# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 44 Fed. Reg. 20372 1979

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Oct 7 15:58:15 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 4, 1979 I Proposed Rules 

### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[40 CFR Part 52]

State Implementation Plans; GeneralPreamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattalnment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: General preamble for proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air Act enacted in 1977 require states to revise their State Implementation Plans for all areas thathave not attained National Ambient Air Quality Standards. States are to have sibmitted the necessary plan revisions to EPA by January 1, 1979. During the next several months, EPA will be publishing proposals inviting public comment on whether each ofthe submittals 'should be approved. This General Preamble supplements these proposals by identifying the major considerations that will guide EPA's evaluation ofthe submittals.

COMMENTS: As State plan submittals are received, EPARegional Administrators will publish Federal Register proposals inviting comment on whether the submittals should be approved. Even before the formal EPA proposal is published, in some instances Regional Administrators are publishing notices announcing receipt of SIP submittals, and availability ofthe submittals for public inspection. Eachproposal or other notice inviting comment will state the address and closing date for. submittal of comments to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

For FurtherInformation Contact the Appropriate EPA Regional or Headquarters Office Betsy Home, Air Branch, EPA Region 1; JFK Federal Building, Boston, Mass. 02203, (617) 223-4448 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts; New Hampshire, RhodeIsland, Vermont).
William S. Baker, Chief,Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007, (212) 264-2517 (NewYork, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands). Howard Heim, Chief,Air Programs Branch, EPA Region III, Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106, (215) 597-8175 (Delawaie, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia).
Walter H. Bishop, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E.,. Atlanta, Ga. 30308, (404] 881-3286 (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina).
Debra Costello, AirPrograms Branch, EPA Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IMI. 60604, (312) 353-2205 (Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin]. Jerry Stubberfield, Chief, SIP Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VI, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Tex. 75270, (214) 767-2742 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas). William Spratlin, Chief,Air Support Branch. EPA Region VII, 324 East 11th Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106, (816) 374-3791 (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri].
Robert DeSpain, Chief,Air Branch, EPA -Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,

Colo. 80295, (303) 837-3471 (Montana, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. Colorado). Douglas Grano, Chief, Regulatory Section, Air Technical Branch, EPA Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, Calif.94105. (415) 556-2938 (California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands).
Clark Gaulding, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash. 98101, (206) 442-1230 (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho).
G. T.Hehns, Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Control Programs Development Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5365 or 541-5226 (Headquarters).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline
I.Background I1.

Approval of Individual SIPElements A. Basic-Requirements

B. Further Guidance * 1. Enforceability

2. Stringency 3. Relaxation orRevocation m.Approvalof a RevisedSIPasSatisfying Part D Requirements A. Basic Requirements 1. Requirements'for All Part D.SIPS 2. Additional Requirements for Ozone or Carbon Monoxide SIPs with Attainment Dates After 1982

B. Further Guidance 1. Need for All RACM 2. Schedules 3. Ozone Control Strategy 4. Inspection/Maintenance 5. Transportation Control Measures 6. Ozone Standard 7. Interstate and International Issues 8. Secondary Standards 9. Fugitive Dust 10. Preconstruction Review

a. Basic Statutory Requirements b. Requirements From the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling

c. Geographic Applicability d. Exempted Types of Sources

e. Banking f. Prohibition onNew Construction 11. Changes in Designation

IV.Approvalofrevised SIP asSatisfying Non-Part DRequirements

I. Background

In the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act,' Congress directed EPA to establish primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public health, and secondary' NAAQS to protect the public welfare, and directed the states to develop and adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the standards, EPA was given responsibility for reviewing SIPs and either approving them, or disapproving them and promulgating substitutes.

In 1971 EPA promulgated NAAQS 

### for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone (originally called photochemical oxidants], and nitrogen
dioxide. 2 SIPs were developed and placed into effect. To meet statutory deadlines, the NAAQS were to have been attained in most regions by 1975, with some extensions until 1977.

By 1976 it became apparent that, despite significant progress, SIPs were inadequate to achieve the NAAQS in
many areas of the country. EPA. therefore issued numerous calls for
states torevise their SIPs to provide for attainment. Questions also arose as to whether, and under what circumstances,

new stationary sources might legally be permitted to construct in areas where the NAAQS were not being met. In response to these questions, EPA published its Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling,3 which allowed

new construction in areas where NAAQS were violated as long as 

### stringent conditions were met that would assure further progress toward attainment of the standards.

In August 1977 Congress amended the Act to (among other things] establish a statutory approach to permit growth in polluted areas, while requiring attainment of the NAAQS by specific deadlines. 4 Congress first instructed

'The Clean Air Act,as amended, Iscodified at 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.

240 CFR Part 50. EPA also promulgated a hydrocarbons standard "for use as a guide In devising implementation plans to achieve oxidant standards." 40 CFR 50.10. On October 5.1070, EPA published an NAAQS forlead. 40 CFR 50.12, as added 43FR 45258. However, Part Dof the Act (discussed in the text below) does not require SIP submittals now due to Implement the lead standard, Therequiremdnts that now govern lead SiPs were promulgated along with the standard. 40 CFR Part 51, as amended 43 FR 46269.

3 Originally promulgated on December 21.1970. theRuling was recently revised. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S. asrevised 44 FR 3274 (anuary 10, 1979).

4Sections 107(d) and 172 of the Act (42 U.S.C, 7407(d) and 7502); sections 129 (a) and (c)of the Footnotes continued on next page 2037ZFederal Register / VoL 44, No. 66 / Wednesday. April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules

each state to list those areas where NAAQS were stillnot attained as of August 7,1977 (nonattainment areas], and instructed EPAto promulgate the listwith anynecessary changes. Each state then had to submit a SIPrevision by January 1, 1979,providing for attainment ofthe NAAQS as ' expeditiously as practicable, and for primary standards no later.than the end of 1982 (orthe end of1987 for areas with particularly difficult ozone orcarbon monoxide problems). Congress also provided that EPA's Offset Ruling would govern new source construction until July 1.1979, after which date proposed major sources are to be reviewed under the provisions ofa revised SIP that
meets the requirements ofPart D. s

A list ofnonattainment areas was promulgated on March 3, 1978, with

some subsequent modification, and for these areas states are now in the process ofsubmitting adopted SIP revisions to EPA for approval. 6During the next several months, EPAwill be publishing proposals soliciting public comment on whether each.ofthe submittals should be approved. This General Preamble supplements these proposals, by identifying the major considerations that are guiding EPA's evaluation ofthe submittals.

The fundmental requirements for approval of SIPs are set out in Title I of the Clean Air Act, and inEPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. On February 24,1978, the Administrator of EPA issued a memorandum, summarizing the elements that an approved SIP must contain byJuly 1, 1979, to satisfy the Act's requirements for nonattainment areas. The Agency -has also prepared guidance on how to

satisfy these basic requirements, and clarifying the requirements where necessary.7

Footnotes continued from last page 1977 Amendments, Pub. L No. 95-95 (notes under42 U.S.C. 7502).

1There are some circumstances under which the Offset Ruling will still apply. Seenote 36below.

6 EPA promulgated intitial designations and invited public comment. 43 FR 8962 (March 3,,197). Inresponse to the comment received, EPA modified the designations in certain areas ofthe country, and isin the process ofmodifying designations in some additional areas.43 FR40412 (September 11. 1978) (EPA Regions LIV. VLVIII. X; 43 FR 40502 (September 12.1978) (EPA Region 11); 43 FR 45993 (October5.1978) (EPA Region V);44 FR 5119 (January 25.1979) (EPARegion I).

7Title Iofthe Actis codified at42 U.S.C. Chap. 85. Subchap. L The sections most relevant to this General Preamble. sections 107 through 128 and 171 through 176 ofthe Act. are codified at sections 7407 through7428 and 7501 through 7506, respectively, of 42 U.S.C. The Administrator's memorandum on criteria for approvalwas reproduced in the Federal Register at 43FR 21673 (May 19.1978). The guidance material has been collected together forpublic inspection, and a notice ofavailability was published at44 FR 8311 (February9,1979). The purpose ofthis General Preamble is to summarize the principal requirements, In order to assist the public in preparing comments oathe approvability ofthe submittals. However, there are additional, more detailed requirements and explanations in the statute, regulations, and guidance, which interested parties may consult in preparing comments.

For each nonattainment SIP submittal EPA must make two decisions: whether each individual element of the submittal should be approved as a revision to the SIP; and whether the revised SIP, as a whole, satisfies the requirements ofPart
D ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA must review the rvvised SIP as soon as possible to determine whether it satisfies all other pertinent. non-Part D requirements of the Act. II.

Approval ofIndividual SIP Elements The effect ofapproving each element of a submittal as a SIP revision is to add to or alter the "applicable implementation plan"--that Is, the collection ofSIP provisions approved or promulgated by EPA and enforceable under federal law (seesections 110(d) and 113(a) of the Act). Even ifEPA accepts the entire SIP submittal, EPA may find that the overall revised SIP is inadequate because it didnot go far enough. If a submittal does not accomplish enough, EPA will ordinarily approve the submitted SIP elements that

are acceptable, but will disapprove the SIPin part. to the extent that more provisions are needed.

A. BasicRequirements The 1977 Amendments to the Act did not alter the principles governing

- revisions to the applicable implementation plan. The basic criteria for approving any individual element of

a submitted plan revision, under section 110(a)(3)(A) of the Act. are that itmust-

* Be legally adopted by the state. " Be adopted afterreasonable notice andpublic hearing by the state.5

* Be enforceable. * Not interfere with assuring attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS by the required deadline, or with satisfying the Act's other requirements.

B.Further Guidance 1. Enforceability. In determining whether a SIP provision Is enforceable, emission limitations and other requirements will bereviewed for clarity and specificity. Emission limitations and other controlling terms

ONotice andhearing nrarequired for all SIP revisions except non-regulatory redsions that ara
so insignificant that they wil not affect the program for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. S&c 40 FR28M col. 25331 col 2 (July 8.197). must be well defined, and must clearly state which sources and processes are beingregulated, when the required actions are tobe taken and bywhom, and what specifically is to be done. In addition, the provision must specify any necessary test method bywhich compliance is to be assessed, and. ifthe provision requires compliance at a future date, it mustcontain an adequate schedule forcompliance.

2. Stringency. It is EPA'spolicy to encourage and assiststates n adopting economically efficient pollution control methods.9 However, theAgency has no authority under the Act to reject a requirement adopted by a statebecause it is too costly or too stringent.1 0 ("Stringency" refers to both the controls required andhow quickly theymustbe implemented.) However, EPA must reject any individual requirement that would interfere with attaining and maintaining the NAAQS by therequired deadline orwith achieving the other requirements ofthe Act."

3.RelaxationorRevocation. Even when a new requirement is being added to a SIP, the existing requirement may not ordinarily berelaxed orrevoked. The new requirement does not

5For example, EPA encourages atates to corride allowir 3 p! to placn lfes control onproeses where the marg n cost of control f3 hlh in retu. forplzacn 3 greater control where cost L3 lov.s" that the total control catlsfies SIPreq urezent. Seenrce 10below oa alternative e 4 seonreduct ("bubb!-") optfons; Preamble to Emfz;ns OffMet itepre ativa Rulin 44 Fed,Re-, 3W4. 3276 cal 3 Oaninxay 10 1973k discusson in station IIB. of ti

text below.onXedfos-AILRAMC

1 7 0lThrefom EPAmay cat disappove, a requirementon t' g-ound that Itis costly oreven economically or tesht.gically infeasi

. or t ground that theo .all plan 13 mare strin3ent than federal lawrequire. S2 Union Eectric Cempany v. EPA.427U.S. Z40.26 (197. Ofco-use to the extent even full effoart to imple-e..it and enfe-ce a
measure cannot brin ab utthe emiss!on red.:_toas called for. EPAmay deny credit for thase redactirns in de=ntratfons ofreasoab!e ufiztir p-ogresa and attalnncnt ormay reject the measure as une

Mfoeab!a. Forexample. a wubmttedp ns.a calling for an alteratian of transpacatiaa pattern3 that simply cannatbe ach;eved may bedenied Credit orrejected.

is

For example, a submitted em.-2sa limitation ;auld have to barulrated ifama-e stringent emisIn limitaton is needed under the Act aadif opp'lication: of" techna." to meet thesubm/ttd omizia.n liminaff .owoon'r

, akoofixr,of tochnnte, ton'eetthA redemi aeia.8itaioa

woradifficulL Likewise. arelatively s!ow s:hsdule for implementatiola ofins ecton[mantenance,must be rejected to the extent that a more eqeditiou schedula 1 requircd undrthe Act (,ses_-ti n I11..4 in tha textbelow, on I=pectfo&/ Molntonoco).As discussed in sactf.a 111.1 of the text below,on M-edfo-AlRA1. states often have flexibility to obtain more crLs3 e=i33in reduction from any one measure, as loagas a group ofmzasurs Inthe plan 3 adequate. Therefono. review ofanindiidual requirement to determine whether Itwill interfere Ath attain.mntof the NAAQS and other Actrequirements must often be conducted together withreview of the entire SIPto dete.mina whether ItI, adequate ovealL. ZM3Federal Register / Vol. 4, No. 66 [ Wednesday, April 4. 1979 / Proposed Rules

supersede or replace the old requirement until the source comes into compliancewith the new requirement Instead, the existingrequirement must remain an enforceable provision ofthe SIP, and'must co-existwith the new requirement in the applicable implementation plan. The present emission control requirement must be retained because the source must be prevented from operating without controls (orwith less stringent controls] while it is moving toward compliance with (or challenging) the new requirement. 2

There are some exceptions, however. A state may submit a relaxation or revocation ofanexisting requirement (or,for an existing requirement promulgated by EPA, have EPArelax or 

### revoke it), ifthe requirement isin one or
more ofthe following categories:

(a) Anyexisting requirem'ent that conflicts with anew, more stringent requirement, making it highly impratical for a source to comply with the old requirement. 3Any exemption granted must be drawn as nrarrowly aspossible.

(b) Anyindirect source review program revocable under section 110(a)(5)(A)(iii) ofthe Act,14 and any bridge toll requirement revocable under sectionh10(c(5)(A] ofthe Act.

(c) Any existing inspection/ maintenance or transportation control
measure, to the extent the measure is demonstrated not to be reasonably available, ifthe revised SIP satisfies all Part Drequirements (PartD requirements are discussed in sectionIM below).Is

1 2 lfexisting requirements could be relaxed or superseded, recalcitrant sources couldbe relieved, of obligations established under the Act preceding the 1977 Amendments. However, the 1977 Amendments were intended to provide additional time for'additional controls to be applied, not to permit relaxation ofexisting requirements. Therefore, failure ofa source to meet applicableexisting requirements is subject to approprrate enforcement action, including assessment of noncompliance penalties. Furthermore, ifthere is
any instance of delay or lapse in the applicability or, enforceability ofthe new requirements, because ofa court order orfor any other reason, the existing requirements will be applicable and enforceable.

13

Forexample, equipment needed to satisfy existing requirements may have tobe disconnected before more efficient equipment needed to satisfy

new requirements under the 1977 Amendments-can be installed. In such a situation, the existing requirement may be suspended insofar as necessary to permit installation of the more efficient equipment.

"EPA's interpretation ofthis provision is published at 44 FR5427 (January 26,1979).

1 5"Inspectiontmaintenance" programs are

measures providing foremission-control inspection and maintenance ofmotorvehicles. "Transportatiorr control" measures are measures directed toward reducing emissions of airpollutants from transportation sources: Although some early transportation control plans included various stationary source control measures (such as vapor (dy Any new requirement in a 1979 SIP submittal designed forthe 0.08 ozone level as long as the control measures in the revised SIP satisfy all requirements for the 0.12 level (as discussed in section M.B.6 below, on Ozone Standard).

A relaxation orrevocation is also premissible- if itwill not contribute,to concentrations ofpollution where there is a violation of a NAAQS or ofa Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration (PSD) increment.16 Where

recovery from filling-of vehicular tanks or other storage containers, control ofdegreasing and surface coating activities, and others (see. e.g., 3a Fed. Reg. 3123Z (November 12, 1973)), these stationary source control measures are not transportation control measures.

Seethe discussion in section 1I.B.5 ofthe text below, onreasonable availability. To tfie extent deadlines for compliance are notpracticable. they may be relaxed.The fact that a measure has actuili been implemented will ordinarily indicate that themeasure is reasonably ivailable and the deadlines are practicable. As explained in section IIi.B.4 ofthe textbelow (onInspection/ Maintenance]a revised SIP with an attainment date after 198Zmust meet certain minimum requirements forinspectionimaintenance.

In 1973EPA promulgated inspection/maintenance and transportation control measures fornumerous-

. areas ofthe country,including requirements that states implement themeasures. Several states soughtjudicial review ofEPA's authority to promulgate these requirements. The courts of appeals reached inconsistent decisions, and the. Supreme Courthas not resolved the issue. Pennsylvania v.EPA, 500 F.2d 246, 257,261 (3dCir. 1974). Maryland v.EPA, 530 F.2d 215,226-27 (4th Cir.1975); Brown v.EPA, 521 F.2d 827. 831 (9th Cir. 1975; District ofColumbia v.Train, 521F.2d 971, 986 (D.C. Cir.1975]. All except the Pennsylvania case
were vacated andremandedsubnam.EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (19771. On remand. Brown v. EPA, 566 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1977]; Maryland v.EPA, Nos. 74-1007 etal. [4th Cir.,'filed October 13,1977]; District ofColumbia v.Costle, 567 F.2d 1091 (D.C. CirF 1977).

Underihe most recent D.C. Circuit decision. EPA

must conduct substantial additional rulemaking proceedings before the regulations willbe ready for further judicial consideration. However, rulemaking

over thepastyear and a half afterD.C- Circuit decision would have distracted the states, EPA, and interested.members. of the public from devoting theirfull efforts and attention to development of the plan revisions now due, including anynecessary inspection/maintenance and transportation control

measures. The Agency therefore decided not to proceed for the timebeing with the litigation and related administrative proceedings involving the 1973 regulations.

However, EPA still believes that the Clean Air Act provides a basis forpromulgating enforceable transportation control measures requiring state implementation. The Agency has therefore not altered its enforcement policy for the 1973 regulations that are notsubject tojudicial review. After the 1979 SIP revisions have been submitted and evaluated. EPAwill reconsider what further proceedings.on the 1973 regulations are necessary, if
any.

1 6 PSD increments are the amounts of deterioration.ofair quality better than the NAAQS that is permitted under section 163 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 74731 and 40 CFR 51.24, 52.21, as revised 43 FR 26380.26388 (June 19, 1978].

Under EPA's Alternative Emission Reduction ("Bubble"J proposaL.controls for individual
processes withir a plant may be relaxed if alternative control requirements are applied so that relaxation ofa requirement is allowed, but where the deadline for compliance is
not relaxed, the new requirement must call for compliance no later than the existing deadline for compliance, so that there is no gap in enforceability,

Any submitted relaxation or elimination ofan existing requirement that does not fall within one ofthese permissible categories may be disapproved by EPA. A disapproved submittal will not affect the federal enforceability of the existing requirement in the applicable implementation plan. III. Approval ofRevised SIP as Satisfying Part I Requirements

The second major question that EPA must address is whether the revised applicable implementation plan satisfies the requirements ofPartD ofTitle I of the Act. This is a critical determination under the Act,because, for nonattainment areas, there is to be major source construction under permits applied for after June 30, 1979,unless the approved SIP satisfies PartD requirements. Furthermore, certain federal highway and air pollution control program grants are to be withheld ifEPA finds after July 1, 1979 that the SIP submittal does not consider all Part D requirements or reasonable efforts toward submitting such a SIP submittal are not being made." 7 A. Basc-Requirements. The following are, in general terms, the requirements a plan niust meet to satisfy Part D. After each item is a citation to the applicable section ofthe Act and the applicable paragraphs of the Administrator's February 24, 1978

total plant emissions do not increase and other requirements aremet. See Memorandum from the Administrator ofEPA to Directors of StateAir Programs. on "Implementing The Alternative Emission Reduction ('Bubble') Approach" (December2Z. 19781: ProposedPolicy Statement on Alternative Emission Reduction Options Within State Implementation Plans, 44 FR 3740 (anuaryl0, 1979).

"The "requirements of Part D"are the requirements ofsections 110(a](3]D, 10(c)15)(B), and 171-174 of the Act. (The requirements of sections 11O(a)(3](DJ and 110(c(5](B] are to be treated as requirements ofPart V, even though these sections are not physically within Part D ofTitle Iof theAct.)-Theserestrictions on construction, grants, and funds where SIPs are inadequate are found In sections 110(a](2)(), 113(a)(51, and 176(a] ofthe Act. Even If the SIP itselfis adequate, failure to implement and carry out the SIPwill result In withholding of new source permits and airpollutlon control program grants, under sections 173(4), 113(a)(5], and 176(b) ofthe Act In addition, section 316 of the-Act (42U.S.C. 7616] provides that the Administratormay withhold; condition orrestrict sewage treatment plant construction grants If he determines that the airemissions reasonably anticipated to result from the growth associated with the expanded sewage treatment capacity Isnot being adequately anticipated and compensated for under the SI. 20374Federal Revister I Vol. 44. No. /8 I ednesday. April 4. 1979 1 Proposed Rules207

memorandum on Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions:" s

1.Requirements forAllPart DSIPs:

• Demonstrate thatboth primary and secondary NAAQS will be attained within the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but for primary NAAQS no late than the following final deadlines: 

### (§ 172(a); S1,
3, 5.)

-For sulfur oxides,particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide, December 31, 1982.

. -For ozone or carbon monoxide, December 31, 1982, except, 

### ifthe state demonstrates that attainment by December 31, 1982is impossible despite implementation ofall reasonably available measures, December 31, 1987.



### • Require reasonable further progress in the period before attainment, including regular, consistent reductions sufficient to assure attainment by the required date, (§172(b)(3); 6.) * Provide for implementation ofall reasonably available control measures (RACM)l as expeditiously as practicable, insofar as necessary to assure reasonable further progress and attainment by the required date.This includes reasonably available control technology (RACT) for stationary

sources and reasonably available transportation control measures. 

### (§§172(b)(2), (8); S4-5.)

9 Include an accurate, current inventory ofemissions that havre an impact on the nonattainment area, and provide for annual updates to indicate emissions growth and progress in reducing emissions from existing

sources. (§172(b)(4); IS 2, 7-8.)

* Expressly quantify the emissions growth allowance, if any, that willbe allowed to resultfrom new major

sources or major modifications of existing sources, which may not be so large as tojeopardize reasonable further
progress or attainment by the required date. (§§ 172(b)(3] and (5); 

### 17.)

* Require preconstruction review permits for newmajor sources and major modifications ofexisting sources, tobe idhued in accordance with section 173 ofthe-Act. (§ 172(b)(6); 9.)

"See citationsinnte 7 above. For the items in subsection Iofthe textbelow, the paragraph numbersrefer to paragraphsin'the section ofthe
Administrator's memorandum entitled "General Requirements ofa1I 1979 SIP Revisions." Foritems "in

subsection 2ofthe text below,paragraph numbers referto paragraphs in the section of the memorandum entitled "Additional Requirements for
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant SIPRevisions which Provide for Attainment ofthe Primary Standards Later Than 1982," except that paragraph numbers identified by the word "Oxidant" refer to paragraphs in the section ofthe memorandum entitled "Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant." e Include the following additional SIP elements: 

### (§§ 172(b)(7), (9-10); S[ 4, 10- 11.) 19

-Identification and commitment of the necessary resources to carry out the Part D provsions ofthe plan.

-Evidence ofpublic, local government, and state legislative involvement and consultation in accordance with section 174 oftheAct.

-Identification and briefanalysis of the air quality,health, welfare, economic, energy, and social effects of the plan provisions chosen and the alternatives considered, and a summary ofthe public comment on the analysis.

-Written evidence that the state and other governmental bodies have adopted the necessary requirements in legally enforceable form.

-Written evidence that the state and other governmental bodies are committed to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the SIP.

2.Additional Requirements for Ozone

orCarbon MonoxideSIPs with AttainmentDates After 1982:

e Include an adequate on-going vehicle emission control inspection/ maintenance program, orestablish a specific schedule endorsed by and committed toby the governor (orthe chiefexecutive of the local or regional governmental unit,ifit is responsible for implementation) for the development adoption, and implementation ofsuch a program as expeditiously as practicable. 

### (§ 172(b](11)[B); 

### 12.)

e Present a program for selecting a package oftransportation control

measures (and any othernecessary measures) to attain the emission reductions target ascribed in the SIPto the package, including adopted schedules for expeditious implementation ofcurrently planned

"These SP elements arerequired for all SIP provisions needed to satisfy PartD. except for provisions that were approved orpromulgated. and implemented, prior to enactment ofthe 17 Amendments (August7.1977. The elements required by section 110(a)(21(F][W (that I.

assurances ofadequate personnel funding and authority) are needed for allSIPprovisions.

Under sections 17Z(b)(10) and 174 ofthe Act. the SIPmay provide thatlocal governmments orregional agencies, rather than the state itselL Is responsible for implementing and enforcing particular plan provisions. Where this is done, (1) the plan provisions mut still be adopted by the state and submitted toEPA by the Governor. (2)the state must evidence Its determination that the local or regional bodyhas legal authority toimplement the provision, and (3) the local or regional body must evidence its commitment ofnecessary resources, adoption ofenforceable requirements, and commitment toimplement and enforce the plan elements.For some elements, such asinspection/ maintenance provisions. Item (3) will also require a certification by the local or regional body that ithas adopted necessary ordinances or other legislative authorization. See the last paragraph ofnote 27 below, on nspection/maintenance. reasonable transportation control
measures, and schedules for analysis and adoption ofadditional transportation control (and other necessary) measures. (§§ 110(a)(3](D, 172(b)(2] &(11)(C); Oxidant 

### I1-5.)

9 Include a commitment to establish, expand, or improve public transportation measures to meetbasic transportation needs as expeditiously as practicable, including a commitment to

usenecessary federal grants and state and local funds. (§§ 110(a]3](D),

* Establish a program that requires, before issuance ofa preconstruction review permit, an analysis ofalternative sites and otherfactors which demonstrates that the benefits ofthe proposed source significantly outweigh
any environmental and social costs. 

### (§172[b]1l])(A); .]

B.Further Guidance. 1.NeedforAIRACM.PartD requires the SIP toprovide for thatlevel of control necessary to assurelattainment ofthe standards as expeditiously as practicable, andnolater than the specified deadlines, andreasonable further progress in the interim. Itdoes
not require that all sources apply RACM ifless than all RACM will suffice for reasonable furtherprogress and attainment. Therefore, ifa state adopts less than all RACM and demonstrates (a) thatreasonable further progress and attainment of the NAAQS are assured. and (b) that application ofall RACM wouldnot resultin attainment any faster,then a plan withless than all RACM may be approved. An exception is that most ozone SIPs must include, as

a minimum, RACTrequirements for certain stationary sources (discussed in subsection 3below, on Ozone Control Strategy).

2.Schedules. Ordinarily all necessary

measures mustbe adopted in legally enforceable form. However,for certain classes ofmeasures, EPAinterprets the Act to allow approval ofplans containing schedules for expeditious development, adoption, submittal, and. implementation ofthese measures. Schedules may be used forthe following: (a) Measures to control particulate matter sources that EPAhas not traditionally treated as causes of NAAQS violations ("nontraditional" sources-for example, sources ofurban fugitive dust, resuspendedroad dust, and dust from construction, as distinguished fromfugitive and stack
process emissions from stationary sources]; (b)RACT requirements for stationary volatile organic compound (VOC) sources for-which EPA has not issued a Control Techniques Guideline Federal Re ister / VoL 44, No. 60 / Wednesday. April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules 20375Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules

by January 1978; (c) inspection] maintenance programs; and (d) transportation 'control measures.

Schedules must provide for • implementation ofmeasures quickly enough to assure that the SIP will provide for reasonable further progress and attainment by the required date. Schedules for control-of stationary VOC

sources and forinspection/maintenance programs also must meet, at a minimum, the deadlines and other specific requirements for these kinds of

measures established in EPA guidance, which.are summarized below (in subsections 3 and 4,on Ozone Control Strategy and-Inspection/Maintenance). For controls ofnontraditional particulate matter sources and for transportation controls, where analysis, selection, and adoption cannotbe completed in time tobe approved by July 1, 1979, schedules may provide for expeditious completion ofanalysis, selection, and adoption. By the applicable deadline in the schedule, the state must idopt the necessary
measures in legally enforeceable form, along with any necessary additional schedules for expeditious implementation ofthe measures.

Each schedule must contain key milestones to be used for evaluating progress in completing the scheduled tasks, including as precise a description

as possible ofwhat must be'

- accomplished by each key milestone. In order to contribute to the demonstration ofreasonable further progress and attainment, each schedule must include

a target ofhow much emission reduction will result, and when, from each ,)measureor group ofrelated measures.

Each schedule must be adopted as part of the SIP, and each state or other governmental body responsible for implementation must be committed to meet the key milestones.20The state and other'governmental bodies must

-

2Failure to meet a key milestone to which the state or othergovernmental body is committed may be treated as a failure to "implement!' and "carry out" the SIP under sections'173(4), 176(b), and 316(bj(2) ofthe 'Act, and under some circumstances may be treated as a "violation" ofa requirement of the SIP under section -113(a)(1). Furthermore, certain milestones In each schedule will be deadlines for submitting additional necessary elements ofthe SIP, such as certification ofadequate legal authority, evidence that the necessary requirements have been, adopted In legally enforceable form. or evidence that the state or local government is committad.to Implement and enforce the appropriate plan elements. Regardless ofwhether the'state or other governmental body is committed to mreting these milestones for submitting additional elements,

- failure to meet them may render the SIP no longer adequate to satisfy the requirements ofPart D under. section 110(aj(2J(l ofthe Act, and in'some. circumstances may be treated as h failure to submit

a plan that considers an element required by Part D under section 176[a) ofthe Act. therefore be committed to analyze, select, adopt, and implement measures' necessary to achieve the emission reductions ascribed to the schedules.

- There is a partial exception for ozone

and carbon monoxide measures that are not reasonably available for implementation before -theend of 1982: The tafe and other governmental bodies must be committed to meeting the key milestones for'analyzing and selecting such measures for the post1982 period, but need not submit the' adopted enforceable measures, and schedules and commitments to implement them, until, at the.latest, July
-1, 1982.21 "3. Ozone ControlStrategy.Although

an ozone SIP must assure reasonable further progress and attainment in all nonattainment areas, the SIP need not include a specific demonstration of reasonable further progress and attainment in rural areas. (A designated nonattainment area may consist ofone
or more "urbanized areas" surrounded by "rural areas.") 2 Such a demonstration in all urbanized areas, along with atleast the minimum stationary-source requirements described below, should assure reasonable further progress and attainment in the rural areas by minimizing the pollutants transported fromurbanized to rural areas.

Because it is often difficult to develop precise ozone control strategies, and because sections 172(a)(2) and (b)(3) require minimum levels ofcontrol

-

2 1Section 172(c) ofthe Act establishes a July 1, .1982 deadline forthe SIP to contain all enforeceable

measures necessary for attainment-by the end of .1987.The July 1."1982deadline applies only to

measures notreasonably available earlier.The state may not delay adoption and implementation of

measures that are reasonably available earlier on account of section 172(c). See Clean Air -Amendments of 1977, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 6161, H.R. Rep. No. 95-564,95th Cong, 1st Sess.i57 (August 3, 1977). 2For purposes of ozone plan development. "urbanized area" means a central city and * surrounding closely settled areas withpopulation of

200,00 or more, according to the 1970 Census,plus any adjacent fringe areas ofdevelopment. Any other area Is a 'rural area."

Since reasonable further progress and attainment need not be demonstrated in a rural area, ozone SIPs that satisfyall Part D requirements under EPA guidance for a ruil area and forthe urbanized

areas that cause the nonattanment problem in the 'rural area will provide an inherent emissions growth allowance for new major'sources in the rural

area. This means that apermit may be Issued for major sources ofVOC insuch rural areas, under section 173 ofthe Act, without a specific demonstration that the new-emissions will be accommodated under section 173(l) (See discussion in subsection 10.a'below. on Preconstruction Revleiv. If extensive growth changes the demographic character of an area from rural to .urbanized, a demonstration ofreasonable further progress and attainment may then be called for in the newly urbanized area. technology, the minimum acceptable level ofstationary source control for

ozone SIPs is the following: Ozone SIPs being revised now must include adopted RACT requirements for VOC sources covered by Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) that EPA issued by January 1978, and schedules to adopt and submit by each future January ,additional requirements for the sources covered by CTGs issued by the previous January. For SIPs with attainment dates after 1982, these RACT requirements must apply in urbanized areas to all

sources covered by each CTG, and In rural areas to all "major" sources (that' is, over 100 tons/year potential emissions) " covered by each CTG. (Such SIPs must also provide forthe control of additional sources where necessary to achieve reasonable further ,progress, as discussed below,) For SIPs with attainment dates before the end of
1982 that do not use photochemical dispersion modeling, these RACT requirements must apply to all major

sources covered by each CTG, and in urbanized areas to enough additional

sources covered by each CTG toprovide for reasonable further progress and

- attainment as expeditiously as practicable. In SIPs with attainment dates before the end of1982 that do use photochemical dispersion modeling, these RACT requirements must apply to enough sources covered by each GTG to provide forreasonable further progress and attainment as expeditiously as practicable., 4

""Potential" to emit means the maximum capacity to emit a pollutant absent airpollution control equipment. See sections II.A.1 through 5 of the Offset Ruling, note 3above.

14 The above sets forth the minimum level of stationary source control thatmust be Included not only in the SIP, but also In the demonstration that attainment is impossible by the end of 19OZ despite Implementation ofall reasonably available
measures, which Isnecessary under section 172(a)(2) to qualify for an attainment dait after the end of1982.

Linear rollback techniques for determining needed emission reductions are acceptable for use in 1979 SIP submittals. Plans with attainment dates after 1982, however, must be revised by July 1,1982
to use more rigorous techniques.

'That is, the SIP must do the following to the extent necessary to achieve straight.line reductions at the end of 1982: (1)Include al RACT,Includlng RACT for source categories In addition to those that will be covered by EPA's CTG series, and, for

source categories that will be coveredby CTCs. adopt RACT requirements sooner than would be required by EPA's CTG program described In the
text above; (2) provide for especially expeditious and ambitious reasonably available transportation control measures: and (3) permit new major sources and major modifications only with case-by-case offsetting emission reductions (see discussion on Preconstruclion Review In subsection 10 below of the text). As apractical matter, a SIP thatrequires application ofall RACT and Includes no emissions growth allowance fornew major sources should

assure straight-line reductions at the end of 1552 for

even the most seriously polluted area. 20376Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 66 / Wednesday. April 4. 1979 / Proposed Rules

An ozone plan with an attainment date after 1982 will satisfy the requirement for reasonable further
progress ifthe SIP requires at least (1) "straight-line reductions" at the end of 1982, or (2) reductions thatreflect application of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable through the end of 1982with no emissions growth allowance for new major sources. "Straight-line reductions" mean reductions atthe end of1982 at least as great asif equal annualreductions were required b6tween 1979 and the attainment date, which can be represented graphically by a straight line. Until the end of1982, allowable emissions may remain above the straight line to accommodate the time required for compliance.

4.Inspection/Maintenance. An acceptable inspection/maintenance
program or schedule is required in urbanized areas for every ozone or carbon monoxide SIP with an attainment date after 1982.26 In addition, for SIPs with attainment dates by the end of 1982, states may find that inspectionlmaintenance is helpful to

assure reasonable further progress and attainment by the required date, or even. to provide an emissions growth allowance for newmajor sources. For urbanized areas with attainment dates after 1982, the SIPmust contain a commitment ofthe state, local government, orregional agency to implement theprogram as expeditiously

as practicable. EPA has determined that the final deadline for submitting

assurances of adequate legal authority
to carry out theprogram is June 30,1979,

2Thatis, the SIP mustdo the following to the
extentnecessary toachieve straight-line reductions at the end of1982: (1) Include al RACT including RACT for source categories inaddition to those that willbe covered-by EPA's CTG series, and, for

sourcecategories that willbe coveredby CTGs. adopt RAC requirements sooner than would be required byEPA's CTG program described in the textabove; (2]provide for especially expeditious and ambitiousreasonably available transportation controlmeasures; and (3] permitnew majorsources andmajormodifications onlywith case-by-case offsetting emission reductions (seediscussion on Preconstruction Review in subsection 10below of the text). As apractical matter, aSIP that requires application ofall PACT and includes no emissions growth allowance fornew major ources should

assure straight-line reductions at the end of 1982 for

even the most seriously polluted area.

21"Urbanized area" is defined innote 22 above. Statewide programs are encouraged, especially for
states thatare smalland highlyurbanized. EPAwill review the need for inspection/maintenance in non- urbanized areas after the 1979 SIP revisions are submitted andwill consideradditional requirements
at thattime. For some carbon monoxide SIPs. regardless ofwhether attainment will beafter 1982, inspection/maintenance for non/urbanized areas may now-be necessary to demonstrate reasonable further progress and attainment. with limited exceptions." Final implementation of the program (including adoption and submission to EPA ofall necessary requirements for mandatory inspection and repair of failed vehicles) must be scheduled for

no later than the end of 1982 for a centralized program, orthe end of1981 for a decentralized program. " Failure to submit by the required deadlines the legal authority and allregulatory requirements necessary formandatory inspection and mandatory repair of

-rLimltedexceptions to the June 30.197 deadline for supplying certification ofadequate leg3l authority may be possible if the state (orother governmental body) can demonstrate that the legislature has hadno opportunity toconsider any necessary enabling legislation between enactment ofthe 1977 Amendments (August 7,1977) andJune 30.1979. Extension beyond June 30.1979 Isan exceptional remedy, andEPA will grant no extension if the legislature has had an opportunity
to consider enabling legislation but has notgiven such legislation serious consideration. (EPA had also contemplated extensions for situations where there hadbeen insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary technical analyses; however, as far as EPA is aware, the needed information is now available.] Innocase may the assurances of adequate legal authority be supplied later thanJuly 1. 1980. Where legislative action will occur afterthe SIP has beenupproved. submittal ofassurances of adquate legal authority must be Included as akey milestone in the schedule for mplementation of the program.

Legal authority by the required deadline Is necessary to satisfy the requirements ofsections =2(b)[7) and (10)ofthe Act, which call forevidence that the state or othergovernmental body has legally adopted thenecessary requirements and schedules and timetables forcompliance, Is committed to implement and enforce the elements ofthe SIP, and has committed the necessary
resources to carry outthe SIP. Iflegal authority Is provided but islater withdrawn orfound to be inadequate toauthorize Implementation ofthe required program, the SIP will thenno longer satisfy the requirements ofsection 172(b]1) and 110).

See note 19 above. on commitments by governmental bodies other than the state. Where a local or regional body will Implement the program the deadline for certification that such abody has necessary legal authority is the same asfor a state-that is, June 30.1979. with limited exceptions.

!A "centralized" program is one where inspection testing Is conducted atfacilities owned and operated bya state,local, orregional governmental agency, or a contractor workingfor the agency. A "decentralized" program is one where testing Is conducted at private garaocs licrnsed to conduct the tests by the state.local, orregional agency. The deadlines for Implementation apply regardless ofwhen authorizing legislation is obtained. The Administrator's memorandum on criteria for approval (note7 above) had provided that the deadline forImplementation would be earlier for areas that obtain legislation earlier. However. the Agency has modified this policy. EPA believes that the uniform deadlines stated in the text, forobtaining legislative authority and for implementing the necessary programs, willfoster equity amongstates and coordination In administering programs InInterstate metropolitan
areas, and that compliance with the deadlines'wiill constitute Implementation of the programs as expeditiously as practicable. See alsonote 21 above, explaining that the July1.1982 deadline under section 172[c) ofthe Act isIrrelevant to Inspection/maintenance legislation, which is now reasonably available. failed vehicles will make the SIP no longer adequate to satisfy the requirements ofPartD.

5. Transportation Control Measures. For urbanized areas, each SIP with an attainment date after 1982must contain schedules for implementation of currently planned reasonably available transportation control measures, and schedules for analysis, selection and adoption of additional transportation control measures, sufficient to achieve the emission reductions target ascribed to transportation control in the demonstration ofreasonable further progress and attainment As noted above, by the applicable deadlines in the schedules, the state must adopt the necessary measures, along with any necessary additional schedules and commitments for expeditious impleipentation ofthe measures. Itis EPA'spolicy that each area will be required to schedule a representative selection ofreasonable transportation control measures forimplementation at least on apilot or demonstration basis before the end of1980.

The determination ofwhat transportation control measures are reasonably available mustbe made on a case-by-case basis. The measures listed in section 108(f)(1)(A) ofthe Act are presumed to bereasonably available-If

a state orlocal government believes that in itsparticular situation any ofthe

measures listed (exceptinspection/ maintenance)is notfeasonably available, the burden is on the state or localgovernment to demonstrate the unavailability ofthe measure, based on the local situation. A demonstration that

a measure is notreasonably available mustbe based on substantial widespread and long-term adverse impact that would resultfrom the
measure, and on the time needed to analyze, develop and implement the

measure. These factors bear both on whether a measure is reasonable and on whether a schedule calls for implementation as expeditiously as practicable.

6.Ozone Standard. EPA recently changed the required level under the primary and secondary NAAQS for

ozone from 0.08 to 0.12 parts per million (and changed the designation ofthe NAAQS from "photochemical oxidants" to "ozone").2A SIPis nowacceptable if itmeets all Part Drequirements for the NAAQS at a level of0.12 orbelow. A
state may,ifit wishes, relax new requirements in a 1979 SIP submittal designed for alevel below 012, so long

in

40 CFR 50.9. asrevised44 FR8220 (February8,
=199. 2037720378

- Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 4, 1979

as the revised SIP meets all

- requirements for the 0.12 level.

Being arelaxation, the revision to the

ozone standard does not affect the schedule for submittal ofSIP revisions required under Part D.Section 110(a](1) of the Act requires that SIP revisions be

- submitted within 9 months after a standard is revised. This refers only to SIP revisions legally required because of the revision to the standard. However, where a standard is relaxed; no SIP revisior is required by law, since states may have more stringent controls than necessary ifthey choose.30 tis optional with the state whether-to relax new requirements back to the 0.12 level, and' the state may therefore determine its

own schedule for accomplishing this.

The relaxation ofthe ozone NAAQS may alw some areas now designated nonattainment tohave their designations changed"under.section 107(d)(5) of the Act. In order to clear up any questions about what is a' nonattainment area beforeffhe July 1, 1979 deadline for having approved Part D SIPs,31 states are urged to promptly submit lists ofareas that may be' redesignated, along with supporting documentation. EPA will then promulgate the revised lists as soon as possible, with any necessary modifications.

7.Interstateand International Issues. Pollutants entering a state from sources' in neighboring statqs, countries, or bodies ofwater, and coptributing-to the violation of a NAAQS in.a nonattainment area, must be included in the demonstration ofreasonable 'further progress and attainment. Forpurposes - ofSIP development (although not for purposes ofmaking nonattainment designations under section 107(d) ofthe Act), states may assume that the NAAQS will be attained by the' appropriate deadlines under the Act in neighboring states, countries, and bodies ofwater, and that all SIPrequirements in neighboring states will be met. For interstate (and intrastate) urbanized

areas that are nonattainment for ozone, the highest pollutant concentration for fhe entire area must be used in

3OAn adequate SIP designed for an ozone level below 0.12 will be atleast stringent enough to satisfy requirements for the 0.12 level, as required by July 1.1979.

. ='The revised standard Is immediately effective for determining whether a proposed-new source would cause or contribute to a violation ofthe standard, for purposes ofpreconstruction review, regardless ofthe designations. However, the requirement to have a revised SIP that satisfies Part
D remains Ineffect for all nonattainment areas until EPA promulgates a different designation. See the discussion In subsbction 11 ofthe text below, on Changea inDesignation. determining the'necessary level of control.

8. SecondaryStandards. Particulate matter and sulfur oxides are the only pollutants for which secondary NAAQS

are more stringent than primary NAAQS. These secondary standardsmust be attained as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of 1982 where application of allRAQT by the end of 1982 will result in attainment. 3 2Where application of all RACT will not be sufficient, or where the state shows that good cause exists for postponing its application, then an attainment date later than 1982 may be provided forin the SIP.This date must, 'be as expeditious as practicable considering the amount ofemission reductions needed and the problems. involved in obtaining them.

The January 1, 1979 deadline for deadline for submittal of the SIP revision and the July 1, 1979 deadline for its approval may be extended up to 18- months for a secondary NAAQS.re The state must request an extension, and include a showing that attainment will require emission reductions greater than those that would result from application of all RACT.

9.Fugitive'Dust."Rural areas" (as defined according to EPA's Fugitive Dust Policy) 3 4experiencing particulate
matter violations that can be attributed to fugitive dust (that is, native airborne soil uncontaminated by man-made sources) can under certain cor'ditions be designated as attaining the NAAQS. Areas so designated do not needSIPs that satisfy the requirements ofPart D. Non-rural areas that experience particulate matter violations, even if attributed to airborne soil, mustbe designated as non-attainment and must have SIPs that satisfy the requirements ofPart D. "Rural"areas are defined for these purposes as those that have (1) a lack ofmajor industrial development or the absence of significant industrial particulate emissions, and (2) low urbanized population. All other areas
are "non-rural" areas.

Where fugitive dustin non-rural areas

causes or contributes to particulate matter violations SIPs must include sufficient controls to demonstrate reasonable further progress and

-See 40 CFR 51.13(b). ' .See section 110(b) ofthe Act; 40CFR 151.31. 34

See memorandum from Edward F.Tuerk EPA acting Assistant Administrator for Air & Waste Management, to EPA Regional Administrators, on "Guidance on SIPDevelopment and New Source Review in Areas Impacted by Fugitive Dust" (August 16,1977). and the attachment entitled Fugitive DustPolicy SIP's andNewSourceReview (August 1,1977); Preamble to initial designations of attainment status, 43FR 8963 col. 1,(March 3, 1978); section ILA.8 ofthe Offset Ruling, note 3above. attainment ofthe standard by the required date. SIPs for non-rural urban

areas must contain adopted RACT requirements for traditional sources and either adopted requirements or schedules for study and subsequent adoption ofrequirements for

- nontraditional sources. (See subsection 2 above, on Schedulee.) Controls of fugitive dust sources in non-rural areas must be included, if controls to be applied to other sources are not sufficient to demonstrate reasonable further progress and attainment.

10. Preconstruction Review.

a.Basic StatutoryRequirements.To satisfy the-requirements ofPart D,3 a preconstruction review program must

assure that permits for proposed major

sources and major modifications may be issued only ifthe following conditions of sections 172(b)(1)[A) and 173 ofthe Act

are satisfiedi. Requirements forallPart D SIPs: * The proposed major source or major modification is accommodated by

one orboth of the following approaches:

(A) There are sufficient case-by-case offsetting emission reductions (offsets) and other emission reductIons'required under the SIP, so that allowable emissions from all sources when the proposed major source or major modification is to commence operation representseasonable further progress, or (B) Emissions resulting from the proposed major source or major modification are accommodated by the emissions growth allowance for major

new sources.

* Any emission reductions required under paragraph (A) must be legally binding and enforceable before the permit may be issued. (§173{1) and the sentence of §173 after subsection (4).)

* The proposed major source or major modification must comply with the lowest achievable emissionrate (LAER), as that term is defined In section 171(3) ofthe Act. (§ 173(2).)

o All major sources in the state owned or operated by the owner or operator ofthe proposed major source
ormajor modification must be in compliance (oron a ichedule for compliance) with the Act. 

### (§173(3).)

ii.Additionalrequirements forozone andcarbonmonoxideSIPs with attainment datesafter1982: * An analysis must have been conducted ofalternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for the proposed major source or major

-'There are several other preconstruction review requirements under the Act that are notPartD requirements. E.g., section 110(a)(2J(D) ofthe Act and section I.B of the OffsetRuling, note 3above. L I / Proposed RulesFederal Register I Vol. 44. No. 66 / Wednesday. April 4, 1978 / Proposed Rules

modification which demonstrates that benefits significantly outweigh any environmental and social costs. 

### (§172(b)(11)(A).)

The submitted preconstruction review program must be legally enforceable, andmay satisfy the requirements ofPart D by referring to these requirements of the Act and stating that permits will be issued only in compliance with them, or by restating these requirements (or requirements more stringent).

Aside from the specific requirements discussed above, a state preconstruction review program along with other SIP provisions must impose enough controls.

onnew and existing sources that resonable further progress and attainment will actually occur as required. Ifthis does not happen, major

source andmajor modifications may be unable to obtain permits in the future, existing sources may have to apply even
more stringent controls, and the overall SIP may be found not to satisfy PartD requirements. The state preconstruction review program must therefore be adequate, considering the particular circumstances ofthe overall SIP and the

area to which it applies, to assure reasonable further progress -and attainment.

b.RequirementsFromtheEmission OffsetInterpretative Ruling.EPA's recently revised Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling now governs preconstruction review ofany major

source or majormodification thatwould

cause or contribute to a violation ofa NAAQS:Under the statute, the Ruling is to be superseded for nonattainment

areas after June 30, 1979, by preconstruction review provisions of the revised SIP, ifthe SIP meets the requirements ofPart D. If the SIP does notmeet the requirements-of PartD, the Ruling is tobe superseded by a prohibition on major source construction under the applicable'SIP and section 110(a)(2)(I) ofthe Act (discussed below in subsection f, onProhibition on New Construction. The Ruling will remain in effect to the extent not superseded under the Act. 36

"See section 129(a)(1) ofthe 1977 Amendments (note under 42U.S.C. 7502); section I ofthe Offset Ruling, note 3 above. The Ruling is therefore to apply after July 1.1979, inthe following situations: (a) To proposed major sources inone state that would contribute to aviolation ofa NAAQS only in another state, (b] during the time allowed forthe development and approval ofarevised SIP in an
area thatis designated as nonattainment after March 3,1978. and Cc) during any extended time allowed under secton 110B) for development ofa SIP revision for an area thatviolates the secondary NAAQS but not the primary NAAQS for apollutant. Furthermore, the Ruling applies everwhere in the state,regardless ofthe applicable designation under section 107(d) ofthe Act See sections E.D and E of the Ruling. For any areas in the state where neither The revised Ruling and accompanying Federal Register preamble set forth EPA's views on several issues that are relevantunder Part D. Many ofthe approaches used by the Agency in revising the Ruling may be usedby the states asguidance in developing provisions under Part D. But to establish uniform minimum requirements and consistent statutory definitions, EPA requires that state programs apply certain fundamental policies that EPA adopted inrevising the Ruling (orbe

more stringent): 37 * The SP must require permits for the construction and operation ofall proposed "major sources" and "major modifications," with those terms given definitions equivalent to those in the Ruling. (Ruling §§ ILA.A through 5.]

* Permits may be issued without satisfying the requirements under sections 172(b)(11)(A) and 173(1), (2] and (3)of the Act, forproposed major

sources and major modifications that do not have allowable emissions exceeding 50 tons per year, 1000 pounds per day, or 100 pounds per hour,whichever is most restrictive. (Ruling § ll.C.) * Permits may be issued without satisfying the requirements under sections 172(b](11)(A} and 173(1], (2] and (3)of the Act for proposed major modifications ofexisting facilities (that is, modifications ofidentifiable pieces of
process equipment) with accompanying offsets within the same source (intrasource offsets) such that there is no net increase in allowable emissions. (As explained in the preamble to the revised Ruling, this requirement is more lenient than that found in the Ruling itself.44 FR at 3276-3277.)

* Indetermining the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER], the reviewing authoritymay consider transfer of technology from one source type to another where such technology is applicable. (44 FR at 3280-3281.)

If a state adopts aregulation in the SIP that is not inconsistent with these mandatory policies, EPAproposes to

assume that the state intends to implement itspreconstruction review program in accordance with these policies. EPA proposes to conduct its enforcement activities accordingly. Alternatively, the state may adopt

aPart Dpreconstructlon review program nor a section 110(aJ(2][l) prohibition on issuance of permits applies, the Ruling willnot be superseded andwill continue to apply to every source that would cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation.

3See the preamble to the revised Ruling 44 FR 3276 coLl. (january 10,19"9). EPA considered
comment receivedbefore publication ofthe revised Ruling. and the Agency Invited additional comment. As soon asEPAhas completedre%iewing and responding to these latter comments, it will publish

aresponse. regulations that expressly incorporate these mandatory policies (orapproaches

more stringent).

c.Geographic Applicability. At a minimum, the program must apply to any major source 33in the state that would cause or contribute to a violation ofthe NAAQS within the designated nonattainment area. 35The Ruling establishes certain exemptions for a

source locating at a site where the NAAQS is not actually violated. Although sections 172(b](l1](A] and 173 do not expressly allow exemptions from

a preconstruction review program, EPA interprets the Act lo allow exemptions like those in the Ruling. A state may therefore make the following provision formajor sources locating at siteswhere the NAAQS is notviolated (as ofthe

new source start-up date]:

9 A source whose allowable emissions wouldnot cause or significantly contribute a violation ofthe NAAQS may be exempted from all requirements under sections 172(b)(11)(A and 173(1], (2], and (3]. (Ruling §§ J11) andE.)

* A source thatwould cause a new violation ofthe NAAQS maybe exempted from allrequirements under sections 172(b(11)(A and 173(1], (2), and (3), except thatit musthave sufficient offsets so that allowable emissions from the new source and existing sources will not, in fact, cause a violation. (Ruling § M.),

* For a source that would contribute significantly to an existing violation, emissions that result from the source mustbe accommodated under section 173(1) only to the extent that those emissions would actually contribute to the violation. All other applicable requirements (including the requirement under section 173(1i]A to accommodate certain emissions that do notresultfrom the source] must be satisfied infull. (Ruling §§ 1.D andE.

d.ExemptedTypes of Sources. In addition to the exemptions discussed above involving location ofa source, the revised Rulingprovides that certain types ofmajor sources may be exempted fror6 the requirement for offsets. In adopting its preconstruction review program, the state may exempt similar types ofsources from the requirement ofsection 173(1] that emissions be accommodated byoffsets

orby the emission growth allowince, as long as the exemptions established by the state cover classes ofsources no

"Except where the context indicates otherwise.- reference to any "major source" includes any major modification.

"See the preamble tothe revised Ruling. 44FR 35 col 3 January .19791. 20379Federal Register / Vol. -44. No. 66 1 Wdnesday. April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules

broader thanthose .exemptedunder the Ruling.The types of-sources exempted under the Ruling are: (i)Resource recovery facilitiesburningmunicipal solid wast, (ii) sources that-must switch fuels due to lack-ofadequate fule supplies or where a source isrequired to be modified as a resultof EPA regulations andno exemption from such regulation is availalle to the source, (iii) temporary emission sources, and (iv) emissions resulting from the construction phase ofa new source. (Ruling §IV.B.)

As under the Ruling,exemptions for

resource recovery facilities and sources that must switch fuels may iepermitted only if fA) the new emissions are charged against the emissions grovth increment for major new sources to the extent there is any. (B)the applicant demonstrates that itinade itsbest
' efforts to obtain sufficient offsets, (C)

.the applicant applies alluoffsets that-are available, and .(D),the applicant will continue to seek the necessaryoffsets and apply them when they-become available.Issuance of-a permit under an exemption forxesource recovery facilities or sources thatmust switch fuels will ordinarily..cause the -inventory. of allowable 'emissions.to exceed what is permitted for reasonable further progress. Therefore, -nofurtherpermits formajor sources may beissuedunder section 173(1) until the deficit'is made up by either additional offsets or a-SIP ievision, to provide additional control-of existing sources.

e,.Baiking. Under thepolicy expressed inthe OffsetRuling 

### f§ WVC.5), the statemnay allow emissionreductions
to be banked forlater use underthe Ruling and under-the states preconstruction xeview program under PartD. The SIP-should provide procedures forinanaging banked emission reductions, such-as SIP revisions or permit conditions. Banked emission reductions may be usedfor case-by-case offsets undersection 173(1)(A), by contributing part or all of the required offsetting reductions in allowable emissions. To be sufficient under that section, the nffsetting reductionsin -allowableemissions, including anybanked emission reductions being-used, mustlbe sufficient to reprqsent reasonable further progress. Alternatively, banked-emission reductions may bepreserved foruse under section 173(1) (B),bybeimg added
to the emissions growth allowance for

new major sources. Adding to -the allowance requires a SIP revision, and will be approved byEPA only ifthe enlarged allowance 'willnotinterfere with reasonable further progress and attainment by the-requiredtdate.

f. Prohibition on New .Construction. Sections 110-a2)(I), 113[a)(5), and 173(4) ofthe Actandsection ILof:the Ruling provide thatmewmnajor sources

- and major modifications hat would

cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation -withinthe uonattainment area 'are not to -beconstructed if-either-of-the folloking circumstances applies:

i.L

Ifthere is a period after June 30, 1979 when a SIPdoesnmot satisfy the requirements ofPart D, no major source

or major modification is -tobe constructed-under a permit applied for during thatperiod, until after the approved-SIP meets Part D requirements. Ifthe -permitwas -applied, for before July 1,1979, or before the period when the SIP-fails to satisfyPart

- D requirements, constructionds not
- restricted by any failure ofthe-SIP'to

- satisfy PartD-requirements'[as long as

-requirements ofthe Ruling orof an adequate Part Dpreconstruction review
program, whichever is applicable, are satisfied).

ii. If there is aperiod alter June 30, 1979 when a SIPis mot being carried out in accordance ,withthexeguirements of Part'-D,no permits arelo be issued until the SIP is .carriedout in accordance with those requirements. To the exteft-hat thestate does not-carrynutthese

- prohibitions against newconstruction under sections i,010a(2J)I], 113(a)(5J,.and 173(4], the Act provides for-fEPA to Bo SO.

11. Changesin Designation. .In develbping aPart D SIP revision for a designated nonattainment area, the
state may determine that the designation is inappropriate. Ifthis

occurs, the state may submit to EPA a revised-designation -with supporting material. Until EPA finds the revised designation acceptable andpromulgates it, the July 1 deadline for-approval ofa SIPrevision satisfying.Part D will continue to apply.iHowever, ,the SIP submittal may simplydemonstrate that the standard is -attainedand that no additional .emissionreductions cdr preconstruction review.-requirements need tobe includedin the SIP.40

TheJuly 1 deadline applies only -for

areas desigiated as nonattainment in

40For purposes of-preconstruction review,the determination of whetheraa proposed new source would cause or contributeloa violation of-the standard may be made withoutxegard tohe

- applicable designation.See subsections 10.c and'! of the text-above, in thediscssion onPxeconstruction Review; discussion onEFMECT'OF. DESIGNATIONSON ZLEANAIRAMCT REQUIRM NTS in tlh general preambleon revised designationsofattainment status. 43 FR

- 40412-13 [September 11. 1978).

- the initialMarch 3, 297B promulgation. 4' For any area .designated-as nonattainment after:March 3, 1978,'tho
state will have nine months after the

new designation is promulgated to submit a :SIPrevision satisfying the requirements -of Part D. -Noadditional time is available, however, when an

area boundary is adjusted, ut the same air quality problem and sources contributing to theproblem are addressed.

IV. Approval ofRevised SIP as Satilsfyng Non-PartD Requirements

Thefinal question 1hat EPA-must

-determine in reviewing a SiPsubmittal

is whether thexevised applicable -implementation plan sptisfiesall requirements in the Act that are motPart D requirements. A state'sfailure to satisfy non-Part D requirements creates an.obligation under Sectlonl10(c)o flhe Act for EPA to promulgate substitute SIP 'provisions to satisfy those requirements, but does not-require withholdingof-new

source permits andbighway and air pollution control program-grants,' 2

Many states are submitting SIP provisions to satisfy non-'art D requirements along with theirPartD submittals. EPA must review these submittals as soon as possible-o determine whether they should be approved, and must Teview all applicable implementation plans -as

soon as possible to determine whatnonPart D requirements remain-unsatisfied, In some cases EPA will -considernonPart D submittals along'withPart D submittals, and in other cases EPA will defer consideration of non-Part D submittals until later.T"heFedoral Register proposals referring to individual state plans -will-identifyany non-Part D decisions to be made nnd the relevant considerations.

(Secs. 110(aJ, 172, Clean AirAct, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7502))
Dated: March 23,1979.'

David G-Hawkins, AssistantAdrniniastror orAir.Noisonddadloea. [FRL 1 9o-1 l [FR Dec. 79-10227 Filed 4-3-79-,8:43 aml
BILUNG CODE '6550I-M

"'Seenote 0 above. 4 2Several SIPrevisions are requiredby the 077 Amendmentsto theAct but nra not-Part D requirements. These Includelhe requirements of sections 128lstate boards), l10(e)(ZIlE) and 120 .(interstatepollutlon). 127(publiciollflcatlon), 1G0 01

seg. IPSD).110 (a)(ZJ(lK) (permitleesj, 123:(stack heights inother than nonattainment areas). 11 ,(consultation), and 110(a)(0) (pay reduction], 20380