P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 229 ) ll-F-1 9
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 229 of 250

### A-90-3 7 P. 2



### ^ % 

# Unite d State s Departmen to f th e Interio rflJKflj
NAI IO N A L MAR KSERVIC

E T.O . Dox 0712 ? Wiuhinflioii . D. C '2n0l3-7l-J 7

NUMBE R O F PAGE S T O FOLL0W:__ ^ 

## 2to0-V)0b 

# °\

/ FRON : 

## ^c^ ^

1-vJU^

w
SUBJECT : 

## 1/.(s cp

DATE : W / l 

# a

cvflL j

REMARK S 

# : VHPV<L

- 

# ^WrJ l ^4v-4 £ CLg > ^ «-^T* -

I F YO U HAV E AN Y PROBLEM

S UIT H THI S FA

X O R TROUBL

E RECEIVIN G A FA

X PLEASE CAL

L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRO N WHO H YO U AR E RECEIVIN G TH E FAX . DENNIS , JOH N EADY , COLLETT

E JOHNSTON . GAR

Y KLIWINSKI , SHARO

N HALKIN , KARE

N MCCLELLAND

. LINDSA Y HILLER , ABB

Y PECK . 0EB8 Y 202-208-519 3

202-208-464 0 202-208-568 6 202-208-463 9 202-219-338 4 202-208-495 6 202-208-465 0 202-208-462 4 WALKER , BIL L WATKINS , UILN A WILSON , RIT

A 202-219-338 6

202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4P. 3 03/16/9 5 11:3 1 ©30 0 90 9 282 2 H'AS O DENVE R—AQ

D D.C . IgjOO.Vnn * 

# DRAFT Nationa l Par k Servic e (NPS ) Follow-up Comment s o n Ne v Sourc e Revie v Refor mPackag e (Novembe r 16 , 1995 , Draft )
Belo w ar e follow-u p comment s o n th

e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA ) draf t Ne w Sftnree Revie w (NSR ) refor mpackage
. III . Applicability
. B . "Clea n Unic " Exclusio n Unde r EPA' 6 proposal , fo r source s cha t have undergon e a BAC T o r LAE R review , PS D applicabilit ywit h respee t t o futur e modification s ca n be
. base d o n th a allowabl e limi t fo r th e firs t te n year s afte r tbe permi t l e issued
. BACT/L&E R ca n chang e rapidl yove r cime
. ABAC T determinatio n mad e 1 0 year s ag e ma yhav e bee n la x an

d no t reflectiv e o f curren t BACT . W e reviewe d EPA ' 6 Rankin g Report 6 an

d recen t an

d hiatorica l BAC T determination * i n the RACT/BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e fo r natura l ga t fire d turbine s an

d fo r coa l fire d boilers
. Ou r revie w indicate s that , fo r natura l ga s iired turbines
. BAC T ha a progresse d fromth e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d requiremen t (a

a hig h aa 15 0 ppm ) t o curren t level s o f U pp m (SCR ) o r I S t o kl

pp m(dr ylow-NC \ technology )
. Thi s represent s a substantia l improvemen t i n availabl e contro l technology , an d demonstrate s how , whe n implemente d properly , BAC T review s ca n be technology forcing
. U e ar e concerne d rhat
. i f a n ^Appropriat e numbe r o f exemption s ar e allowed , thi s developmen t o f new , improved technolog ywil l b e gieatl ydelayed
. Dat a fo r coa l fire d boiler s indicat e tha t NO , level s hav e decrease d eve r th e pas t te n ye.ar

a fro m0. 6 o r 0. 7 lb/MMBt u t o curren t level s o f 0.1 7 lb/KM£tu
. SO , level s hav e decrease d frui u approximatel y1. 2 lbs/HHBt u (som e highe r an

d som e lower ) t o curren t level s o f 0.1 2 o r 0.1 3 lb/MMBtu
. Not e tha t eve n ove r th e pas t fiv e years , bot h N0 B an d SO , level s hav

e bee n approximatel yhalved
. Th e Clearinghous e dat a dearl ydemonstrat e tha c eonrro l technolog yca n improv e significantl yove r a ten , an d eve n a fiv

e yea r period
. Therefore , w e reques t ch e EP Areconside r th e Clea n Uni t Exemptio n proposal
. Th e loo k bac k perio d shoul d b e five year s ar most. , o r ideally , th e exemptio n shoul d onl yappl yt o unit s whic h ar e usin g technolog ywhic h represent s cutieu t 5ACT/LAE R levels
. TV . Th u RAC T an

d LAE R Requirement
. . . Th e Top.Dow

n 3AC I Proces s Th e NP S strongl ysuppor t EPA' s codificatio n o f the t-op-dow n BAC T policy
. U e believ e che top-dow n metho d meet s th

e tw o goal s o f reform : i t aimplifie * th e proces s i n tha t i t provide s fo r consistencyan d mor e certainty , an d i t doe s no t sacrific e th e curren t leve l o f environmenta l protectio n and benefit s obtaine d fro

mth e PS D program . U e nffex th e following comment s i n turthe r suppor t o f the top-dow n policy
. Researc h an

d monitorin g program s hav e demonstrate d th

e nee d t o reduc e th e loa d o f pollutio n tha t affeet e our Clas s 1 an d Clafl 9 I T areas . U e vie w a cop-dow n BAC T determinatio n a s th e keyston e o f th

e PS D program , becaus e i t generall y assure s the e futur e source s vil l instal l ch e b«« t pollutio n contro l technologie s s o a s t o minimiz e futur e pollutan t loading an d th e resultin g impact s o n sensitiv e resources . Top-dow n BAC T ala o ma yrecul t i n technology

forcin g BAC T determinations , resultin g i n eve n les s ai r qualit yimpacts
. EPA' s curren t cop-dow n guidanc e ha s resulte d i n significan t reduction s i n emissions
. Fo r example , w c believe tha t thi s guidanc e encourage d Virgini a t o promulgat e r.e.chnolagy-forcin g guideline s an

d enable d the

mt o requir e stringen tP. 4

03/16/9 5 11:5 2 ©30 3 96 9 2S2 2 WAS O DENVE R -- - AQ D D.C . Itfnru/no s

technolog y i n specifi c case s fo r project s nea r Shenandoa

h Nationa l Par

k (NP) . Belo w i s a tabl e tha t illustrate s th e differenc e betwee n permitte d an d propose d emission s fo r source s propose dnea r Shenandoah NP

. Pollutan t

sn , NO . 

### vo c Propose d

Emiaaion s (TPY )

1R.94 9 35,31 3 2,04 2 Permitte d

Emission s (top-dow n BACI ) (TPY ) 6.81 1 29,97 5 1,96 3 Differenc e

(Pollutio n Prevented ) (TPT )
12.13 8 2,33 8 7 9



# 5 ?



# Z TP Y • Ton s pe r Xea r Finally , th e NP S reserve s the rigbr . r. o submi t follow-u p comment s i n th e even t EP A alter s ic s curren t thinking regarding top-dow n BAC T a

a a resul t o f additiona l comment s fro m concerne d parties . V . Clas s I ArBas , 1 . Improvin g FLM/Pennlttln p Authmlt v CoordinatJ,pi> . (I) FL M Notificatio n EP A originall y

(Jul y 11 , 1994 , draft ) propose d a 20 0 k m cutof f fo r pre applicatio n notificatio n an d submitta l o f permi t app \i ration s t o th e FLM , bu t change d th e cutof f I n th e Novembe r 16 , 1994 , draf t t o 10 0 km . Eatl y notificatio n wil l bette r enabl e u a t o carry

ou t ou r "affirmative " responsibilit y

t o protee t AQRVs . The majorit y o f source s tha t coul d hav e a n advers e impac t o n Clas s I AQRV s wil l b e locate d withi n th e 200-ki u range . Wher e th e FL M

raise s concern s abou t the impac t e f a propoee d eourc e o n a Clas s I area , improve d nnr..f ication wil l faeilitac e che FLM' s involvemen t earl y i n th e permittin g process , whe n i t may b e substantiall y

lea s burdensom e an d cootl y t o resolv e Clas s 1 are a concerns . Therefore , NP S recommend s tha c EPA reinstat e th e ZO O tan cutof f fo r M M notification , a t leas t until , th e EPA' s "Infotuiation Clearinghouse " databas e i s o n line an d functional . W e appreciat e EPA' s effort s t o requir e Stat e permittin g authoritie s u o adop t procedure s fo r th e coordinatio n o f th e FLM' e inpu t o n NS R permi t application s prinrr o publi c notificatio n o f th e draf t NS R permi t (i.e. . FL M involvemen t I n pre-applicatio n meetings , completenes s reviews , etc.) . However , th e FL M ohoul d b e provide d a minimu m o f 3 0 day s rathe r tha n the propose d 2 1 day s fo r th e completenes s revie w o f NS Kpermi t applications . O n average , th e NP S an d FU S review

an d provid e comment s o n a tota l o f A 0 penult s pe r yea r fo r ne w source s locate d nea r NP S aud/u r FV S Clas s I area s throughou t th e Unite d Statec . U a review th» AQRV , BACT , an d modelin g artalyEe c fo r eac happlication , an d provid e comment s t o ch e Stat e permittin g authority . Wit hth e down s I s ing e f the federa l governmen t and ch e alread y limite d resource s (staf f and time ) availabl e t o review thes e applications . 2 1 day s doe s no t provid e enoug htim e co conduc t a thoroug hcompletenes s review . Th e 3o-JClAvv O U-(U. v ftl/te-rt) ~ 1P. 5

03/16/9 3 11:3 2 930 3 96 9 23j ; WAS O DENVE R —

AQ D D r Uf l 0 0 5 ^ 0 0 S



# © completenes s revie w provide s u s ch

e opportunit y

c o Identif y

issue s and concent s regardin g AQRV s impact s earl y i u ch e permittin g ptuceas . Theicfore . c o minimis e potantia l permittin g delays , w e recommen d tha t EP A allo v th e FLM s 3 0 days , rathe r tha n z. days , t o conduc t a completenes s review . V Clqe e T Area s U. Clas s T S1pnif<c.anr e T.evela l



# tP Th e Clae e I incremen t significanc e level s propose d h y EP A i n paragrap h SI.166(b)(23)(v ) ar e arbitraril y base d o n 4 percen t o f th e Clas s I increments . T h e NP S ha a develope d alternat e significanc e level s base d o n th e NAAQ S eignifieatve e levels . Thes e level s ar e discusse d i n detai l i n tb e attache d positio n pape r entitled . "NPS/FW S Positio n o n Clas s 1 Significan t impac t Levels. " W e request * th* t EP A includ e thes e alternat e significanc e level s i n paragrap h51.166(b)(23)(v ) an d solici t publi c commen t o n them . I n addition , a s discusse d i n ch e attache d paper , w c recommen d tha t chi c paragrap hconr.a-l n rh e followin g cavea t a s a mechanis m t o ensur e tha t th e SI P I s revise d i n a n expeditiou s manne r i n Lh e even t a Clas s I incremen t I s bein g violated . A propose d majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio n impactin g a Clas s I are a wil l b e considere d t o caus e o r contribute , re. a violatio n o f a Clas s I incremen t irrespectiv e o f th e abov e significan t impac t level s i f n o actio n c o remed y a Clao o I incremen t violatio n ha s bee n take n withi n fid day s o f th e dat e ch e violatio n wa a firs t brough t t o th e State' s attention , a s requite d b y 4 0 CF R 51.166(a)(3) , o r withi n euc hothe r timefram e mutuall y I agreeabl e t o th e Stat e an d FL M fo r th e Clas s I area . Finally , t o ensur e tha t th e FLM s receiv e adequat e cumulativ e impact s information , w e recommen d tha t th e regulation s mak e clea r tha t fo r an y PS D sourc e impactin g a Clas s I area , irrespectiv e o f th e significan t Impac t level a lieta d i n paragrap h(b)(231(v) . th e owne r o r operato r shal l Submi t al l informatio n necessar y t o determin e wheche r emission s fro m ch e propose d sourc e o r modificatio n i n conjunctio n wit hal l othe r emission s impactin g eh e Clao o I are a woul d hav e a n advers e impar.r . o n an y AQRV . S\e>i"* F t£.^£w £

IKlvJM-i P I F . . .PJ5

_

03/18/8 3 11.3 3 530 3 96 8 262 2 ^AS O DENVE R—AQ

D D.C

. C2]OO6/00 8

Marc h 15 , 199 5 NPS/FW S Posiiio n u

n Clas s I Significan

tImpac tLevel s EP A emphasize s tha

tth e Class I significan

timpac tlevel s proposed i a th e NS RRefor m packag e ar

e no tintended t

o b e used t

o determin

e advers e impact s o n Ai rQualit

y Relate d Value s (AQRVs) . The

y ar e t o b e use d only t o determin

e whethe ra proposed ne w sourc e or modificatio n cause s o

rcontribute

s t o a Clas s I incremen

tviolation . If

a n incrementviolatio n ha s occnrre.fi, ori s predicted t n occur, a ne

w sourc e tha tdoe s no texcee d th e significan timpac t level s coul d stil l h e permitte d (assuming n

o advers e AQR V impact s woul d occur) . W e believ e EPA' s interes ti n no tpenalizing a new source fo x incrementviolation s cause d b y othersoujee s i s fair . Unles s bul b lh e ne w an d ihe "offending " sourcc(s ) ar e unde rcommo n ownership , th e new source woul d likely hav e n o abilit y o rauthorit y t o correc tih c entir e incrementviolation . Withou tsom e significan

timpac ttest, even a ne w source tha thas obtaine d offset s t o ensure n o netemissions increase would still no tb e eligibl e fo ra permi tunti l th e incrementviolatio n i s remedied . Therefore, we agre e tha tthe use o f

significan timpactlevel s with respec tt

o Clas s 1 increment

s is appropriate

. However , w e als o helieve . a . balanc e mus th e achieved t

o ensur e tha tthe Clas s I are

a i s als o treated fairly . In panicular . a mechanis m is neede

d t o ensur e tha tth e SI P i s revise d i n a

n expeditiou s manneri n the even ta Class I incremen

ti s being violated . Although th e regulatory ' deadlin e (4 0 CFR51.166(a)(3 ) an d (4) ) ahoul

d provid e som e incentiv e fo rtimel y icmedia l action , th e SI ? revisio n proces s could dra g o n foryear s i f th e Stat e i s recalcitrant. Therefore , w e recommen d tha

tthi s cavea

tb e adde d t o paragrap

h 51.166(b)(23)(v) : A propose d majorstationar y sourc e o rmajo rmodification impactin g a Clas s I are a wil l b e considered t

o cause o rcontribut

e t o a violatio n ot

" a Clas s I incrementirrespective o f the abov e significantimpac

tlevel s i f

n o actio n to remedy a Clas s I incremen tviolatio n ha

s bee n take n within 6 0 days o f

th e dat e th e violatio n wa s firstbrough tt o th e State' s attention , a

s require d b y 4 0 CF

R 51.166(d)(3). o

rwithi n suu

h udie rtimefram

e mutuall y agreeabl e io lh e Slate an d FLM fo i th e Clas s I area . I f Clas s I incrementsignificantimpac tlevel s ar

e t o b e established forth e limite d purpos e described i n th e EP

A NS RRefor

m package, the

n w e believ e the

y shoul d b e appropriately conservativ e an

d consistentwit

h the formul

a originally use

d t o establis h the significan timpac t level s fo rth e NAAQ S (a s listed i n paragrap

h 5 1 lfifi(b)(21)(iv) ) I

n otherwords , rathe

rtha n arbitraril y settin g th e level s a

t4 percen to f th e Class I increments , a

s proposed b y EPA , eac

h Clas s T incrementsignifican timpac tlevel shoul

d b e established by multiplyin g th e rati o o f th e NAAQ S significan timpac tleve l t o th e NAAQS . b

y th e respective Clas s 1 increment. For example , th

e rati o o f th e S0 2 NAAQ S 24-houraverag e significantimpac

tleve l ( 5 ng/m 3 ) to the NAAQ S (36 5 ug/m J ) is 0.014 . Muluplying this rati o b y th e 24-hou rClos s I S0 2 increment ( S |lg/m 3 ) yield s a significantunpa d level o f 0.07 |ag/m' \ Similarly , th e annua l an d 3-hou rP. 7

03/16/9 5 11:6 3 ©30 3 08 9 282 ! WAS O DENVE R AQ

D D.C

. 121007/00 8

SO j significan timpac

tlevel s would b e 0.0

3 an d 0.4 8 ug/m' , respectively . Th e resultin g significan timpactlevel s ar e mor e conservative tha

n thos e propose

d b y EP A an d woul d offe r greaterprotectio n wit

h respec ti o ih e Class I increments . Th e followin g tabl e compare s th e EPA an d th e NPS/FW S propose

d Clas s 1 significan

timpac tlevel s fo reac h polluum

l fu rwhich a Clas s I incremen tcurrentl y exists . Comparison o f

EP A an d NPS/FWS Propose

d Class I Incremen

tSignifican tImpac

tLevel s (All concentration

s i n adm 5

. Pollutan t

Sulfu rDioxid e (S0 2 )

Particulat e Matte r(PM )() ) Nitroge n Dioxid e (NO J Averagin g Tim e
Annua l 24-bour 3-hour Annua l 24-hour Annua l EPA Propose d Level s 0. 1 0. 2 1. 0 0. 2 0. 3 

### 0. 1 NPS/FW S

Propose d Level s
0.0 3 0.0 7 0.4 8 0.0 8 0.2 7 0.0 3 Again , a s proposed , th

e significan

timpac tlevel s would notb e used t o determine whethe ra sourc e o rmodificatio n woul d hav e a n advers e impac to n a n AQRV . I

tmustb e mad

e clea rtha

t thes e level s ar

e t o b e used only fo

rth e limite d purpose o f

assessin g whethe ra sourc e coul d caus e orcontribut

e r o a Class T incremen

tviolation . These level s ar e ao i to b e used t

o determin e whethe ra source need s t o conduc ta n AQR V analysis . Withoutsuc

h clarification , give n pastexperience , w e envisio n permi tapplicant

s simply statin g tha

tthei rmodele d concentration s ar

c belo w th

e Clas s I aica significan

timpac tlevel s an

d therefore , woul d nul significantl y impac

tan y AQRVs . Consequently , i n thes e instances , the permi tapplicantwoul d notprovid e a cumulativ e ambien timpac tanalysis , whic

h i s imperativ

e t o asses s AQRV effects . A curren texampl e illustrates this concern. I n respondin

g t o NPS concern s regardin g nitrat e depositio n impact

s a tGrea tSmok y Mountain

s Nationa l Par k (NP) , a permil applicantrecentl y wrote , ". . . accordin g t

o th e EPA' s guidanc

e o n addressin

g Clas s I significan timpac tlevels , th e minimu m significanc e leve l fo rimpac ti n a Class 1 are

a is 4 % nt

" th e Clas s I PS O increment. " (Please not

e tha t4 % i s the percentag

e in th e NS Rdraf

tpackage. ) Th e applicant thereb y implie s tha

tbecaus e the modeled NO . impac tis les s tha

n th e 4 percentvalue , th e impact s a tGrea tSmok y Mountain

s N P shoul d b e considere

d "insignificant. " an

d furthc i analysi s i s uo l waiiimted . However , i n thi s case , w e ar

e concerned abou

tnitrat e (NOj ) depositio n impacts , which ar c cumulative . On

e shoul d no tconclud e tha

tjus tbecaus e th e N0 2 impactmay b e considered ''insignificant " wit h regar d t o th e incremen

ttha tther e i s a correspondin g insignificantimpac to n nitrat e deposition effects . Whe n evaluatin g th

e effect s o f emissions fro

m a propose

d sourc e o n a panicula rAQRV , w e ar e no tconcerne d solel y wit h the propose

d project' s estimate

d ai rqualit y impact, bu trathe

r wit h the lula l pullurau tconcentratio

n th e AQR V wil l exueiicucc . Therefore , a cumulativ e ai r CC4/*iLtt*}niS£ //H/'Acrcs /?t>£t/sP. 8

OS'lO/S O li:* H TB'ou o oo o »»« « •..•»., „ -*-.-•_. - ...." , : : rS r: • : "- -



### qualit y analysis , whic h ma

y includ e modelin g o f

source s i n th e area an d us e o f an y representativ e ambientmonitorin g data , i s a n importan

tpar to f an y analysi s o f

potentia l effect s o n AQRVs . Withou tsuc h a n analysis , th e tota

l pollutan tlevel s t o whic h th e AQRV s ar e expose d canno tb e estimated . Withou testimates o f

tota l pollutan tlevels , th e FL M canno t perfor m a properAQRV analysis . Consequently , w e recommen d tha tth e regulation s make clea rtha tfo ran y PS D source impacting a Clas s I area , irrespectiv e ofth e significan timpact level s liste d i

n paragrap

h fb¥23¥v) . the ownero roperatorshall submi tal l informatio n necessar y t o determin e whetheremission s fro m the proposed sourc e ormodificatio n i n conjunctio n wit h al

l othe remission s impacting the Clas s I are a woul d hav e a

n advers e impac t o n an y AQRV .TZ2 --'-•-•'»- IB : I S S20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS O NR'AC I .^ S P. 9 AUMU-pf B I^IUU S 'U1 U 

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

S

l > nr.i'a.- nr'.FK RT" ' NATIONAL PAR K SERVIC E P.O

. Bo x 3712 7 Washington

. D.C

. 2WISA [>7

NUHBE R O F PACE S T O FOLLOW
TO : FRON :
SUBJECT : 

# ZJC+38 AJSJJ 2 - DATE : 

# 3//S

NARKS : M ^

t- ~T^T>

JH^JrjJ

ck - /^J/ £ <

/

I F YO UHAV E ANY PROBLEM S WIT H THI S FA X O R TROUBL E RECEIVING A FA X PLEAS E CAL L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRO N WO N YOUAR E RECEIVING TH E FAX .
DENNIS , JOH N EADY , COLLETT E JOHNSTON . GAR Y KLIWINSKI , SHARO N HALJCIN , KARE N HCCLELLAND . LINDSA

Y NILLER . ABB Y PECK , DEBB Y 202-208-619 3 202-208-464 0 202-208-568 6 202-208-463 9 202-219-338 4 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-208-462 4 WALKER . BIL L 202-219-338 6

WATKINS . HILN

A 202-208-491 3 WILSON , RIT A

202-208-388 4P.1 0

NO R Package , Propose d NP6/D8FV 8 Insert s t o 11/16/9 4 OMB Versio n Preambl e P . 314 , Inser t A, j fiis t ful l para. , afte r "advers e impac t determination" : 

# fer Th e NS R Clas s I Are a Coordinatio n Subgrou p cam e u p wit h th e followin g criteri a t o b e considere d h yth e permittin g authority : (a ) Scientifi c basi s o f th e FLM' s advers e impac t determination ; fb ) Existin g statu s o f potentiall yaffecte d Clas s I area s an d thei r AQRVe ; (c ) Presenc e o r mitiqatin g factors , suc h a s offsets ; (d ) Permi t conditions , suc h a s pre - an d post-constructio n monitoring , wit h contingen t correctiv e actio n plan ; (e ) Informa l mediatio n effort s durin g consideratio n o f th « application ; (f ) Participatio n b yth e FL M durinycompletenes s review ; (q ) Publi c support/oppositio n t o th e permit ; an d (h ) alternativ e siting
. P . 315 , Inser t B, | afte r (2) , deletin g existin g te.Y t an d substitut e following : Existin g Advers e Impact s Previousl yDocumente d fo r th e Clas s I Are a Wher e th e FL M ha s previousl ypublicl ydocumente d o r certifie d existin g advers e impac t condition c a t a Clas s I area , o r dntarmine d tha t on e o r mor e particula r propose d source s woul d constitut e a n advers e impac t t o a n AQRV at a particula r Clas s I area , tha t informatio n shoul d b e afforde d substantia l weigh t h yth e permittin g authority
. Th e legislativ e histor yo f th e CA Ainstruct s t o "er r o n th e sid e o f protectin g th e air-qualit yrelate d value s fo r futur e generations. " 6
. Rep . No . 95-127 , 95t h Cong. , 1s t Sess . 3 6 (1977)
. Th e permittin g authorit yshoul d conside r tha t instruction , i n ligh t o f existin g condition s a t a particula r Clas s I area . P . 336 , jTnser t C, ( afte r "52.21(o ) (3 ) , " delet e res t o f para , an d substitute : I n recognizin g tha t Federa l Clas s I an d l l area s hav e AQRVs , whic h ar e mandate d unde r variou s statute s fo r preservatio n unimpaire d (e.g. , Organi c Act , Wilderncc e Act) , EP Ai s proposin g t o delet e th e lac t sentenc e i n (o)(i ) o f bot h curren t requlatiuns
. Thes e clarification s shoul d hel p ensur e tha t permi t applicant s conside r al l potentia l impact s t o Clas s I an d I I are a AQRVs . F . 343 , Inserf c D , ne w section , befor e "7 . Informatio n Clearinghouse" ; Generi c Approache s t o Addres s An yAQRV Issu e Th e NS R Subcommittee , Existin g Source s Subgrou p discusse d severa l option s fo r addressin g specifi c AQRV degradatio n i n Clas s I areas . Th e grou p cam e t o ooneensu s o n th e nee d t n enforc e existin g rule s requirin g ST P revision s i n case s wher e PS D incremen t exceedancc c hav e bee n documented
. I n particular , th e grou p discusse d th e nee d