p. 1



# OAR Box 1787

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 80 ) ll-C-3 8

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:20AM

Sheet 80of 147P. 2

^ ^ •'? gfc.\\

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y I ^*# 7 3 0ffic e o f Ai rQualit vPlannin 9 a" d Standard s / ? * 70S

7 \^rr ^ Researc h Triangl e Park

. Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 

# n~t -sx FIL E COX>Y 

### JU N 

## 2 5 199 0

Mr . Jame s B . MacRae , Jr . • Acting Administrato r an

d Deput y Administrato r J^ W 2517 7 ' , Offic e o f Informationan dRegulatory

Affair s j

f | Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t f j Washington , D.C . 2050 3 ---» . ; : ; Dea r Mr . MacRae : Thi s lette r respond s t o you r Marc h5 , 199 0 inquir y concernin g th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s (EPA's ) "top-down " approac hfo r determinin g bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT) . In you r letter , yo u aske d EPA t o notif y it s Regiona l Office s tha t th e top-dow nguidanc e i s i

n draf t form

an d ha s no t receive dfina l Agenc y approval . I n addition , yo u requeste d tha t EP A submi t t o th e Offic e o f Managemen t and Budge t (OMB) , fo r revie w unde r Executiv e Orde r 12291 , al l propose d an d fina l action s tha t appl y t o th e draf t top-dow napproach . Yo u als o indicate d tha t th e informatio nrequirement s associate dwit hth e top-dow napproac hd o no t hav e a vali d OM B contro l number ; hence , EPA' s effort s t o collec t suc hinformatio nrepresen t a violatio n o f th e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t (PRA) .

A s mentione d1

n m y Augus t 16 , 198 9 lette r t o you , w e d o no t agre e tha t EPA' s developmen t and implementatio no f th e top-dow napproac hconstitut e a rul e a s define di

n Executiv e Orde r 12291 . Th e top-dow napproac hi s a

n analytica l procedur e (no t a rule ) fo r State s an d source s t o us e t o ensur e tha t th e statutor y

requirement s o f BAC T ar e met . N o Stat e ha s bee naske d b y EPA , a s a resul t o f th e top-dow napproach , t o chang e eithe r it s rule s fo r - implementin g o r it s regulator y definitio no f BAC T sinc e n o suc hrul e change s shoul db e necessary ; rather , th e top-dow napproac his , i f anything , a n elaboratio no f EPA' s existin g rule s an d guidance . You r reques t ma y

perhap s ste

m fro m a n apparen t misunderstandin g regardin g EPA' s top-dow

napproach . Ou r positio ntha t th e top-dow napproac hdoe s no t reflec t an

y basi c shif t 1

n th e regulator y

requirement s unde r th e preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) program , no r doe s i t impos e ne w o r additiona l burden s o n Industry , i s therefor e explaine d i n greate r detai l below . Sectio n165(a)(4 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act ) require s al l source s subjec t t o PS D t o appl y

BACT . Sectio n169(3 ) o f th e Ac t define s BAC T as : "th e maximu

m degre e o f reductio no f eac hpollutan t .. . whic hth e permittin g authority , o n a case-by-cas e basis , takin g Int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s I s achievable. "P. 3



# . . 'TA

Sinc e th e inceptio no f th e PS D program , EP A ha s Interprete d th e statutor y BAC T definitio na s containin g tw o cor e criteria : consideratio no f th e mos t stringen t contro l technologie s available , an d a reasone d justification , considerin g "energy , environmenta l andeconomi c Impact s an dothe r costs, " o f an y decisio nt o requir e les s tha nth e "maximu m degre e o f reduction " i nemissions . Thi s definitio nan d approac har e reflecte d i nth e Guideline s fo r Determinin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (OAQPS , Dec . 1978) , pp . 5-6 . A tas k forc e convene db y EP A i n198 7 foun d severa l deficiencie s i nth e administratio no f th e PS D program . Thes e include d a findin g tha t th e PS D rule s wer e no t bein g effectivel y implemente d i

nman y cases , becaus e applicant s wer e no t considerin g al l options , an d State s wer e no t adequatel y explainin g th e basi s fo r thei r decisions . T o correc t th e deficiencies , EPA institute d man y program improvement s involvin g close r coordinatio nwit han doversigh t o f Stat e permittin g agencies . Amon g th e remedie s chose nb y EPA wa s a decisio nt o adop t a top-dow

napproac ht o BAC T analyses . Neithe r tha t decisio nno r th e othe r administrativ e improvement s institute d i n198 7 altere d existin g regulator y

requirements . Turnin g t o th e specifi c point s raise d i nyou r letter , i t appear s tha t yo u hav e confuse dEPA' s genera l top-dow napproac hregarding BAC T analyses , whic h ha s bee ni

nplac e fo r ove r 2 years , wit ha pendin g guidanc e documen t discussin g th e specifi c detail s o f tha t approach . Th e EPA' s decisio nt o us e a top-dow napproac hwa s state di na Decembe r 198 7 memorandum from th e Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an dRadiation . (W

e hav e provide d a cop y o f tha t memorandum

t o you r staff. ) Sinc e tha t time , th e approac hha s bee nwidel y applie db

y EP A an dth e States , an

d ha s bee nspecificall y endorse d i

nsevera l adjudicativ e decision s b y th e Administrator . Wit hrespec t t o EPA' s implementatio no f th e top-dow napproach , th e firs t exampl e yo uquote , from a Decembe r 23 , 198 9 Federa l Registe r notic e (5 4 F R52825) , relate s primaril y t o th e cor e BAC T criteria . A s discusse d above , thos e criteri a ar e no t new an d ar e no t altere d i

nan y wa y b y th e top-dow napproach . You r second exampl e pertain s t o a namendmen t t o a PS D delegatio nagreemen t betweenEPA' s Regio nV an d th e Stat e o f Indiana . I n Indian a an

dapproximatel y

2 0 othe r State s whic hlac k anapprove dPS D program a s par t o f th e Stat e implementatio npla n(SIP) , EPA i s th e PS D permittin g authority . I

nmos t o f thos e cases , EP A ha s delegate d th e permittin g functio n t o th e State , whic hi s expecte d t o follo w EPA policies . Accordingly , th e delegate dStates , includin g Indiana , ar e t o follow EPA' s top-dow

napproach . I believ e tha t thi s applicatio no f th e existin g genera l polic y i s appropriat e a s well . Wha t remain s i

ndraf t form

i s a detaile d guidanc e documen t providin g additiona l informatio nt o State s an dth e regulate dcommunit y onth e implementatio no f EPA' s existin g top-dow napproach . Thi s draft , whic h reflect s EPA

Regiona l Offic e comments , wa s recentl y sen t t o th e Stat e an d Territoria l Ai r Pollutio nProgram Administrator s an

d Associatio no f Loca l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Official s New Sourc e Revie w

(NSR ) Subcommitte e fo r revie w prio r t o finalization . A copy wa s delivere d recentl y t o Mr . Ar t Fraa s o f you r office . Whil e w e continu e t o disagre e onwhethe r th e top-dow napproac hi sP. 4

covere db

y Executiv e Orde r 12291 , w e wil l b e happy t o discus s th e draf t detaile dguidanc e wit hyo uo r you r staf f befor e Issuing 1 t 1 nfina l form . You r reques t t o revie w al l propose d an

d fina l action s tha t involv e the top-dow napproac h1 s troubling , however , no t onl y 1 nligh t o f th e SI P reform s ou r office s hav e implemente dt o expedit e th e process , bu t becaus e o f federalis m

implications . Again , EP A ha s no t require dan y rul e change s t o implemen t th e top-dow napproach , s o SI P action s involvin g top-dow nwoul d b e generall y

thos e initiate db

y th e States . I t woul d b e unlikel y tha t EP

A woul dpropos e t o disapprov e thes e SI P revisions , s o you r request t o review thes e action s woul dund o th e SI P reform s w e hav e agree d upon . Wit hrespec t t o informatio nrequirement s o f th e top-dow napproach , I mus t disagre e wit hyou r assertio ntha t effort s t o collec t an y suc hinformatio n represen t a violatio no f th e PRA . Firs t o f all , unde r OM B regulation s the PR A applie s onl y

t o collection s o f informatio n(1 ) conducte d o r (2 ) sponsore db y Federa l agencie s (se e 5 CF RSec . 1320.3) . Informatio nsubmitte d unde r the top-dow napproac his , wit hfew exceptions , submitte d t o State s an d no t t o th e Federa l government , s o tha t th e Federa l governmen t itsel f i s no t "conducting " an y collectio no f information . Moreover , th e top-dow napproac hdoe s no t requir e anapplican t t o submi t any additiona l informatio nt o obtai na permi t (althoug ha

napplican t may , b

y choice , submi t informatio nfo r th e State' s us e inanattemp t t o demonstrat e tha t th e mos t stringen t pollutio ncontro l technolog y

availabl e i s no t appropriat e i nit s particula r case) . Therefor e th e Federa l governmen t i s no t causin g o r requirin g th e State s t o collec t informatio nunde r th e top-dow napproach , an

d s o i s no t "sponsoring " th e collectio no f informatio naccordin g t o th e OMB definitio no f "sponsor " [se e 5 CF RSec . 1320.7(r) ; se e als o Dol e v . Unite d Steelworker s o f America . No . 88-143 4 (U.S . Februar y 21 , 1990) ] (interpretin g th e PR A a s applyin g onl y t o informatio ncollection s b y o r fo r th e us e o f Federa l agencies) . Secondly , th e informatio nrequirement s fo r EPA' s NS Ran d PS D program includ e informatio nneed s fo r BAC T purposes , an dthes e informatio n requirement s hav e alread y bee napprove d unde r OMB Contro l No . 2060-0003 . Moreover , EPA

wa s alread y

recommendin g a top-dow napproac ha t th e time tha t OM B approve dth e informatio nrequirement s fo r EPA' s NS Ran d PS D program . Th e sol e basi s yo ucit e i nsuppor t o f you r assertio no f a violatio no f th e PR A i s th e absenc e o f a nidentificatio nb

y EP A o f an y informatio n collectio nburde nresultin g fro m th e top-dow

napproac hi

nth e document s submitte db

y EP A i nsuppor t o f th e informatio nreques t mentione d above . Th e EPA' s emphasi s onth e top-dow napproac hdoe s not , however , ad d an y additiona l informatio nrequirements . Sectio n165(e)(3)(B ) o f th e Ac t an dEPA' s PS D regulation s a t 4 0 CF R51.16 6 an d52.2 1 explicitl y

requir e a BAC T analysis . Accordingly , EPA' s regulation s hav e alway s require d tha t permi t applicant s "shal l submi t al l informatio nnecessar y t o perform

an y analysis " require d unde r th e PS D provision s o f th e Act . A s discusse d above , EPA guidanc e has , sinc e 1978 , calle dupo npermi t applicant s t o evaluat e al l availabl e contro l option s t o mee t th e statutor y BAC T requiremen t (i.e. , tha t th e sourc e appl y th e mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l considerin g energy , economic , cost , an d environmenta l concerns) . A s such , a top-dow nBAC T analysi s call s fo r th e sam eP. 5 

# r

# _4 /

informatio na s th e previously-employe d"bottom-up " analysis , an dn o new authorizatio no r contro l numbe r shoul db e required . Fo r thes e reasons , I as k tha t yo ureconside r you r assertio ntha t EPA' s effort s t o collec t suc hInformatio nrepresen t a violatio no f th e PRA . I f yo uwis ht o discus s thes e matter s further , pleas e contac t m y offic e

• inc^ly ,

Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

dRadiatio n ;



### 0AQPS:AQMD:NPPB:NSRS:Solomon/Allman(541-5375/MU)05/15/9 0 Disk:Solomon#4:Email.7 0

bcc : J . Gran t R . Campbel l J . Calcagn i E . Lilli s : 

### G . McCutche n D . Solomo n Sect , fil e