OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

7) ll-F-49 

Docket Number: 

k-W-Zl 

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

p.1 
kindly 

see that 

this gets to 

the right 

person? J 

~i^&*^ 

P.2 

ipJJULlX^ 

EPA/te7Hlv-V i j 

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

OPFZCS OP XANAGBSNT AKD BUDGET 

OPFZCE OP ZNPOAKATZON AND REGULATORY ATPAIRS 

OATE I •*£3ais fr&L% 

TOx _ 

AGENCYI 

PHOMi 

r^^i^OQ,2^^£^ 

RECIPIENT'S PAX MO.t 

RECIPIENT TELEPHONE NO.I 

TOTAL NUXBER OP PAOBJ? XNCL90ZNG COVER SHEET I 

COMMENTS I a _^_ _ 

NOTE l SP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION NO.t 202098-7340 

OZRA PAX NO.8 202-395-7285 

THE PAGES, 7LEASE CALL AB BOON 
P.3 

ijjfiif^fmej T • 

The Senate's CAAA bill was S 252, and that bill contains tha exact language 

used in section 169(3), although In S 252 it was characterized as section 

110(g)(6)(A). Senate Report 95-127 states the following regarding the definition 

of BACT: 

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. [emphasis eidecij 
P.4 

Insert: 

j m Sec 51,166(p) (2) 

(ii) Content of a Notification of potential Impacts on a Federal 

Class I area. A notification by a Federal Land Manager or 

Federal Official identifying a potential adverse impact as 

described in (i) of this section shall be in writing and should 

contain an appropriate description of the potential adverse 

impact on AQRVs that could result from the change in air quality 

caused by the proposed emissions increase. While this notice 

represents only a preliminary identification of a potential 

adverse impact, the notice should provide sufficient causal 

linkage between the proposed source's specific pollutant 

emissions, its relative location in the Class I area, and the 

known air quality related values in the affected Federal Class I 

area as support for the allegation of a potential adverse impact 

on AQRVs. 

* ? . ^a> . Modify section 51.166(b)(23) [approximately page 15 of the draft], by adding s new 

^ 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 

f 
P.5 

"</ . 

16 

(6) Preliminary and final permit determination--No" 

Claaa I increment violation- The .plan shall provide that, 

where the permitting authority has determined that the . 

emissions from the proposed major source or major 

modification will not cause or contribute to ambient air 

quality concentrations in the Federal Class I area which 

exceed the maximum allowable increases over baseline 

concentrations-- — 

•fl-

(i) The Federal Land Manager will be given at least 60 

days (from the date of issuance of the determination 

required under paragraph (n)(1) of'this section that the 

permit is complete) prior to the permitting authority's 

preliminary permit determination to demonstrate that a 

proposed major source or major modification will have an 

adverse impact on aii quality related values. 

(ii) If the permitting authority agrees with the 

Federal Land Manager's demonstration under paragraph 

(p)(6)(i) of this section, the permitting authority ahall 

propose to deny the permit. 

UvJr*M$tA 

(in) If the permitting authority ossasresar with the 

Federal Land Manager's demonstration under paragraph 

(p) (6) (i) of this section, the permitting authority shall 

consult with the Federal Land Manager, ref-qg-aneG thy redcrcrl, 

hand MJi'iciy-tti' ri diiiiMiiii.il, L 11 in n 11r advcm e .'"ij,1-

11 •', • •••-^•i 

^linilil j lilllil l i s i IIIIII III I I m jinlil i 11 inil f II • • nririr"iT-«-"wff->*>' 

ii'eliminai -

(•i) U ) (H D 

lion in the public regard) 

" h e reasons for proposing to 

The permitting authority's 

the 

IA 

reject the\demonstration, 

written evaluation shall 

following: 

(A) • The basis for any disagreement with the data 

analyses contained in the Federal Land Manager's 

demonstration pfi adverse impa££, ^ji tair quality related 

value 

authority 

related 

by thc'-fr'cd' 

planation of 

chea about the 

that are 

any conclusions the permitting 

on air quality 

inconsistent with tha 

air quality ,'g^,' 

ie. demonstrate* * 

and 

&%& > 

not** 

THIS DOCUMENT XB A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

, BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT- REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July 5, 1995 -- [filename 51_166 6.291 ***