# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 7 ) ll-F-4 9

Docket Number: 

# k-W-Zl

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54 AM Sheet 7 of 45 p. 1

# kindl y 

# se e tha t thi s gets to th e right person ? J ~i^&* ^ P. 2



# ipJJULlX^

EPA/ te 

### 7H lv- V i j

-7x..-3>,a,.-..0| i

- 

### OPFZC S O P XANAGBSN T AK D BUDGE T OPFZC E O P ZNPOAKATZON AN D REGULATORYATPAIR S

OAT E I 

### •*£3ai s 

# fr&L%

TO x _ AGENCY I PHOMi 

# r^^i^OQ,2^^£ ^

RECIPIENT' S PA

XMO. t RECIPIEN T TELEPHON E NO. I TOTA L NUXBE RO P PAOBJ? XNCL90ZN GCOVE RSHEE T I COMMENT S I a 

### _^

__

NOT E l S P YO UD O NO T RECEIV E AL L A S POSSIBLE . VERIFICATION

NO. t 202098-734 0 OZR A PA XNO. 8 202-395-728 5 TH E PAGES , 7LEAS E CAL L A B BOONP. 3

ijjfiif^fmej T• Th e Senate' s CAA A bil l wa s S 252 , an d tha t bil l contain s th a exac t languag e use d i n sectio n 169(3) , althoug h I n S 25 2 i t wa s characterize d a s sectio n 110(g)(6)(A) . Senat e Report 95-12 7 state s th e followin g regardin g th e definitio n ofBACT : The decision regarding

the actual implementation

of best available

technology

Is a key one, and the committee

places this responsibility

with the State, to

be determined

in a cese-bycase

judgment. It

is recognized

that the phrase has broad flexibility

in how It should and can be interpreted, depending on site. In making this key decision on the technology

to be ueed, the

State Is to take into account energy, environmental, and economic

Impacts and other costs of the application

of best available

control technology. The

weight assigned

to auch fetors ia to be determined

bv the State. Such

a flexible approach

allows the adoption

ot Improvements

in technology

to become widespread

far more rapidly than would occur with a uniform Federal standards. The

only Federal guidelines

ara the BPA new

source performance

and hazardous

emissions standards, which

raorasant

a floor far tha Stato's ttanialnn This directive enables the State to consider

the site of the plant, the

Increment of air quality which will be absorbed

by any particular

major emitting facility, and such other considerations

as anticipated

and desired economic

growth for the area. This

allows the States and local communities

to judge how much of the defined increment

ot significant

deterioration

win be devoted to any maior emitting facility. [emphasi s eideci jP. 4



### Insert : j m 

### Se c 51,166(p ) (2 )
(ii ) Conten t o f a Notificatio no f potentia l Impact s o na Federa l Clas s I area . A

notificatio nby

a Federa l LandManage r o r Federa l Officia l identifyin g a potentia l advers e impac t a s describe di n(i ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e i nwritin g andshoul d contai na nappropriat e descriptio no f th e potentia l advers e impac t o nAQRV s tha t coul dresul t fro m th e chang e i nai r qualit y cause db y

th e propose demission s increase . Whil e thi s notic e represent s onl y

a preliminar y

identificatio no f a potentia l advers e impact , th e notic e shoul dprovid e sufficien t causa l linkag e betwee nth e propose dsource' s specifi c pollutan t emissions , it s relativ e locatio ni nth e Clas s I area , andth e know nai r qualit y

relate dvalue s i nth e affecte dFedera l Clas s I are a a s suppor t fo r th e allegatio no f a potentia l advers e impac t o nAQRVs .

* ? . ^a> . Modify sectio n 51.166(b)(23 ) [approximatel ypag e 1 5 o fth e draft] , by addin g s ne w ^ paragraph :

(vl) Significant

means. In

reference

te ths predicted

adverse Impact of emissions from i proposed

major source or major modification

on sn sir qusBty related value, ambient concentrations, or

deposition

rates in tha case ofs value related to the opposition

rate of a pollutant, which

ara mon than 5% of tha maximum

concentration or deposition

rats sssoelatsd

with sn acceptable

condition

for the elr quality related value in question.

3 

# fP. 5

"</
. 1 6

(6 ) Preliminar y

an d fina l permi t determination--No " Claa a I incremen t violation - Th e .pla nshal l provid e that , wher e th e permittin g authorit y ha s determine dtha t th e . emission s fro

m th e propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio nwil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ambien t ai r qualit y

concentration s i nth e Federa l Clas s I are a whic h excee dth e maximu m allowabl e increase s ove r baselin e 

### concentrations- - —



# •fl - (i ) Th e Federa l Lan dManage r wil l b e give na t leas t 6 0 day s (fro

m th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e determinatio n require d unde r paragrap h(n)(1 ) of'thi s sectio ntha t th e permi t i s complete ) prio r t o th e permittin g authority' s preliminar y

permi t determinatio nt o demonstrat e tha t a propose dmajo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio nwil l hav e an advers e impac t o nai i qualit y relate dvalues . (ii ) I f th e permittin g authorit y agree s wit hth e Federa l Lan d Manager' s demonstrationunde r paragrap h (p)(6)(i ) o f thi s section , th e permittin g authorit y ahal l propos e to den y

th e permit . 

## UvJr*M$tA (in ) I f th e permittin g authorit y ossasresar wit hth e Federa l Lan dManager' s demonstratio nunde r paragrap h (p ) (6 ) (i ) o f thi s section , the permittin g authorit y shal l consul t wit hth e Federa l Lan dManager, ref-qg-ane Gth y redcrcrl , 

### hand MJi'iciy-tti ' r

i diiiiMiiii.il , L1

1 in n11 r advcm e .'"ij, 1


### - 1 1 

### •' , • •••-^• i ^linilil j lilllil l i s i IIIII I II I I I m jinli l i 1

1 ini l f I

I • • nririr"iT-«-"wff->*> ' ii'eliminai - (•i ) U ) (H D lio ni nth e publi c regard ) " h e reason s fo r proposin g t o Th e permittin g authority' s th e IA rejec t the\demonstration , writte nevaluatio nshal l following : (A ) • Th e basi s fo r any disagreemen t wit hth e dat a analyse s containe d i nth e Federa l LandManager' s demonstratio npf

i advers e impa££ , ^ji t ai r qualit y relate d valu e
authorit y relate d b y thc'-fr'cd ' planatio no f

che a abou t th e tha t ar e an

y conclusion s th e permittin g

onai r qualit y inconsisten t wit hth a ai r qualit y

,'g^,' ie . demonstrate * * 

### an d
&%& > 

# not**

THI S DOCUMEN T XB A PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D
, BUDGE T REVIE W

AN D DOES NOT - REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 51_16 6 6.29 1 ** *