t ne t increas e i n representativ e actua l emission s wil l occu r and , i f applicable , resultan t ai r qualit y o r AQR V

impacts . Se e 5 7 F R32322 . I naddition , a s discusse d above , fo r a pollutio npreventio n projec t t o qualif y a s a pollutio ncontro l projec t th e permittin g
agenc y mus t firs t determin e tha t th e propose d pollutio n preventio nprojec t wil l b e environmentall y beneficial . Th e EP A i s proposin g t o requir e tha t th e determinatio nb e consisten t wit h fo r th e purpos e o f complianc e wit htitl e II I MAC T requirement s an d b y thei r natur e wil l resul t i nreduce d ris k fro m ai r toxics . Consequently , i njudgin g whethe r a pollutio npreventio nprojec t ca nb e considere d environmentall y beneficial , permittin g authoritie s ma y

conside r a s a relevan t facto r whethe r a projec t i s bein g undertake nt o brin g a sourc e int o complianc e wit ha MACT , RACT , o r othe r Ac t requirement . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• •

%p . 1 1 08/25/9 5 12:1 2 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ^023



### 6 7 mino r NS Rpubli c notic e requirements . £__

_propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (xxv ) (A ) (6) , 51.166(31 ) (i ) (F ) and 52.21(b ) (31 ) (i ) (F ) . Th e proces s shoul d includ e documentatio no f th e basi s fo r a findin g tha t a propose d pollutio npreventio nprojec t i s environmentall y

beneficia l and provid e fo r publi c notic e an d
commen t o nth e decision. . Th e EP A als o solicit s commen t o nth e adequac y

o f thes e procedura l safeguard s and th e nee d fo r any additiona l o r alternativ e safeguard s a s appropriate . 5 . Emissio nReductio nCredit s A ^ H- ^ S< > G 2 

### ^ K 

### ^ A 

### ^ Q 

### ^ 1 

### ^SCjkw I ngeneral , certai npollutio ncontro l project s approve d for-Llj-^ , a hexclusio nfro

m majo r NS Rcoul d resul t i nemissio nreduction s cV^.^ whic hma y

serv e a s NS Roffset s o r nettin g credits . Unde r today' s S_u_ ' proposal , al l o r par t o f th e emissio nreduction s equa l t o th e Di&dtz. differenc e betwee nth e pre-modificatio nactua l baselin e emission s -f ^
an d post-modificatio npotentia l t o emi t fo r th e decrease d J^-S^^- pollutan t ma y

serv e a s credit s provide d tha t (l ) th e projec t wil l C-Njfc . /j
no t resul t i na significan t collatera l increas e i nactua l ^>_£ , emission s o f an

y criteri a pollutant , (2 ) th e projec t i s stil l PZp^Af considere d environmentall y beneficial , an d (3 ) -al l otherwis e /T-X , applicabl e criteri a fo r th e creditin g o f suc hreduction s ar e me t 71 (e.g. , quantifiable , surplus , permanent , an d enforceable) . Wher e 7713'
a nexclude d pollutio ncontro l projec t result s i na significan t ^~_ . collatera l increas e o f a criteri a pollutant , emission s reductio n credit s fro

m th e pollutio ncontro l projec t fo r th e controlle d K^-^"

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRJUF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D Q AfTt BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICI I EP A POLIC Y r

### ' > K ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• • T&£JLx Oj. n.

^ 

## ^jdC* < / l08/25/9 5 12:1 2 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S P.1 2 ©02 4

7 3
sourc e propose s a PA L majo r modification , se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (9 ) (iv) , 51.166(u)(4 ) an d 52.2 1 (y ) (4 ) ; (4 ) describe publi c notic e an

d comment procedure s for establishin g a PAL , se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(9)(ii) , 51.166(u)(2 ) an d 52.21(y)(2) ; (5 ) describe periodi c revaluation s o f a PAL , se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (9 ) (v ) , 51.166(u)(5 ) an d 52.2 1 (y ) (5) ; an

d (6 ) describe additiona l condition s tha t woul d ensur e a PA L remain s C*M*_* l 0-< " •fjV+Xx'S*.-___ M 1 / a*(-U U Jfr protectiv

e o f ai r quality.whil e providin g flexibility

for operations , see proposed section s 51.165(a)(9)(iv)(A) , 51.166(u)(4)(i ) an

d 52.21(y)(4)(i) . . 3 . Discussio

n The EPA ha s determined tha t th e voluntar

y source-specifi c PA L i s a practica l method t o provide bot hflexibility an d regulator

y certainty

t o man y existin

g sources , a s wel l a s benefit s t o permittin g authorities , whil e maintainin g ai r quality . Accordingly , the EPA toda y propose s t o revis e it s NS R regulation s t o provid e fo r thi s approacha s a voluntar y source specifi c optio

ntha t State s ma

y adopt i n thei r SIPs . Th e regulator

y proposa l allow

s PAL s to b e established fo r existin g majo r stationar

y source s i n PS D areas , an d fo r propose d
an d existin

g majo r stationar

y source s i nnonattainmen t areas . I n al l cases , the EPA

i s proposin

g tha t th

e PA L b e establishe d throug ha publi c participatio nproces s consisten t wit hthe requirement s at 4 0 CF R 51.161 , an

d wit ha minimu

m publi c commen t PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] *+ *



# /d_— P.1 3 08/25/9 5 12:1 3 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 ff A S0 NR/A

Q NP S g,^ *

8 0 requirement s provide for a reductio n i npermitte d emission s t o "discount " for RAC T o r othe r technolog y requirement s sucha s MAC T
o r SIP-required reductions ; (3 ) t o account fo r the generationo f offset s o r permanen t shutdown s wher e th e Stat e ha s th

e authorit y t o remov

e permanen t shutdown s fro m th e emission s inventor y afte r
a certai n tim

e period ; (4 ) whe nchange s unde r the PA L migh t caus e
o r contribut e t o a violation o f a . NAAQ S o r PS D incremen t o r US-uu c
a n advers e impac t o

nai r quality

relate d values ; an

d (5 ) durin

g periodi c review , consistent wit hthe titl e V permi t renewa l proces s o f th

e appropriatenes s o f emission s level s se t i nthe PALs . A

concer n wa s raise

d i n th e NS R Refor

m Subcommitte e discussion s abou t the uncertainty tha t result s fro

m th e Stat e revie w an d renewa l o f th

e PA L a s wel l a s an

y authorit y

t o adjus t th e PAL . I t ha s been recognize d tha t source s wil l wan t t o maximiz e the roo

m for growt hunde r a PAL . I f ther e ar e to o frequen t opportunitie s fo r a downwar d adjustmen t t o the PAL , a
sourc e ma

y be reluctan t t o accept a PA L for fear o f losin g allowabl e emission s th : oug hth e State' s ability

t o mak e adjustments . Today' s proposa l require s adjustment s t o the PA L t o incorporat e ne

w applicabl e requirements . Se e propose d section s 51.165(b ) (9 ) (v) , 51.1 6 (u)(5 ) an d 52.21(y ) (5) . Nothing i nthi s proposa l prevent s the State' s PA L progra

m fro m being mor e stringen t b

y requirin

g adjustment s i nothe r circumstance s suc ha s

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

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

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY *• • June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *
/ /08/25/9 5 12:1 3 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 ffA S0 NR/A Q NP S B m"" "

8 2

an increas e a t an emission s uni t b y a change unde r a PA L althoug

h ther e woul d b e n o emission s increas e o f th e source' s P.AL . Th e provision s o f sectio n 182(e)(2 ) appea r t o allo w fo r a PA

L provided tha t an

y increas e at anemission s uni t woul d impos e a LAER emission s limi t on tha t uni t an d th e unit' s increas e i n emission s woul d hav e t o b e "internall y offset " withi nth

e source , whic hi s i n effec t a 1. 3 t o l interna l "netting " transaction . Thu s a PA

L i n an extrem

e nonattainmen t are a may hav e t o b e a "declinin

g value " ca

p reducin

g at a rat e tha t ensure s sufficien t •-7 ^ "interna l offsets " ar e undertaken t o fulfil l the requirement s o f
^ _K.*JL_LI ) sA>-« . - fuU--~ 4 U__ A K__**_ - (C^ , .-Aa, <__.AC:*_ ) 4_. . sectio n 182(e ) (2 ) o f the Act., , Th e EP A welcome S additional^ . r **.,. T r
comment o

n ho w a PA L may

compor t wit hthe statutor y requirement s '<^Kjr7i^ for modification s t o majo r source s i nthes e ozone nonattainmen t 

### areas:^^^^" ^ ±^

_ 9^ * ( 

### '**** • ~^) pM t 

### ^ ! f . Ai r Quality . Change s '^^ M Certai n change s unde r th e PAL , sucha s change s i neffective ^U^ L stac k parameters , can change a source' s impact.area , an d mus t b e ,H>

f^of^J

assessed t o demonstrat e protection o f NAAQS , increments , and °< AQRVs . Se e proposed section s 51.165(a ) (9 ) (iv ) (A ) , , y^?**) 51.16 6 (u ) (4 ) (i ) an d 52.2 1 (y ) (4 ) (i ) . The EPA request s commen t o n C&J3> whe n modelin

g or othe r ambient impac t assessmen t shoul d b e c ^xa required fo r change s unde r a PAL , includin g the usefulnes s o f 

## m, t^
. existin g guidanc e o

n similar issue s (e.g: ; 198 9 Federa l Registe r Notic e addressin

g CMA ; the Emission s Tradin g Policy

statement ,
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Maoter6.29 ] •* * 

# no, P.1 5

08/25/9 5 12:0 1 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/AQ NP S @* 0 0 1


## Unite d State s Departmen to f th e Interio r

I N REPL Y REFERTO : NATIONA L PAR KSERVICE P.Q

. Bo x 3712 7 Washington , D.C

. 20013-712 7



## -un aO F p*_ s T O •••_ . '°& P^-^^Ti
TO : 

## tSe/iv_/ ^ Cr_^dLr ; 

### ^//VAJ , 

## ZaMfyi. &&/$&f?£ ; 

## FRON : j^^f \ KoJLLV- x ^
SUBJECT : fA^s(J ^ "Pe r 4_oJ ^



### REMARKS : Q c^ C i^-(>r/x^iV- Ore l iU-_^&>r y C^vv^-£ W

I F YO UHAV E AN

YPROBLEM S WIT H THI S FA

XO RTROUBL E RECEIVIN

GA FA X PLEAS E CAL L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRON WO N YO UAR E RECEIVIN

GTH E FAX .
DEMMIS , JOHN

202-208-519 3 WALKER , BIL L 202-219-338 6 EADY . COLLETT E 202-208-464 0 MATKINS , HILHA 202-208-491 3 JOHNSTON , GARY202-208-588 6 WILSON , RITA 202-208-388 4 KL1MINSKI , SHARON

202-208-463 9 MUCIN , KAREN

202-219-338 4 MCCLELLAND , LINDSA

Y202-208-495 8 MILLER , ABB Y202-208-465 0 PECK , DEBB Y202-208-462 4 -zil-T-a 33 ^ , ;.' | I SOUKUP , NIK E 202-208-388 4 "TH' S -H^ KW' l ' 

## -ibexes.

m * *l

-' ccz ^ ' • . 4 * « - 

## •*~F5. 2.P.1 6

08/25/9 5 12:0 2 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S _% Q02

10 0 actua l emissions , ye t i t woul d no t necessaril y b e subjec t t o review . Sinc e increment consumptio nafte r th

e mino r sourc e baseline dat e i s calculate d based o

nactua l emission s increases , th e ••minor " modificatio no f th e grandfathered sourc e woul d stil l
consum e increment . I f a majo r ne w sourc e wit hstate-of-the-ar t emissio n control s propose s t o locat e i na nare a i nwhic hthe ' incremen t ha s bee nconsume d i n thi s manner , i t woul d b e barre d fro m buildin

g unles s an

d unti l th

e increment proble

m wa s resolved ^ Atxh e sam e time , olde r plant s woul d continue t o b e rc_IU_5Sc!V N abl e t o mak e change s resultin g i n significan t unreviewed , an d to^^+rz.. \ possibl y

uncontrolled , actua l emissio nincreases . 3 . The EPA

Action Accordingly , th

e EP A solicit s comment onal l aspect s o f the CM A Exhibi t B settlement an d th e EPA' s preliminar

y analysi s described above . I f EP A wer e t o promulgat e th e Exhibi t B settlemen t a s fina l rules , th e Exhibi t B rule s woul d nee d t o b e updated t o reflec t othe r rul e change s sinc e 198 0 a s wel l a s provision s o f the 199 0 Amendments . Therefore , the EPA als o solicit s comment o

n an y specia l consideration s i n updatin g the Exhibi t B language . III . Revision s t o Contro l Technolog y Revie w Requirement s A . Introductio

n New majo r emittin

g facilitie s an

d majo r modification s c o existin g majo r source s proposed i n area s designated "attainment "

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

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

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Maeter6.29 J ** •



# lb0T7

_

08/25/9 5 12:0 2 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS 0 NR/A Q NP S "2,00 3

10 6 determination 3 6 an

d (2 ) the selectio

no f a particula r contro l syste m a s BAC T mus t b e justifie d i n term

s o f the statutor

y criteri a an

d supporte

d b y th e record , an

d mus t explai nthe basi s for th e rejectio

n o f th e othe r mor e stringent candidat e contro l systems . However , a n applicant proposin g th e ton , contro l *•

» J alternativ

e need no t provide cos t an d othe r detailed information i n regar

d t o othe r contro l options. 3 7 Today , the EP

A i s proposin

g t o mak e th

e cor e criteri a described herei n th e minimu

m requirement s fo r determinin g BACT . Th e EP A i s proposin

g t o codify

i n th e Federa l PS D regulation s at 4 0 CF R 52.21(j)(5 ) an

d 52.21(n)(2)(iii) , a specifi c methodolog y for determinin

g BAC T tha t it believe s bes t complie s wit hthe statutor

y requirement s an

d the cor e criteria . However , t o allo w State s mor e flexibility unde r thei r ow

n rules-fo r makin

g case specifi c BAC T determinations , EP A i s proposin

g t o inser t the cor e criteri a int o th

e regulator

y provision s fo r BAC T determination s i n SIP s at 4 0 CF

R 51.166(j)(5 ) an

d 51.166(n ) (2 ) (iii) . Thus , s o lon g a s th e cor e criteri a are met , thes e proposed revision s allo w

3 6 A n applican t coul d limi t it s proposed lis t o f technolog y alternative s t o the mos t effectiv e contro l technologies . • Consideratio

n o f technologie s tha t ar e outdated o r ar e clearl y inferio r t o thos e i n th e applicant s proposed lis t woul d no t b e necessary . The EP

A i s als o proposin

g i nthi s notice , limit s o n th e applicant' s responsibility t o conside r ne

w contro l technologie s tha t ar e identifie d afte r a permi t application i s determined t o be complete . See r sectio

n IV . D . o f thi s notice . 3 7 Th e applican t ma

y nee d t o conside r collatera l emission increase s o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r othe r Stat e programs . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master*.29 ] ** *

/ 

# 4-P.1 8

OS/25/9 5 12:0 3 ©20 2 20 » 462 0 *, AS 0 NR/A O NP S aoo 4 

# Ajn^7 i- A-<7V n 7-ap.Zitn^ 

# <&/ u*t7
10 7 for othe r methodologie s tha t provide equivalen t result s wit hles s tim e an d effort . Th e EPA request s publi c comment s o halternativ

e method s fo r determinin

g BACT . / Commenter s shoul d explai no r illustrat e ho w / • ,

* suchalternativ

e metho d wil l satisf y

the followin

g cor e criteri a propose d i n thi s notice : (1 ) al l availabl e contro l systems fo r th e eourc e mus t b e considere d i n the determination , includin g thos e tha t provide th e maximu

m degre e o f emission s reduction , an d (2 ) selectio

n o f a particula r contro l syste m a s BACT , an

d th e basi s fo r th

e rejectio

no f th e othe r mor e effectiv e emission s contro l systems , mus t b e justified i n term s o f the statutor

y criteri a an

d supported b

y th e record . Specifically , the comment s shoul d addres s ho

w the alternativ

e methodolog

y woul d provid e fo r consideratio

no f energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs . The comment s shoul d als o include example s tha t illustrat e ho

w the resultant leve l o f contro l woul d compar e wit h tha t achieved throug hEPA' s recommende

d method . Bee , CA

A § 169(3) . 3 . Description o f th e Federa l Methodolog y fo r Determining BAC T Sinc e lat e 198 7 EP

A ha s recommended a specifi c proces s fo r determinin

g BACT . The recommendatio nevolved fro

m a 198 6 nationa l progra

m audi t tha t identified BAC T determination s a s a deficien t aspec t o f th e PS D permittin

g process , an

d a 198 7 EP A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY •• * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Masters.29 ] ** *



# tf—' " P.1 9

.08/25/9 5 12:0 3 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S 100 5 

### Z>UCC£ ss£Jlki S^Vu_Afl_sfr_ 4 rj^-us^cj ? e^drepnLfuLur ^

'informatio

nabout , th

e availability

an d achievability

o f a n \t^Yubx7&S emergin g technolog

y i s assessed . /

*-\&JurC_C**w \

' The-EPK""is"~_oaa y proposin

g t o alte r it s curren t polic y an d ^° <x/fc ^ c "^ < j proposin

g accompanyin

g change s t o it s NS Rregulation s t o addres s * e
- ai 4c^ thi s problem . Thes e proposed change s strik e a balanc e betwee n-*-*_» 7 providin

g mor e certainty

for'industr

y i nmakin

g technolog

y choice s fo r plannin g majo r projects , an d ensurin

g tha t Btate-of the-ar t technologie s are adequatel y considered . 1 . Permi t application s mus t includ e analysi s o f contro l technologie s tha t ar e demonstrated i n practice . Specifically , th

e EPA i. e proposin

g t o requir e tha t the BAC T analysi s o r LAER determinatio ntha t i s submitted wit ha permi t application conside r technologie s tha t hav e bee n"demonstrated i n practice. " Se e proposed section s 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(D ) an d (a)(6 ) (ii ) (C ) , 51.166(j ) (5 ) (i ) an d (n ) (2 ) (iii ) an

d 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) (i )
an d (n)(2 ) (iii) . The proposed regulation s define "demonstrated i n practice " t o include al l technologie s required an d reporte d throug hexistin

g regulator

y programs an

d thos e that , whil e no t identified i nth

e regulator

y arena , mee t specifi c criteri a fo r determinin

g thei r availability an d appropriatenes s fo r consideratio

n i na BAC T o r LAERanalysis . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) , 51.166(b)(42 ) an d 52.21(b)(43) .

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• •



# 1-3P.2 0

08/25/9 5 12:0 4 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S 12,00 8

(• 

## 12 3 

# AW *

2 o 'r/ afte r start-up t o determin e complianc e wit hth e applicabl e I - . • standards . Se e existin g 4 0 CF R60.8(a) . Th e EP A request s
commen t o nth e criteri a and rational e describe d abov e fo r determinin g i f a contro l technology ha s bee ndemonstrate d i n practice . Further , EP A

i s proposin g tha t consideratio no f a technolog y tha t i s demonstrate d i npractic e outsid e th e regulator y contex t S&£
no t b e require d i f th e operatio nperio d and performanc e tes t <^_-l£b-4 r > conclude d a t les s tha n9 0 day s prio r t o th e dat e a permi t 7S\-PP applicatio ni s complete. 4 8 

### Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (2 ) (ii ) (D ) , 51.16 6 (j ) (5 ) (i ) and 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) (i ) . Th e f^t j * / propose d 90-day

perio d precedin g th e dat e o f complet e permi t ^^Z^pf applicatio nallow s tim e fo r th e installatio nan d performanc e tha t r* i s "demonstrate d i npractice " t o b e publicize d i ntrad e journal s 

## p^ an d compan

y newsletter s and th e result s t o b e examine d b y th e ^ ^e>c scientifi c community . O nth e othe r hand , havin g th e 90-da y r^> perio d keye d t o th e completenes s dat e create s a nincentiv e fo r JZ/7tc,\~. th e sourc e t o resolv e incomplet e application s expeditiously . £**-^i_£j^ - Th e followin g example s illustrat e th e propose d process . ^ ^ 7_ ^ Exampl e A : O n Jun e 1 a permi t applican t submit s a napplicatio nc^ " tha t i s subsequentl y determine d t o hav e bee ncomplet e o nth e dat e _- ,

4 8 

### I n th e cas e o f foreig ntechnology tha t ha s bee n^^ " £>&/ installe d and operatin g outsid e th e U.S. , th e sam e propose d , criteri a woul d appl y i n determinin g whethe r a technolog y ha s bee n7sy£ demonstrate d i npractice . J ^ v 

### < 

### 7i> P& PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D /_-^"<** n BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y

__

^ ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [filename s Masters.29 ] *• • f^£\&?



# "/ 7 <&«%&,.,— - _E2J

_ 08/25/9 5 12:0 4 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S



# y l_00 7
J 

## -jci/i* . a - _)W * '._•

. »< \ ^3?sV - p^tSr-r * gpl Mi* . fvs&» ; BAC T o r LAER . Based on th e fact s tha t ar e presented , the permittin

g authority

wil l eithe r accep t th e recommendatio

n at fac e value , rejec t i t a s bein g insufficientl y

demonstrated , o r refe r i t t o the_peTm- i t* . applicant for furthe r consideration . Th e ^kp A i s als o proposin

g t o requir e th

e permittin

g authority

t o notif y th e permi t applicant withi n 1 0 days uponreceip t o f ' comment s recommendin g a ne w technolog

y fo r whic hthe permittin g authority

determine s th

e comment s hav

e me t th

e specificit y criteri a i t ha s established relativ e t o th e cut-of f date , ge e propose d section s 51.16 5 (a)(7 ) (iii) , 51.166(q)(3 ) an d 52.21(q)(3) . Thi s requiremen t woul d provid e applicant s wit han opportunity

t o respon

d t o th e comment s an

d expedit e thei r investigatio

nrelativ

e t o the proposed project . The permittin

g authority , i ndeterminin g the exten t t o whic h :ommenters ' recommendation s deserv e furthe r consideration , shoul d •conside

r th e difficulty

o f privat e citizen s an d smal l

^ organization s i n gettin g acces s t o detailed supportin g data . I f informatio

n about th

e emergin

g technolog

y i s limited , commenter s shoul d documen t thei r attempt s t o obtai n dat a about th e sourc e
an d th e recommended technology . Fo r example , the commente r ma y presen t log s o f telephone conversation s wit hcompan y official s
an d correspondenc e wit htrade associations , environmenta l associations , governmen t agencie s an d technica l consultant s tha t migh t hav

e relevan t informatio n regardin

g the availability an d

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOES . NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY **** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Masters.29 ] *• •. p? ?



### _08/25/9 5 12:0 5 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S a^_ 1 WAS O NR/A Q NP S (g^o s

13 1
o r th e sourc e fail s t o commenc e constructio nwithi na prescribe d tim e perio dafte r th e permi t i s issued . E . Complet e Applicatio nCriteri a I nsevera l o f th e propose dregulator y an dpolic y

change s base do nth e consideratio no f th e CAAA C recommendations , th e completenes s determinatio nha s emerge da s a ke y ste pi nth e permi t revie w

process . Th e cut-of f dat e EP A i s proposin g t o authoriz e fo r consideratio no f ne w an d emergin g technolog y fo r BAC T o r LAER , an d th e propose dprocedure s fo r Federa l Lan d Manage r (FLM ) notificatio nan d coordinatio nar e inseparabl y tie d t o th e completenes s date . A s discusse di n thi s sectio nan d th e Clas s I section , th e evaluatio nan d determinatio no f whethe r a permi t applicatio ni s complet e i s th e responsibilit y o f th e permittin g authority . Consequently , EP A i s proposin g minimu m criteri a upo nwhic hth e permittin g authorit y shoul dbas e it s completenes s determination . Broadly , EP A i s proposin g tha t a permi t applicatio nshal l contai ninformatio nnecessar y t o mak e m_rr " *-- > -4ur*<_- r Cfc.P-»-**- J fr , " 

### th e demonstrations , analyses , an d determination s require dunde r /Y^** ^ cCJ

9f~-<k«U2m. etc Cx*vu^s
. 

### th e NSR / regulations - S_

_propose dsection s 51.165(a ) (6) , A ' " 51.166(n) , an d 52.21(n) . Th e completenes s criteri a i s deriv e fro m applicabl e existin g provision s o n"Sourc e information " a t section s 51.166(n ) an d 52.21(n ) tha t remai nunchange db y thi s rulemaking , a s wel l a s propose drevision s an d ne w provisions . I naddition , th e EP A PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •* *



# tf08/25/9 5 12:0 5 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S E l 00 9

14 6

• Recognizin

g tha t a ver

y limite d numbe r o f PS D IC T waiver s hav e been requested or approved sinc e 1980 , the NS R Refor m Subcommitte e discussed variou s option s for promotin g the us e o f UT/A's . One optio

n discusse

d b y th e Subcommitte e woul d allo w a
sourc e t o use , bank , o r trade th e portiono f emissio noffset s o f

a nonattainmen t pollutan t tha t become s surplu s whe n th e UT/ A achieve s greate r emissio nreduction s tha

noriginall y

anticipated . Th e secon d optio n woul d allo

w th e permittin

g authority , ona case-by-cas e basis , i n conjunctio n wit hth

e sourc e an

d subjec t t o publi c review , t o agre e o n value s o f eithe r mas s emission reductio

n credit s or emissio n [impact ) reduction s i n PS D area s i n
1 **> th

e UT/ A permit . Th

e thir d option , applicabl e t o bot hPS D an d JUJL-J nonattainmen t areas , woul d limi t th e benefi t accruin

g t o the UT/ A ~\!^-f^rt\tKelo^U

, / sourc e t o protectio nfro m enforcemen t o f th

e initia l UT/ A
u ^ emissio

n limi t durin

g the lif e o f the UT/ A waiver . O^-IVAV J The EP A agree s tha t incentive s shoul d b e provide d t o encourag e th

e development o f UT/A s an d i s requestin

g comment on 

### U_*I* M fl^cj - whethe r existin g policie s (e.g. , Emissio n Tradin

g Policy

U Va<

_' ^QsVr^m- Statemen t (S i F R 43814 ) an

d Economi c Incentiv e Progra

m (5 9 FR Q^X^t 3 16690) ) provid e sufficient guidanc e concernin g emissionreduction £}$_credit s thu s makin g specifi c UT/ A

provision s tha t addres s credit s >^>^ i| , ^]^~\_ahecessary . I n addition , th e EP A solicit s comment o n the secon

d -tTLr/uK^_pip tio nidentified b

y th e Subcommittee , i.e . som e type o f PS D emissio n reductio

n (o r emissio

n impac t reduction ) credit . I n PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# 2 0 ' •_* ~P.2 4

08/25/9 5 12:0 6 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S 12)01 0

14 8 Th e EP A i s proposin

g tha t th

e UT/ A be allowe

d no longe r than 2 year s fro

m th e tim e o f startu

p or 5 year s fro

m permi t issuanc e (2/ 5 years) , whicheve r i s earlier , t o achiev e th e emission contro l performanc e objectiv e ona continuou s basis . Se e proposed section s 51.165(a)(8)(ii)(B) , 51.166(s)(2)(ii ) an d 52.21(v)(2)(ii) . Thi s proposa l i s applicabl e t o bot hPS D an d nonattainmen t are a UT/ A waivers . The Agency' s i s proposing a complianc e tim

e fram e othe r tha

nthe CAAAC' s recommendatio n du e t o comment s received durin g th e Subcommittee' s deliberation s tha t indicated , a s a genera l rule , an UT/ A mus t perfor

m a s envisioned withi n a relativel y shor t tim

e frame , primaril y

due t o production constraints , o r i t i s replaced wit ha conventiona l contro l technology . I naddition , i norde r t o protec t ai r quality , \ae-P_ci_ll

y
_ m noitattainmen

t «ar.e_-3- . th

e EP A consider s the proposed 2/ 5 yea r complianc e tim e fram e mor e appropriat e thanth e CAAAC s recommendation* . Th e EP A solicit s comment o nth e allowabl e lengtho f a complianc e schedul e t o mee t th e referenc e BAC T or LAER an

d o n whethe r th

e allowabl e lengt hshoul d be longe r for BAC T thanfo r LAER . The CAAA

C recommende

d tha t th

e numbe r o f UT/ A

waiver s approved for an

y given UT/ A

shoul d no t exceed the quantit y tha t th e permittin

g authority

deem s appropriat e t o determine the particula r UT/A' s emissio ncontro l performanc e potential , its "

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY •• * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Masters.29 ] •• •



# 3.1—_P.2 5

08/25/9 5 12:0 6 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ft oi l

15 8 exclusiv e remed y unde r th e expres s term s o f th e settlemen t agreement , wa s t o reactivat e th e underlyin g litigation . Thi s publicatio n o f propose d rule s revisin g an d clarifyin g th e BAC T regulation s an d ho w BAC T determination s shoul d b e mad e trigger s certai n obligation s b y th e othe r partie s t o th e settlement . Th e EPA' s fina l actio n o n th e propose d rule s wil l discharg e al l o f it s remainin g obligation s unde r th e settlemen t
agreemen t an d requir e th e dismissa l o r withdrawa l o f th e remainin g judicia l an d administrativ e matter s describe d above . IV . Clas s I Area s
A . Introductio n Th e EP A

i s toda y

providin g guidanc e an d proposin g a numbe r

o f revision s t o th e PS D regulation s a t sectio n 51.16 6 an d sectio n 52.2 1 t o addres s th e protectio n o f ai r qualit y an d ai r qualit y relate d value s i n Clas s I areas . I n man y instances , wher e i t ha s bee n deeme d appropriate , th e EP A i s takin g actio n consisten t with , o r simila r to , th e CAAAC s recommendations . I n general , th e EP A i s proposin g severa l change s t o bette r facilitat e Stat e notificatio n an d coordinatio n wit hth e FLM s an d
t o provid e the.states, , permi t applicant s an d FLM s wit hcleare r guidanc e abou t thei r relativ e role s an d responsibilities . Th e
EP A i s proposin g "significan t impac t levels' * fo r Clas s I

c\i c. Sc_-_e^.^,^U*" c <-"t" & &> ix*mbidlL\ /]71 increment s tha twoul d exclud e propose d source s wit h d e minimi s 'I ^ A ambien t impact s fro m th e requiremen t t o conduc t comprehensiv e
PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L SP A POLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -*• - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *


### zS_7 ^08/25/9 5 12:0 6 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S _P.2 6 t_01 2

15 9 Clas s I increment analyse s an d enabl e the permittin g authorit y

t o determine tha t th

e emission s fro

m suchsourc e woul d no t contribut e t o an increment violation . The EPA i s als o establishin

g a genera l policy , an d proposin

g regulator

y language , allowin g the us e o f offset s t o mitigat e advers e impact s onai r qualit y related value s (AQRVs ) i nFedera l Clas s I areas . Thi s policy wil l provid e a reasonabl e wa y t o allo

w the permitting o f



## _ . . . . . ....<*: ' p**\bu . uVs_^« ^ source s tha t woul d otherwis e fac e permi t denia l becaus e o xthei r A advers e impac t o

n AQRVs . The EP

A i s als o proposin

g severa l clarification s t o it s PS D regulation s wher e confusio nabou t a requiremen t ha s create d controvers y

or impede

d mor e expeditiou s permi t review . B . Backgroun

d 1 . Overvie

w o f PS D Requirement s for Clas s I Area s The PS D progra

m applie s t o "PS D areas"--area s designated a s "attainment " or "unclassifiable " pursuan t t o sectio n 10 7 o f th

e Act. 8 0 A

fundamenta l aspec t o f th e PS D progra

m i s anassessmen t
o f a proposed source' s impac t o n the amoun t o f ai r qualit y deterioratio

ntha t i s allowe

d withi na particula r PS D area . Al l PS D area s ar e categorized a s eithe r Clas s I , I I o r III . Th e Act ,

8 0 Area s havin

g ai r quality

tha t meet s the nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y

standard s (NAAQS ) ar e designated "attainment, " an d area s fo r whic hther e i s insufficien t informatio n t o reac ha conclusio

nabout thei r ai r qualit y statu s ar e designate d "unclassifiable " i naccordanc e wit hprocedure s se t fort hi n sectio n 10 7 o f the Act . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY

-- * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] '** *



## 2 -P.2 7

08/25/9 5 12:0 7 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S . % on ^

16 1 charged wit hdirec t responsibility for managemen t o f an y Federa l land s withi n a Clas s I are a hav e a n"affirmativ

e responsibility " t o protec t the ai r quality related value s (AQRVs ) (includin g visibility ) o f suc hlands . The Act , sectio n165(d)(2)(B) . Th e FL M protect s AQRVs throug ha prescribed statutor y rol e i n assessin

g th e potentia l impact s o f a propose d PS D source . Th e Act , sectio

n 165(d)(2)(C) . I f a proposed sourc e doe s no t caus e
o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a Clas s I increment , the FL M may , nevertheless , demonstrat e t o th e satisfactio

no f the permitting authorit y

tha t the sourc e wil l hav e a n advers e impac t on AQRV s i n
a specifi c Federa l Clas s I are a and , i f s o demonstrated , the PS D permi t shal l no t be issued . Conversely , i f the propose d sourc e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o . a violationo f a Clas s I increment , then th e owne r o r operato r mus t demonstrat e t o the satisfaction
o f th e FL M tha t ther e wil l be no advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Th e Act , sectio

n 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) an d (iii) . 2 . Improvin

g Protectio

n o f Ai r Qualit y

Related Value s i n Clas s I Area s . , . Ove r th e pas t severa l year s Congres s .an d the FLM s have «*wswQ

_ expressed increasin g concer

n about th

e effect s o f ai r pollutio n

Servic e an

d U.S . Fis han

d Wildlif e Service . I n today' s notice , the EPA i s proposin

g t o clarif y

the definitio

no f "Federa l Lan

d Manager " t o reflec t the FLM' s authority t o designat e anothe r officia l t o ac t o

n hi e o r he r behal f wit hrespec t t o Federa l Clas s I areas . Se e proposed section s 51.166(b)(24 ) an d 52.21(b ) (24 ) . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# A*/-08/25/9 5 12:0 7 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS O NR/A Q NP S ®01 4

16 4 The EP A propose s t o defin

e "ai r quality

relate d value " a s a scenic , cultural , physical , biological , ecological , o r recreationa l resource , a s define d b y th e FL M for Federa l land s
an d a s define

d b y a Stat e or India

n Governin

g Bod y fo r nonfedera l land s withi nthei r respectiv e jurisdictions . Th e propose d definitio

n attempt s t o include th e fundamenta l purpose s for whic h
suc hland s hav

e been establishe

d an d preserved . The propose d definition als o recognize s tha t th e FLMs hav

e th e responsibilit y t o identif y

AQRVs fo

r Federa l t!lu3

y 1 ' areas . The propose d definitio

n i s als o intende

d t o clarify

th e EPA' s positiontha t State s an

d India n Governin

g Bodie s ma

y identif y

AQRV s inarea s whic hthe

y elec t t o hav

e redesignated a s Clas s I areas. 5 3 ge e proposed sectio

n 51.166(b)(40 ) an

d sectio

n52.21(b)(41) . The EPA i 6 proposin

g t o defin

e "advers e impact s o n ai r quality related values " a s a deleteriou s effec t resultin g i n whol e or i n par t fro m th e emission s o f a proposed sourc e or modification , tha t interfere s wit hth e management , protection , preservation , o r enjoyment o f th e AQRVs o f a Federa l Clas s I
area. ' Se e proposed sectio n 51.166(b)(41 ) an

d sectio

n 52.21(b)(42) . Unde r th e par t 5 2 PS D regulations , th e propose d — >

5 3 Sectio

n 164(e ) o f th

e Ac t provide s fo r EP A protectiono f AQRVs whe nth

e EP A .i s requested t o resolv e a disput e betwee n a Stat e an

d Tribe about th

e redesignatio

no f anare a o r a propose d PS D permit . Th

e reade r i s als o referred t o th e discussioni n- sectio n IV.C S o f thi s preamble , wher e EP A clarifie s it s position concernin

g th e authority

o f State s an

d India n tribe s t o establis h AQRVs . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY *» * June 29 . 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• * 

# * r