Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0004-0291
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, 
Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide 
Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution
Control Projects
Posted Date: 2002-12-31T05:00Z

Tuesday,

December
31,
2002
Part
III
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
52
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
and
Nonattainment
New
Source
Review
(
NSR);
Final
Rule
and
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80186
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
52
[
AD
 
FRL
 
7414
 
5]

RIN
2060
 
AE11
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
and
Nonattainment
New
Source
Review
(
NSR):
Baseline
Emissions
Determination,
Actual­
to­
Future­
Actual
Methodology,
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations,
Clean
Units,
Pollution
Control
Projects
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
revising
regulations
governing
the
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
programs
mandated
by
parts
C
and
D
of
title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA
or
Act).
These
revisions
include
changes
in
NSR
applicability
requirements
for
modifications
to
allow
sources
more
flexibility
to
respond
to
rapidly
changing
markets
and
to
plan
for
future
investments
in
pollution
control
and
prevention
technologies.
Today's
changes
reflect
EPA's
consideration
of
discussions
and
recommendations
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Advisory
Committee's
(
CAAAC)
Subcommittee
on
NSR,
Permits
and
Toxics,
comments
filed
by
the
public,
and
meetings
and
discussions
with
interested
stakeholders.
The
changes
are
intended
to
provide
greater
regulatory
certainty,
administrative
flexibility,
and
permit
streamlining,
while
ensuring
the
current
level
of
environmental
protection
and
benefit
derived
from
the
program
and,
in
certain
respects,
resulting
in
greater
environmental
protection.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
March
3,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Docket.
Docket
No.
A
 
90
 
37,
containing
supporting
information
used
to
develop
the
proposed
rule
and
the
final
rule,
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
between
8
a.
m.
and
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday
(
except
government
holidays)
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
6102T),
Room
B
 
108,
EPA
West
Building,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
(
202)
566
 
1742,
fax
(
202)
566
 
1741.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
this
final
rule
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Ms.
Lynn
Hutchinson,
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Integration
Division
(
C339
 
03),
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
919
 
541
 
5795,
or
electronic
mail
at
hutchinson.
lynn@
epa.
gov,
for
general
questions
on
this
rule.
For
questions
on
baseline
emissions
determination
or
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test,
contact
Mr.
Dan
DeRoeck,
at
the
same
address,
telephone
919
 
541
 
5593,
or
electronic
mail
at
deroeck.
dan@
epa.
gov.
For
questions
on
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs),
contact
Mr.
Raj
Rao,
at
the
same
address,
telephone
919
 
541
 
5344,
or
electronic
mail
at
rao.
raj@
epa.
gov.
For
questions
on
Clean
Units,
contact
Mr.
Juan
Santiago,
at
the
same
address,
telephone
919
 
541
 
1084,
or
electronic
mail
at
santiago.
juan@
epa.
gov.
For
questions
on
Pollution
Control
Projects
(
PCPs),
contact
Mr.
Dave
Svendsgaard,
at
the
same
address,
telephone
919
 
541
 
2380,
or
electronic
mail
at
svendsgaard.
dave@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Regulated
Entities
Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
final
action
include
sources
in
all
industry
groups.
The
majority
of
sources
potentially
affected
are
expected
to
be
in
the
following
groups.

Industry
group
SIC
a
NAICSb
Electric
Services
............................................................................
491
221111,
221112,
221113,
221119,
221121,
221122
Petroleum
Refining
........................................................................
291
32411
Chemical
Processes
.....................................................................
281
325181,
32512,
325131,
325182,
211112,
325998,
331311,
325188
Natural
Gas
Transport
..................................................................
492
48621,
22121
Pulp
and
Paper
Mills
.....................................................................
261
32211,
322121,
322122,
32213
Paper
Mills
....................................................................................
262
322121,
322122
Automobile
Manufacturing
............................................................
371
336111,
336112,
336712,
336211,
336992,
336322,
336312,
33633,
33634,
33635,
336399,
336212,
336213
Pharmaceuticals
............................................................................
283
325411,
325412,
325413,
325414
a
Standard
Industrial
Classification
b
North
American
Industry
Classification
System.

Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
final
action
also
include
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
that
are
delegated
authority
to
implement
these
regulations.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Overview
of
Today's
Final
Action
A.
Background
B.
Introduction
C.
Overview
of
Final
Actions
1.
Determining
Whether
a
Proposed
Modification
Results
in
a
Significant
Emissions
Increase
2.
CMA
Exhibit
B
3.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs)
4.
Clean
Units
5.
Pollution
Control
Projects
(
PCPs)
6.
Major
NSR
Applicability
7.
Enforcement
8.
Enforceability
II.
Revisions
to
the
Method
for
Determining
Whether
a
Proposed
Modification
Results
in
a
Significant
Emissions
Increase
A.
Introduction
B.
What
We
Proposed
and
How
Today's
Action
Compares
C.
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
For
Existing
Emissions
Units
Other
than
EUSGUs
D.
The
Actual­
to­
projected­
actual
Applicability
Test
E.
Clarifying
Changes
to
WEPCO
Provisions
for
EUSGUs
F.
The
``
Hybrid''
Applicability
Test
G.
Legal
Basis
for
Today's
Action
H.
Response
to
Comments
and
Rationale
for
Today's
Actions
III.
CMA
Exhibit
B
IV.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs)
A.
Introduction
B.
Relevant
Background
C.
Final
Regulations
for
Actuals
PALs
D.
Rationale
for
Today's
Final
Action
on
Actuals
PALs
V.
Clean
Units
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80187
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
In
this
preamble
the
term
``
we''
refers
to
EPA
and
the
term
``
you''
refers
to
major
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
and
their
owners
and
operators.
All
other
entities
are
referred
to
by
their
respective
names
(
for
example,
reviewing
authorities.)
A.
Introduction
B.
Summary
of
1996
Clean
Unit
Proposal
C.
Final
Regulations
for
Clean
Units
D.
Legal
Basis
for
the
Clean
Unit
Test
E.
Summary
of
Major
Comments
and
Responses
VI.
Pollution
Control
Projects
(
PCPs)
A.
Description
and
Purpose
of
This
Action
B.
What
We
Proposed
and
How
Today's
Action
Compares
To
It
C.
Legal
Basis
for
PCP
D.
Implementation
VII.
Listed
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
VIII.
Effective
Date
for
Today's
Requirements
IX.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866
 
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132
 
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175
 
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045
 
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Congressional
Review
Act
J.
Executive
Order
13211
 
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
X.
Statutory
Authority
XI.
Judicial
Review
I.
Overview
of
Today's
Final
Action
A.
Background
We1
proposed
revisions
to
the
NSR
rules
in
a
notice
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
23,
1996
(
61
FR
38250).
On
July
24,
1998,
we
published
a
notice
(
63
FR
39857)
to
solicit
further
comment
on
two
specific
aspects
of
the
proposed
revisions.
Today's
Federal
Register
action
announces
EPA's
final
action
on
the
proposed
revisions
for
baseline
emissions
determinations,
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual
methodology,
actuals
PALs,
Clean
Units,
and
PCPs.
We
have
not
made
final
determinations
on
any
other
proposed
changes
to
the
regulations.
Today's
actions
finalize
these
changes
to
the
regulations
for
both
the
approval
and
promulgation
of
implementation
plans
and
requirements
for
preparation,
adoption,
and
submittal
of
implementation
plans
governing
the
NSR
programs
mandated
by
parts
C
and
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act.
We
also
proposed
conforming
changes
to
40
CFR
(
Code
of
Federal
Regulations)
part
51,
appendix
S,
and
part
52.24.
Today
we
have
not
included
the
final
regulatory
language
for
these
regulations.
It
is
our
intention
to
include
regulatory
changes
that
conform
appendix
S
and
40
CFR
52.24
to
today's
final
rules
in
any
final
regulations
that
set
forth
an
interim
implementation
strategy
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
We
intend
to
finalize
changes
to
these
sections
precisely
as
we
have
finalized
requirements
for
other
parts
of
the
program.
Because
these
are
conforming
changes
and
the
public
has
had
an
opportunity
for
review
and
comment,
we
will
not
be
soliciting
additional
comments
before
we
finalize
them.
The
major
NSR
program
contained
in
parts
C
and
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act
is
a
preconstruction
review
and
permitting
program
applicable
to
new
or
modified
major
stationary
sources
of
air
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
In
areas
not
meeting
health­
based
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
and
in
ozone
transport
regions
(
OTR),
the
program
is
implemented
under
the
requirements
of
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act.
We
call
this
program
the
``
nonattainment''
NSR
program.
In
areas
meeting
NAAQS
(``
attainment''
areas)
or
for
which
there
is
insufficient
information
to
determine
whether
they
meet
the
NAAQS
(``
unclassifiable''
areas),
the
NSR
requirements
under
part
C
of
title
I
of
the
Act
apply.
We
call
this
program
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program.
Collectively,
we
also
commonly
refer
to
these
programs
as
the
major
NSR
program.
These
regulations
are
contained
in
40
CFR
51.165,
51.166,
52.21,
52.24,
and
part
51,
appendix
S.
The
NSR
provisions
of
the
Act
are
a
combination
of
air
quality
planning
and
air
pollution
control
technology
program
requirements
for
new
and
modified
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution.
In
brief,
section
109
of
the
Act
requires
us
to
promulgate
primary
NAAQS
to
protect
public
health
and
secondary
NAAQS
to
protect
public
welfare.
Once
we
have
set
these
standards,
States
must
develop,
adopt,
and
submit
to
us
for
approval
a
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
that
contains
emission
limitations
and
other
control
measures
to
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS
and
to
meet
the
other
requirements
of
section
110(
a)
of
the
Act.
Each
SIP
is
required
to
contain
a
preconstruction
review
program
for
the
construction
and
modification
of
any
stationary
source
of
air
pollution
to
assure
that
the
NAAQS
are
achieved
and
maintained;
to
protect
areas
of
clean
air;
to
protect
Air
Quality
Related
Values
(
AQRVs)
(
including
visibility)
in
national
parks
and
other
natural
areas
of
special
concern;
to
assure
that
appropriate
emissions
controls
are
applied;
to
maximize
opportunities
for
economic
development
consistent
with
the
preservation
of
clean
air
resources;
and
to
ensure
that
any
decision
to
increase
air
pollution
is
made
only
after
full
public
consideration
of
all
the
consequences
of
such
a
decision.
For
newly
constructed,
``
greenfield''
sources,
the
determination
of
whether
an
activity
is
subject
to
the
major
NSR
program
is
fairly
straightforward.
The
Act,
as
implemented
by
our
regulations,
sets
applicability
thresholds
for
major
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
[
potential
to
emit
(
PTE)
above
100
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
any
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act,
or
smaller
amounts,
depending
on
the
nonattainment
classification]
and
attainment
areas
(
100
or
250
tpy,
depending
on
the
source
type).
A
new
source
with
a
PTE
at
or
above
the
applicable
threshold
amount
``
triggers,''
or
is
subject
to,
major
NSR.
The
determination
of
what
should
be
classified
as
a
modification
subject
to
major
NSR
presents
more
difficult
issues.
The
modification
provisions
of
the
NSR
program
in
parts
C
and
D
are
based
on
the
definition
of
modification
in
section
111(
a)(
4)
of
the
Act:
the
term
``
modification''
means
``
any
physical
change
in,
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of,
a
stationary
source
which
increases
the
amount
of
any
air
pollutant
emitted
by
such
source
or
which
results
in
the
emission
of
any
air
pollutant
not
previously
emitted.''
That
definition
contemplates
that,
first,
you
will
determine
whether
a
physical
or
operational
change
will
occur.
If
so,
then
you
will
proceed
to
determine
whether
the
physical
or
operational
change
will
result
in
an
emissions
increase
over
baseline
levels.
The
expression
``
any
physical
change
*
*
*
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation''
in
section
111(
a)(
4)
of
the
Act
is
not
defined.
We
have
recognized
that
Congress
did
not
intend
to
make
every
activity
at
a
source
subject
to
the
major
NSR
program.
As
a
result,
we
have
previously
adopted
several
exclusions
from
what
may
constitute
a
``
physical
or
operational
change.''
For
instance,
we
have
specifically
recognized
that
routine
maintenance,
repair
and
replacement,
and
changes
in
hours
of
operation
or
in
the
production
rate
are
not
considered
a
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80188
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
2
See
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
2).
3
See
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
23).
4
In
approximate
terms,
``
contemporaneous''
emissions
increases
or
decreases
are
those
that
have
occurred
between
the
date
5
years
immediately
preceding
the
proposed
physical
or
operational
change
and
the
date
that
the
increase
from
the
change
occurs.
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
3)(
ii).
5
Once
a
modification
is
determined
to
be
major,
the
PSD
requirements
apply
only
to
those
specific
pollutants
for
which
there
would
be
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
j)(
3)
(
BACT)
and
§
52.21(
m)(
1)(
b)
(
air
quality
analysis).
6
The
regulations
define
``
electric
utility
steam
generating
units''
as
any
steam
electric
generating
unit
that
is
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
supplying
more
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
megawatts
(
MW)
of
electrical
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale.
See,
for
example,
§
51.166(
b)(
30).
operation
within
the
definition
of
major
modification.
2
We
have
likewise
addressed
the
scope
of
the
statutory
definition
of
modification
by
excluding
all
changes
that
do
not
result
in
a
``
significant''
emissions
increase
from
a
major
source.
3
This
regulatory
framework
applies
the
major
NSR
program
at
existing
sources
to
only
``
major
modifications''
at
major
stationary
sources.
One
key
attribute
of
the
major
NSR
program
in
general
is
that
you
may
``
net''
modifications
out
of
review
by
coupling
proposed
emissions
increases
at
your
source
with
contemporaneous
emissions
reductions.
Thus,
under
regulations
we
promulgated
in
1980,
you
may
modify,
or
even
completely
replace,
or
add,
emissions
units
without
obtaining
a
major
NSR
permit,
so
long
as
``
actual
emissions''
do
not
increase
by
a
significant
amount
over
baseline
levels
at
the
plant
as
a
whole.
Applicability
of
the
major
NSR
program
must
be
determined
in
advance
of
construction
and
is
pollutant­
specific.
In
cases
involving
existing
sources,
this
requires
a
pollutant­
by­
pollutant
determination
of
the
emissions
change,
if
any,
that
will
result
from
the
physical
or
operational
change.
Our
1980
regulations
implementing
the
PSD
and
nonattainment
major
NSR
programs
thus
inquire
whether
the
proposed
change
constitutes
a
``
major
modification,''
that
is,
a
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
``
that
would
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
of
any
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act.''
A
``
net
emissions
increase''
is
defined
as
the
increase
in
``
actual
emissions''
from
the
particular
physical
or
operational
change
(
taking
into
account
the
use
of
emissions
control
technology
and
restrictions
on
hours
of
operation
or
rates
of
production
where
such
controls
and
restrictions
are
enforceable),
together
with
your
other
contemporaneous
increases
or
decreases
in
actual
emissions.
4
In
order
to
trigger
applicability
of
the
major
NSR
program,
the
net
emissions
increase
must
be
``
significant.''
5
Before
today's
changes,
our
regulations
generally
defined
actual
emissions
as
``
the
average
rate,
in
tpy,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
a
2­
year
period
which
precedes
the
particular
date
and
which
is
representative
of
normal
source
operation.''
The
reviewing
authorities
will
allow
use
of
a
different
time
period
``
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.''
We
have
historically
used
the
2
years
immediately
preceding
the
proposed
change
to
establish
a
source's
actual
emissions.
However,
in
some
cases
we
have
allowed
use
of
an
earlier
period.
With
respect
to
changes
at
existing
sources,
a
prediction
of
whether
the
physical
or
operational
change
would
result
in
a
significant
net
increase
in
your
actual
emissions
following
the
change
was
thus
necessary.
In
part,
this
involved
a
straightforward
and
readily
predictable
engineering
judgment
 
how
would
the
change
affect
the
emission
factor
or
emissions
rate
of
the
emissions
units
that
are
to
be
changed.
Before
today's
changes,
the
regulations
provided
that
when
your
emissions
unit,
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit
(
EUSGU),
``
has
not
begun
normal
operations,''
actual
emissions
equal
the
PTE
of
the
unit.
When
you
have
not
begun
normal
operations
following
a
change,
you
must
assume
that
your
source
will
operate
at
its
full
capacity
year
round,
that
is,
at
its
full
emissions
potential.
This
is
referred
to
as
the
actual­
to­
potential
test.
You
may
avoid
the
need
for
an
NSR
permit
by
reducing
your
source's
potential
emissions
through
the
use
of
enforceable
restrictions
to
premodification
actual
emissions
levels
plus
an
amount
that
is
less
than
``
significant''.
In
1992,
we
promulgated
revisions
to
our
applicability
regulations
creating
special
rules
for
physical
and
operational
changes
at
EUSGUs.
See
57
FR
32314
(
July
21,
1992).
6
In
this
rule,
prompted
by
litigation
involving
the
Wisconsin
Electric
Power
Company
(
WEPCO)
and
commonly
referred
to
as
the
``
WEPCO
rule,''
we
adopted
an
actual­
to­
future­
actual
methodology
for
all
changes
at
EUSGUs
except
the
construction
of
a
new
electric
generating
unit
or
the
replacement
of
an
existing
emissions
unit.
Under
this
methodology,
the
actual
annual
emissions
before
the
change
are
compared
with
the
projected
actual
emissions
after
the
change
to
determine
if
a
physical
or
operational
change
would
result
in
a
significant
increase
in
emissions.
To
ensure
that
the
projection
is
valid,
the
rule
requires
the
utility
to
track
its
emissions
for
the
next
5
years
and
provide
to
the
reviewing
authority
information
demonstrating
that
the
physical
or
operational
change
did
not
result
in
an
emissions
increase.
In
promulgating
the
WEPCO
rule,
we
also
adopted
a
presumption
that
utilities
may
use
as
baseline
emissions
the
actual
annual
emissions
from
any
2
consecutive
years
within
the
5
years
immediately
preceding
the
change.
In
attainment
areas,
once
major
NSR
is
triggered,
you
must,
among
other
things,
install
best
available
control
technology
(
BACT)
and
conduct
modeling
and
monitoring
as
necessary.
If
your
source
is
located
in
a
nonattainment
area,
you
must
install
technology
that
meets
the
lowest
achievable
emissions
rate
(
LAER),
secure
emissions
reductions
to
offset
any
increases
above
baseline
emission
levels,
and
perform
other
analyses.

B.
Introduction
Today's
final
regulations
were
proposed
as
part
of
a
larger
regulatory
package
on
July
23,
1996
(
61
FR
38250).
That
package
proposed
a
number
of
changes
to
our
existing
major
NSR
requirements.
(
Please
refer
to
the
outline
of
that
proposed
rulemaking
for
a
complete
list
of
changes
that
were
proposed
to
our
existing
regulations.)
On
July
24,
1998,
we
published
a
Federal
Register
Notice
of
Availability
(
NOA)
that
requested
additional
comment
on
three
of
the
proposed
changes:
determining
baseline
emissions,
actual­
to­
future­
actual
methodology,
and
PALs.
Following
the
1996
proposals,
we
held
two
public
hearings
and
more
than
50
stakeholder
meetings.
Environmental
groups,
industry,
and
State,
local,
and
Federal
agency
representatives
participated
in
these
many
discussions.
In
May
2001,
President
Bush's
National
Energy
Policy
Development
Group
issued
findings
and
key
recommendations
for
a
National
Energy
Policy.
This
document
included
numerous
recommendations
for
action,
including
a
recommendation
that
the
EPA
Administrator,
in
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Energy
and
other
relevant
agencies,
review
NSR
regulations,
including
administrative
interpretation
and
implementation.
The
recommendation
requested
that
we
issue
a
report
to
the
President
on
the
impact
of
the
regulations
on
investment
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80189
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
in
new
utility
and
refinery
generation
capacity,
energy
efficiency,
and
environmental
protection.
In
response,
in
June
2001,
we
issued
a
background
paper
giving
an
overview
of
the
NSR
program.
This
paper
is
available
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
nsr­
review/
background.
html.
We
solicited
public
comments
on
the
background
paper
and
other
information
relevant
to
the
New
Source
Review
90­
day
Review
and
Report
to
the
President.
During
our
review
of
the
NSR
program,
we
met
with
more
than
100
groups,
held
four
public
meetings
around
the
country,
and
received
more
than
130,000
written
comments.
Our
report
to
the
President
and
our
recommendations
in
response
to
the
energy
policy
were
issued
on
June
13,
2002.
A
copy
of
this
information
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
nsrreview
We
expect
that
our
recommendations
in
response
to
the
energy
policy
will
be
reflected
in
the
future
in
various
programs
and
regulatory
actions.
Today's
actions
implement
several
of
those
recommendations.
Today,
we
are
finalizing
five
actions
that
we
previously
proposed
in
1996
(
three
of
which
were
re­
noticed
in
the
1998
NOA).
We
are
not
taking
final
action
on
any
of
the
remaining
issues
in
the
1996
proposal
at
this
time.
We
have
not
decided
what
final
action
we
will
take
on
those
issues.

C.
Overview
of
Final
Actions
Today
we
are
taking
final
action
on
five
changes
to
the
NSR
program
that
will
reduce
burden,
maximize
operating
flexibility,
improve
environmental
quality,
provide
additional
certainty,
and
promote
administrative
efficiency.
These
elements
include
baseline
actual
emissions,
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
emissions
methodology,
PALs,
Clean
Units,
and
PCPs.
We
are
also
codifying
our
longstanding
policy
regarding
the
calculation
of
baseline
emissions
for
EUSGUs.
In
addition,
we
are
responding
to
comments
we
received
on
a
proposal
to
adopt
a
methodology,
developed
by
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
formerly
known
as
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA))
and
other
industry
petitioners,
to
determine
whether
a
source
has
undertaken
a
modification
based
on
its
potential
emissions.
We
are
including
a
new
section
in
today's
final
rules
that
outlines
how
a
major
modification
is
determined
under
the
various
major
NSR
applicability
options
and
clarifies
where
you
will
find
the
provisions
in
our
revised
rules.
Finally,
we
have
codified
a
new
definition
of
``
regulated
NSR
pollutant''
that
clarifies
which
pollutants
are
regulated
under
the
Act
for
purposes
of
major
NSR.
This
section
briefly
introduces
each
improvement.
Detailed
discussions
of
the
improvements
are
found
in
sections
II
through
VII
of
this
preamble.

1.
Determining
Whether
a
Proposed
Modification
Results
in
a
Significant
Emissions
Increase
Today
we
are
finalizing
two
changes
to
our
existing
major
NSR
regulations
that
will
affect
how
you
calculate
emissions
increases
to
determine
whether
physical
changes
or
changes
in
the
method
of
operation
trigger
the
major
NSR
requirements.
First,
we
have
a
new
procedure
for
determining
``
baseline
actual
emissions.''
That
is,
the
relevant
terminology
for
calculating
prechange
emissions
for
most
applications
is
now
``
baseline
actual
emissions''
rather
than
``
actual
emissions.''
You
may
use
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
in
the
past
10
years
to
determine
your
baseline
actual
emissions.
Second,
we
are
supplementing
the
existing
actual­
to­
potential
applicability
test
with
an
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
determining
if
a
physical
or
operational
change
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
will
result
in
an
emissions
increase.
Notwithstanding
the
new
test,
you
will
still
have
the
ability
to
conduct
an
actual­
to­
potential
type
test
within
the
new
actual­
to­
projectedactual
applicability
test.
In
this
case,
you
will
not
be
subject
to
recordkeeping
requirements
that
are
being
established
and
would
otherwise
apply
as
part
of
the
new
actual­
to­
projected
actual
applicability
test.
For
EUSGUs,
we
are
making
several
changes
to
the
existing
procedures
and
are
codifying
our
current
policy
for
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
That
is,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
EUSGUs
is
the
average
rate,
in
tpy,
at
which
that
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
a
2­
year
(
consecutive
24­
month)
period
within
the
5­
year
period
immediately
preceding
when
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction.
We
are
also
retaining
the
option
that
allows
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.

2.
CMA
Exhibit
B
As
described
in
section
I.
C.
1
above,
we
have
decided
to
adopt
an
actual­
toprojected
actual
methodology,
combined
with
a
revised
process
to
determine
baseline
emissions,
to
use
in
determining
when
sources
are
considered
to
have
made
a
modification
and
are
thereby
subject
to
NSR.
We
are
not
adopting
the
methodology
based
on
potential
emissions
as
discussed
in
the
CMA
Exhibit
B
proposal.
See
section
III
of
this
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
the
comments
we
received
on
this
proposal
and
our
responses.

3.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
A
PAL
is
a
voluntary
option
that
will
provide
you
with
the
ability
to
manage
facility­
wide
emissions
without
triggering
major
NSR
review.
We
believe
that
the
added
flexibility
provided
under
a
PAL
will
facilitate
your
ability
to
respond
rapidly
to
changing
market
conditions
while
enhancing
the
environmental
protection
afforded
under
the
program.
Today
we
are
promulgating
a
PAL
based
on
plantwide
actual
emissions.
If
you
keep
the
emissions
from
your
facility
below
a
plantwide
actual
emissions
cap
(
that
is,
an
actuals
PAL),
then
these
regulations
will
allow
you
to
avoid
the
major
NSR
permitting
process
when
you
make
alterations
to
the
facility
or
individual
emissions
units.
In
return
for
this
flexibility,
you
must
monitor
emissions
from
all
of
your
emissions
units
under
the
PAL.
The
benefit
to
you
is
that
you
can
alter
your
facility
without
first
obtaining
a
Federal
NSR
permit
or
going
through
a
netting
review.
A
PAL
will
allow
you
to
make
changes
quickly
at
your
facility.
If
you
are
willing
to
undertake
the
necessary
recordkeeping,
monitoring,
and
reporting,
a
PAL
offers
you
flexibility
and
regulatory
certainty.

4.
Clean
Units
We
are
promulgating
a
new
type
of
applicability
test
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units.
The
new
applicability
test
recognizes
that
when
you
go
through
major
NSR
review
and
install
BACT
or
LAER,
you
may
make
any
changes
to
the
Clean
Unit
without
triggering
an
additional
major
NSR
review,
if
the
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
or
LAER
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
or
LAER
determination.
If
the
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
or
LAER
or
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
or
LAER
determination,
you
lose
Clean
Unit
status.
You
may
still
proceed
with
the
project
without
triggering
major
NSR
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80190
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
review,
if
the
increase
is
not
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
Emissions
units
that
have
not
been
through
major
NSR
may
still
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
if
they
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
control
level
is
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER.
Clean
Unit
status
will
be
valid
for
up
to
a
10­
year
period.
The
new
applicability
test
does
not
exclude
consideration
of
physical
changes
or
changes
in
the
method
of
operation
of
Clean
Units
from
major
NSR,
but
rather
changes
the
way
emissions
increases
are
calculated
for
these
changes.
This
new
applicability
test
therefore
protects
air
quality,
creates
incentives
for
sources
to
install
state­
ofthe
art
controls,
provides
flexibility
for
sources,
and
promotes
administrative
efficiency.

5.
Pollution
Control
Projects
Today's
rule
contains
a
new
list
of
environmentally
beneficial
technologies
that
qualify
as
PCPs
for
all
types
of
sources.
Installation
of
a
PCP
is
not
subject
to
the
major
modification
provisions.
An
owner
or
operator
installing
a
listed
PCP
automatically
qualifies
for
the
exclusion
if
there
is
no
adverse
air
quality
impact
 
that
is,
if
it
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
(
FLM)
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
The
PCPs
that
are
not
listed
in
today's
rules
may
also
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
on
a
case­
specific
basis
that
a
non­
listed
PCP
is
environmentally
beneficial
when
used
for
a
particular
application.
Also,
in
the
future,
we
may
add
to
the
listed
PCPs
through
a
rulemaking
that
provides
for
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
comment.
The
PCP
Exclusion
allows
sources
to
install
emissions
controls
that
are
known
to
be
environmentally
beneficial.
These
provisions
thus
offer
flexibility
while
improving
air
quality.

6.
Major
NSR
Applicability
We
have
briefly
described
the
new
provisions
for
baseline
actual
emissions,
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
methodology,
PALs,
and
Clean
Units.
Sections
II,
IV,
and
V
describe
the
new
provisions
in
detail.
These
provisions
offer
major
new
changes
to
NSR
applicability,
especially
regarding
how
a
major
modification
is
determined.
The
major
NSR
applicability
provisions
have
developed
over
time
and
therefore
have
been
added
to
the
NSR
rules
in
a
piecemeal
fashion.
In
today's
final
rules
we
are
including
a
new
section
that
outlines
how
a
major
modification
is
determined
under
the
various
major
NSR
applicability
options
and
clarifies
where
you
will
find
the
provisions
in
our
revised
rules.
For
each
applicability
option,
we
describe
how
a
major
modification
is
determined
in
detail.
You'll
find
this
new
applicability
``
roadmap''
in
§
§
51.165(
a)(
2),
51.166(
a)(
7),
and
52.21(
a)(
2).
To
summarize,
the
various
provisions
for
major
modifications
are
now
as
follows.
 
Actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
all
existing
emissions
units.
(
Including
an
actual­
topotential
option)
 
Actual­
to­
potential
test
for
any
new
unit,
including
EUSGUs.
 
The
Clean
Unit
Test
for
existing
emissions
units
with
Clean
Unit
status.
 
The
hybrid
test
for
modifications
with
multiple
types
of
emissions
units.
(
Used
when
a
physical
or
operational
change
affects
a
combination
of
more
than
one
type
of
unit.)
We
describe
actuals
PALs,
which
are
an
alternative
way
of
complying
with
major
NSR,
in
section
IV
of
this
preamble.
If
you
have
a
PAL,
as
long
as
you
are
complying
with
the
PAL
requirements,
any
physical
or
operational
changes
are
not
major
modifications.
We
have
revised
the
definition
of
major
modification
to
clarify
what
has
always
been
our
policy
 
that
determining
whether
a
major
modification
has
occurred
is
a
two­
step
process.
The
new
definition
of
major
modification
is
``
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
would
result
in:
(
1)
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant;
and
(
2)
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
of
that
pollutant
from
the
major
stationary
source.''
We
have
also
revised
the
definitions
of
actual
emissions,
emissions
unit,
net
emissions
increase,
and
construction.
We
have
deleted
the
word
``
actual''
as
related
to
emissions
from
the
definition
of
``
construction.''
This
change
was
necessary
because
of
how
the
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
is
used
in
the
final
rule,
but
the
deletion
is
not
intended
to
change
any
meaning
in
the
term
``
construction.''
We
have
added
new
definitions
for
baseline
actual
emissions,
projected
actual
emissions,
project,
and
significant
emissions
increase.
These
revisions
and
additions
implement
our
new
provisions
for
major
modifications
under
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test,
actual­
to­
potential
test,
Clean
Unit
Test,
and
hybrid
test.
You
will
find
a
complete
discussion
of
the
Clean
Unit
Test,
including
how
modifications
to
Clean
Units
are
treated,
in
section
V
of
this
preamble.
The
other
tests
are
discussed
in
section
II.
``
Actual
emissions,''
as
the
term
has
been
historically
applied,
will
still
be
used
to
determine
air
quality
impacts
(
for
example,
compliance
with
NAAQS,
PSD
increments,
and
AQRVs)
and
to
compute
the
required
amount
of
emissions
offsets.
To
further
clarify
major
NSR
applicability
in
one
location,
we
have
moved
§
51.166(
i)(
1)
through
(
3)
and
§
52.21(
i)(
1)
through
(
3)
into
the
new
applicability
sections
at
§
51.166(
a)(
7)
and
§
52.21(
a)(
2).
These
provisions
clarify
that
you
must
obtain
a
permit
before
you
begin
construction
(
including
for
major
modifications),
that
the
provisions
apply
for
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant
that
your
source
emits,
and
that
the
provisions
apply
to
any
source
located
in
the
area
designated
as
attainment
or
unclassifiable
(
for
§
§
51.166
and
52.21).
We
have
also
added
a
new
definition
for
reviewing
authority
that
clarifies
who
has
authority
to
implement
major
NSR
programs.
Reviewing
authority
means
the
State
air
pollution
control
agency,
local
agency,
other
State
agency,
Indian
tribe,
or
other
agency
authorized
by
the
Administrator
to
carry
out
a
permit
program
under
§
§
51.165
and
51.166,
or
the
Administrator
in
the
case
of
EPA­
implemented
permit
programs
under
§
52.21.

7.
Enforcement
As
noted
above,
today
we
are
taking
final
action
on
five
changes
to
the
NSR
program
that
create
alternative
means
of
determining
NSR
applicability
for
projects
that
begin
actual
construction
after
these
provisions
become
effective
in
your
jurisdiction.
If
you
are
subsequently
determined
not
to
have
met
any
of
the
obligations
of
these
new
alternatives
(
for
example,
failure
to
meet
emissions
or
applicability
limits,
properly
project
emissions,
and/
or
properly
implement
the
PCP
Exclusion
or
Clean
Unit
Test),
you
will
be
subject
to
any
applicable
enforcement
provisions
(
including
the
possibility
of
citizens'
suits)
under
the
applicable
sections
of
the
Act.
Sanctions
for
violations
of
these
provisions
may
include
monetary
penalties
of
up
to
$
27,500
per
day
of
violation,
as
well
as
the
possibility
of
injunctive
relief,
which
may
include
the
requirement
to
install
air
pollution
controls.

8.
Enforceability
This
rule
uses
several
terms
related
to
enforceability
of
particular
provisions.
A
requirement
is
``
legally
enforceable''
if
some
authority
has
the
right
to
enforce
the
restriction.
Practical
enforceability
for
a
source­
specific
permit
will
be
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80191
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
7
See
memorandum,
``
Release
of
Interim
Policy
on
Federal
Enforceability
of
Limitations
on
Potential
to
Emit,''
signed
by
John
Seitz
and
Robert
Van
Heuvelen,
Jan.
22,
1996
at
5
 
6
and
Attachment
4,
available
on
the
Web
as
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
rgytgrnj/
programs/
artd/
air/
title5/
t5memos/
pottoemi.
pdf.
More
detailed
guidance
on
practical
enforceability
is
contained
in
the
memorandum.
8
The
Agency
has
frequently
used
the
term
``
practicably
enforceable''
and
``
practical
enforceability,''
interchangeably.
There
is
no
difference
in
the
meaning
of
these
terms.
9
See
generally
memorandum,
``
Options
for
Limiting
the
Potential
to
Emit
(
PTE)
of
a
Stationary
Source
Under
Section
112
and
Title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,''
signed
by
John
Seitz
and
Robert
Van
Heuvelen,
Jan.
25,
1995,
at
2
 
3.
10
By
definition,
the
modification
of
an
existing
source
is
potentially
subject
to
major
NSR
only
if
that
existing
source
is
``
major.''
In
addition,
when
an
existing
``
minor''
source
makes
a
physical
or
operational
change
that
by
itself
is
major,
that
change
constitutes
a
major
stationary
source
that
is
subject
to
major
NSR.
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
1)(
c).
11
For
NSR
purposes,
the
definition
of
``
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit''
means
any
steam
electric
generating
unit
that
is
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
supplying
more
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
MW
electrical
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale.
Any
steam
supplied
to
a
steam
distribution
system
for
the
purpose
of
providing
steam
to
a
steam
electric
generator
that
would
produce
electrical
energy
for
sale
is
also
considered
in
determining
the
electrical
energy
output
capacity
of
the
affected
facility.
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
31).
Reference
in
this
notice
to
utility
units
is
meant
to
include
all
emissions
units
covered
by
this
definition.
12
We
promulgated
special
applicability
rules
for
physical
and
operational
changes
at
EUSGUs
in
1992.
See
57
FR
32314
(
July
21,
1992).
achieved
if
the
permit's
provisions
specify:
(
1)
A
technically­
accurate
limitation
and
the
portions
of
the
source
subject
to
the
limitation;
(
2)
the
time
period
for
the
limitation
(
hourly,
daily,
monthly,
and
annual
limits
such
as
rolling
annual
limits);
and
(
3)
the
method
to
determine
compliance,
including
appropriate
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting.
For
rules
and
general
permits
that
apply
to
categories
of
sources,
practicable
enforceability
additionally
requires
that
the
provisions:
(
1)
Identify
the
types
or
categories
of
sources
that
are
covered
by
the
rule;
(
2)
where
coverage
is
optional,
provide
for
notice
to
the
permitting
authority
of
the
source's
election
to
be
covered
by
the
rule;
and
(
3)
specify
the
enforcement
consequences
relevant
to
the
rule.
7,
8
``
Enforceable
as
a
practical
matter''
will
be
achieved
if
a
requirement
is
both
legally
and
practically
enforceable.
Note
that
we
continue
to
require
offsets
to
be
federally
enforceable.
``
Federal
enforceability''
means
that
not
only
is
a
requirement
practically
enforceable,
as
described
above,
but
in
addition,
``
EPA
must
have
a
direct
right
to
enforce
restrictions
and
limitations
imposed
on
a
source
to
limit
its
exposure
to
Act
programs.''
9
Also
note
that,
for
computing
baseline
actual
emissions
for
use
in
determining
major
NSR
applicability
or
for
establishing
a
PAL,
you
must
consider
``
legally
enforceable''
requirements.
A
requirement
will
be
legally
enforceable
if
the
Administrator,
State,
local
or
tribal
air
pollution
control
agency
has
the
authority
to
enforce
the
requirement
irrespective
of
its
practical
enforceability.
In
our
existing
regulations
that
are
unamended
by
today's
action,
the
term
``
federally
enforceability''
still
appears.
In
1995,
the
court
in
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v.
EPA
remanded
the
definition
of
PTE
in
the
major
NSR
program
to
EPA.
No.
89
 
1514
(
D.
C.
Cir.
Sept.
150
1995).
Because
the
court
vacated
the
requirements
in
the
nationwide
rules,
the
term
federal
enforceability
as
it
relates
to
PTE
is
not
in
effect
(
pending
final
rule
making
by
the
Agency)
in
the
Federal
rules.
The
decision,
however,
did
not
address
the
term
``
federally
enforceable''
as
used
in
SIPs,
because
that
issue
was
not
before
the
court.

II.
Revisions
to
the
Method
for
Determining
Whether
a
Proposed
Modification
Results
in
a
Significant
Emissions
Increase
A.
Introduction
Today
we
are
finalizing
two
sets
of
amendments
to
our
existing
major
NSR
regulations
that
provide
another
way
in
which
you
may
calculate
emissions
increases
to
determine
whether
certain
types
of
physical
changes
or
changes
in
the
method
of
operation
(
physical
or
operational
changes)
of
an
existing
emissions
unit
trigger
the
major
NSR
requirements.
10
The
first
set
of
amendments
relates
to
the
way
in
which
you
will
determine
your
baseline
actual
emissions
for
such
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
a
new
definition
of
``
baseline
actual
emissions.''
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
48).
We
will
be
allowing
you
to
use
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
during
the
10­
year
period
prior
to
the
change
to
determine
your
baseline
actual
emissions
for
existing
emissions
units
(
other
than
EUSGUs).
The
second
set
of
amendments
replaces
the
existing
actual­
to­
potential
and
actual­
to­
representative­
actual­
annual
emissions
applicability
tests
for
existing
emissions
units
(
including
EUSGUs)
with
an
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
determining
if
a
physical
or
operational
change
will
result
in
an
emissions
increase
at
such
units.
(
Notwithstanding
this
new
test,
the
actual­
to­
potential
methodology
is
still
available
at
your
option
under
the
new
applicability
tests.)
The
new
procedure
for
determining
your
prechange
baseline
actual
emissions
will
not
apply
to
EUSGUs.
11
Instead,
for
EUSGUs
we
are
retaining
the
existing
procedures
for
determining
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
12
See,
for
example,
existing
§
52.21(
b)(
33).
We
are
also
affirming
our
current
method
used
for
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
EUSGUs
(
allowing
any
consecutive
2
years
in
the
past
5
years,
or
another
more
representative
period)
by
codifying
it
in
the
NSR
regulations.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
48).
For
existing
emissions
units
other
than
EUSGUs,
the
changes
we
are
making
to
the
method
for
calculating
a
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions
will
apply
only
for
the
following
three
purposes.

 
For
modifications,
to
determine
a
modified
unit's
pre­
change
baseline
actual
emissions
as
part
of
the
new
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test.

 
For
netting,
to
determine
the
prechange
baseline
actual
emissions
of
an
emissions
unit
that
underwent
a
physical
or
operational
change
within
the
contemporaneous
period.

 
For
PALs,
to
establish
the
PAL
emissions
cap.
Today's
new
procedures
for
calculating
baseline
actual
emissions
and
for
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
should
not
be
used
when
determining
a
source's
actual
emissions
on
a
particular
date
as
may
be
used
for
other
NSR­
related
requirements.
Such
requirements
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
air
quality
impacts
analyses
(
for
example,
compliance
with
NAAQS,
PSD
increments,
and
AQRVs)
and
computing
the
required
amount
of
emissions
offsets.
For
each
of
these
requirements,
the
existing
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
continues
to
apply.
This
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
section
II.
D.
9.
We
believe
that
these
changes
will
greatly
improve
the
major
NSR
program
by
responding
to
industry
concerns
with
our
existing
methodology
without
compromising
air
quality.
One
common
complaint
about
the
current
emissions
baseline
process
is
that
you
have
a
limited
ability
to
consider
the
operational
fluctuations
associated
with
normal
business
cycles
when
establishing
baseline
actual
emissions
unless
your
reviewing
authority
agrees
that
another
period
is
``
more
representative
of
normal
source
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80192
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
13
The
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
requires
that
a
unit's
actual
emissions
be
based
on
a
consecutive
24­
month
period
immediately
preceding
the
particular
change.
Also,
however,
it
directs
the
reviewing
authority
to
allow
the
use
of
another
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative.
This
procedure
continues
to
be
appropriate
under
the
pre­
existing
regulation
and
for
other
NSR
purposes,
such
as
determining
a
source's
ambient
impact
against
the
PSD
increments,
and
we
continue
to
require
its
use
for
such
purposes.
14
Note
that
we
plan,
in
the
near
future,
to
issue
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
that
will
address
the
issue
of
``
debottlenecking.''
In
today's
rulemaking,
we
do
not
intend
to
change
current
requirements
related
to
``
debottlenecking.''
Use
of
the
term
``
changed
unit''
should
not
be
interpreted
as
a
change
to
those
requirements.
operation.''
13
By
extending
the
time
period
from
which
you
may
establish
your
baseline
actual
emissions,
the
new
procedures
should
reflect
the
emissions
levels
that
occur
during
a
normal
business
cycle,
without
requiring
you
to
demonstrate
to
your
reviewing
authority
that
another
period
is
``
more
representative
of
normal
source
operations.''
Commenters
also
believe
that
the
current
methodology
requires
many
changes
made
to
existing
equipment
to
go
through
major
NSR,
without
taking
into
account
operating
history,
even
when
such
changes
will
not
result
in
increased
pollution
to
the
environment.
Our
new
applicability
requirements
address
these
commenters'
concerns
and
will
focus
limited
resources
more
effectively.
We
are
also
modifying
the
way
you
may
determine
whether
emissions
at
existing
units
(
including
EUSGUs)
will
increase,
by
allowing
you
to
use
projected
actual
emissions
for
purposes
of
this
determination.
Under
this
approach,
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
a
project
that
is
not
part
of
a
major
modification
may
result
in
a
significant
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
before
beginning
actual
construction,
you
may
choose
to
make
and
record
a
projection
of
post­
change
emissions
of
that
pollutant
from
changed
units.
14
To
make
this
projection,
you
must
use
the
maximum
annual
rate
at
which
the
changed
units
are
projected
to
emit
the
pollutant
in
any
of
the
5
calendar
years
following
the
time
the
unit
resumes
regular
operations
after
the
project
(
or
10
years
if
the
project
increases
the
unit's
design
capacity
or
potential
to
emit
the
regulated
NSR
pollutant).
You
then
use
these
projections
to
calculate
whether
the
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
In
making
this
calculation,
you
could
exclude
any
emissions
that
the
unit
could
have
accommodated
before
the
change
and
that
are
unrelated
to
the
project.
You
could
also
exclude
emissions
resulting
from
increased
utilization
due
to
demand
growth
that
the
unit
could
have
accommodated
before
the
change.
With
respect
to
the
covered
changes,
if
you
use
this
procedure,
you
are
required
to
track
post­
change
annual
emissions
of
the
units
in
tpy
for
the
next
5
years
(
or
10
years
if
the
project
increases
the
unit's
design
capacity
or
potential
to
emit
the
regulated
NSR
pollutant).
At
the
end
of
each
year,
if
post­
change
annual
emissions
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount,
and
differ
from
your
projections,
you
must
submit
a
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
with
that
information
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
the
year.
Instead
of
relying
on
projected
actual
emissions,
you
may
instead
elect
to
use
the
unit's
PTE,
in
tpy.
In
that
case,
you
need
not
track
or
report
post­
change
emissions.
We
are
also
revising
the
procedures
for
projecting
future
emissions
for
EUSGUs
to
conform
with
these
new
procedures
and
consolidate
the
EUSGU
and
non­
EUSGU
procedures
into
a
single
set
of
provisions.
As
a
result
of
our
1992
rulemaking,
EUSGUs
have
available
to
them
a
similar
set
of
procedures.
We
believe
the
procedures
we
are
implementing
for
other
units
represent
a
sensible
refinement
of
the
rules
we
promulgated
in
1992
and
that
we
should
make
these
procedures
available
to
all
existing
units.
We
do,
however,
impose
two
requirements
on
EUSGUs
beyond
those
we
impose
on
other
units.
First,
with
respect
to
covered
projects,
EUSGUs
that
project
post­
change
emissions
will
have
to
submit
a
copy
of
their
projections
to
their
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction.
You
will
not
be
required
to
obtain
any
kind
of
determination
from
the
reviewing
authority
before
proceeding
with
construction.
Second,
we
are
requiring
that
if
you
project
post­
change
emissions
for
your
EUSGUs,
you
must
send
a
copy
of
your
tracked
emissions
to
your
reviewing
authority,
without
regard
to
whether
these
emissions
have
increased
by
a
significant
amount
or
exceed
your
projections.
The
effect
of
this
consolidation
is
that
we
make
minor
changes
to
the
existing
procedures
for
EUSGUs.
For
example,
you
must
project
emissions
for
EUSGUs
on
a
12­
month
basis,
rather
than
the
current
approach
of
projecting
average
annual
emissions
for
the
2
years
immediately
following
the
change.
Also,
you
need
only
make
and
report
a
projection
for
EUSGUs
when
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
the
given
project
may
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
By
allowing
you
to
use
today's
new
version
of
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
to
evaluate
modified
existing
emissions
units,
we
expect
that
fewer
projects
will
trigger
the
major
NSR
permitting
requirements.
Nonetheless,
we
believe
that
the
environment
will
not
be
adversely
affected
by
these
changes
and
in
some
respects
will
benefit
from
these
changes.
The
new
test
will
remove
disincentives
that
discourage
sources
from
making
the
types
of
changes
that
improve
operating
efficiency,
implement
pollution
prevention
projects,
and
result
in
other
environmentally
beneficial
changes.
Moreover,
the
end
result
is
that
State
and
local
reviewing
authorities
can
appropriately
focus
their
limited
resources
on
those
activities
that
could
cause
real
and
significant
increases
in
pollution.
In
addition,
today's
changes
provide
benefits
to
the
public
and
the
environment
through
the
improved
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
as
discussed
above.
We
believe
that
these
added
recordkeeping
and
reporting
measures
will
provide
the
information
necessary
for
reviewing
authorities
to
assure
that
such
changes
are
made
consistent
with
the
CAA
requirements.
The
new
rule
also
does
not
affect
the
way
in
which
a
source's
ambient
air
quality
impacts
are
evaluated.
Altogether,
we
believe
that
today's
regulatory
amendments
focus
on
the
types
of
changes
occurring
at
existing
emissions
units
that
are
more
likely
to
result
in
significant
contributions
to
air
pollution.

B.
What
We
Proposed
and
How
Today's
Action
Compares
1.
July
23,
1996
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM)

In
1996,
we
proposed
to
amend
the
NSR
rules
to
allow
States
to
use,
among
other
things,
a
new
test
as
an
alternative
to
the
actual­
to­
potential
test
for
determining
the
applicability
of
the
NSR
requirements
when
you
wish
to
make
modifications
at
an
existing
major
stationary
source.
The
proposed
test
was
intended
to
apply
exclusively
to
modifications
of
existing
emissions
units
at
major
stationary
sources
 
not
to
new
emissions
units.
As
described
more
completely
below,
the
proposed
test
involved
changes
to
the
procedures
for
calculating
an
emissions
unit's
prechange
(
baseline)
actual
emissions
and
post­
change
(
future)
actual
emissions.
The
method
would
have
also
required
you
to
monitor
and
report
future
emissions
from
certain
modified
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80193
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
15
This
method,
as
well
as
the
WEPCO
amendments
as
a
whole,
was
limited
to
modifications
of
existing
EUSGUs
and
did
not
apply
to
the
addition
of
a
new
emissions
unit
or
the
replacement
of
an
existing
unit.
emissions
units,
based
on
the
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
adopted
under
the
WEPCO
amendments.
Baseline
actual
emissions.
In
our
1996
NPRM,
we
proposed
to
change
the
definition
of
baseline
emissions
from
the
average
annual
rate
of
actual
emissions
during
the
2­
year
period
preceding
the
date
of
the
modification
to
the
annual
rate
associated
with
the
highest
level
of
utilization
from
any
consecutive
12­
month
period
during
the
10­
year
period
preceding
the
date
of
the
modification,
adjusted
for
any
more
stringent
limits
that
may
have
been
imposed
since
the
end
of
the
12­
month
period
selected.
The
proposed
method
was
intended
to
be
used
for
calculating
baseline
actual
emissions
for
any
existing
emissions
unit,
including
EUSGUs,
by
replacing
both
the
original
method
(
that
was
part
of
the
actual­
topotential
test)
and
the
2­
in­
5­
years
method
(
as
adopted
under
the
WEPCO
for
modified
EUSGUs).
As
indicated
above,
the
proposed
procedure
also
would
have
required
you
to
take
into
account
any
legally
enforceable
constraints
imposed
on
the
facility
since
the
selected
12­
month
time
frame,
and
currently
in
effect.
Thus,
you
would
generally
have
been
required
to
calculate
the
modified
emissions
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions
by
using
the
appropriate
utilization
level
from
the
selected
12­
month
period,
in
combination
with
the
emissions
unit's
current
enforceable
emission
factors.
Such
enforceable
emission
factors
would
have
included
current
Federal
and
State
limits,
such
as
RACT
(
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology),
MACT
(
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology),
BACT,
LAER,
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS),
as
well
as
enforceable
limits
resulting
from
any
voluntary
reductions
you
may
have
taken
(
for
example,
for
netting,
offsets,
or
Emission
Reduction
Credits
(
ERCs)).
Also,
you
would
have
had
to
consider
any
operational
constraints
that
are
enforceable,
such
as
production
limits,
fuel
use
limits,
or
limits
to
the
number
of
hours
per
day
or
days
per
year
at
which
the
unit
modified,
or
affected
by
such
modification,
could
operate.
Finally,
we
indicated
that
it
was
not
our
intent
to
extend
the
5­
year
contemporaneous
period
(
for
considering
creditable
emissions
increases
and
decreases
as
part
of
the
netting
calculus),
even
if
we
established
a
10­
year
baseline
look
back
period.
Post­
change
actual
emissions.
In
the
1996
proposal,
we
proposed
to
extend
the
availability
of
the
actual­
to­
futureactual
emissions
method,
established
under
the
WEPCO
amendments
exclusively
for
EUSGUs,
to
predict
the
future
actual
emissions
from
any
emissions
unit
undergoing
a
physical
or
operational
change.
Thus,
we
proposed
extending
availability
of
the
definition
of
``
representative
actual
annual
emissions''
to
all
emissions
units
undergoing
a
physical
or
operational
change.
This
definition
would
have
provided
the
basis
for
you
to
project
an
emissions
unit's
future
actual
emissions,
excluding
any
emissions
increases
caused
by
demand
growth
or
other
independent
factors,
when
determining
whether
the
change
at
issue
will
increase
emissions
over
the
baseline
levels.
15
The
proposal
also
retained
the
WEPCO
provision
requiring
that,
for
any
modified
emissions
unit
using
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual
test,
you
must
submit
annually
for
5
years
after
the
change
sufficient
records
to
demonstrate
that
the
change
has
not
resulted
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
over
the
baseline
levels.
As
a
safeguard,
the
WEPCO
rule
also
provides
that
this
tracking
period
could
be
extended
to
10
years
when
the
reviewing
authority
is
concerned
that
the
first
5
years
will
not
be
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
We
sought
comments
on
numerous
issues,
including
whether
any
changes
should
be
made
to
the
5­
year
tracking
requirement
or
to
the
demand
growth
exclusion
in
the
event
that
we
decided
to
broaden
use
of
the
actual­
tofuture
actual
test
for
modifications
to
any
existing
emissions
unit.

2.
July
24,
1998
Notice
of
Availability
In
1998,
we
announced
that
comments
received
on
the
1996
proposal
and
changed
circumstances
had
caused
us
to
ask
whether
we
should
reconsider
some
of
the
aspects
of
the
proposed
changes
to
the
``
major
modification''
applicability
test.
The
1998
NOA
set
forth
for
public
comment
an
additional
applicability
test.
In
brief,
the
alternative
presented
for
additional
comment
would
have:
(
1)
Retained
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual
test
for
EUSGUs
and
applied
it
to
all
source
categories;
(
2)
made
binding
for
a
10­
year
period
the
emissions
levels
used
in
projecting
future
actual
emissions
following
the
modification
for
all
source
categories;
and
(
3)
eliminated
the
demand
growth
exclusion
for
calculating
a
modified
emissions
unit's
future
actual
emissions.
Consistent
with
the
1996
NPRM,
this
alternative
methodology
would
have
applied
to
any
existing
emissions
unit
at
a
major
stationary
source
for
which
you
might
plan
a
non­
routine
physical
or
operational
change.
The
methodology
would
have
required
you
first
to
determine
which
emissions
units
were
being
changed,
or
were
affected
by
the
change,
then
to
calculate
those
units'
baseline
actual
emissions
based
on
the
highest
consecutive
12
months
of
source
operation
during
the
past
10
years,
adjusted
to
reflect
current
emission
factors.
The
second
step
involved
the
forecast
of
future
emissions
resulting
from
the
physical
or
operational
change.
Under
this
calculation
of
future
actual
emissions,
one
would
not
have
been
allowed
to
exclude
predicted
capacity
utilization
increases
that
were
due
to
demand
growth.
If
the
difference
between
the
pre­
change
and
post­
change
actual
emissions
equaled
or
exceeded
the
significant
emissions
rate
defined
for
a
particular
pollutant,
major
NSR
would
have
been
triggered
(
unless
you
took
enforceable
limits
to
keep
the
increase
below
significant
levels
or
were
otherwise
able
to
net
out
of
review
using
creditable,
contemporaneous
emissions
increases
and
decreases
occurring
at
your
facility).
If
the
difference
between
baseline
and
future
actual
emissions
did
not
exceed
the
applicable
significant
emissions
rate,
your
facility
would
not
be
subject
to
major
NSR,
but
you
would
have
been
required
to
accept
a
temporary
emissions
cap
based
on
the
predicted
future
actual
emissions
for
each
affected
pollutant
at
the
emissions
units
being
modified
or
affected
by
the
modification.
The
temporary
cap
would
have
become
an
enforceable
condition
of
a
preconstruction
permit.
Also,
the
sole
purpose
of
the
temporary
cap
would
have
been
to
make
sure
that
the
physical
or
operational
change
did
not
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase,
and
the
cap
would
have
applied
to
those
emissions
units
for
at
least
10
years
after
the
changes
were
completed.
You
would
also
have
been
required
to
supply
information
annually
to
demonstrate
that
the
future
actual
emissions
did
not
exceed
the
applicable
emissions
caps
during
the
10­
year
period
following
the
modification.

3.
Summary
of
Major
Changes
in
the
Final
Rule
Today's
action
amends
the
existing
NSR
regulations
to
provide
you
with
a
common
applicability
test
for
all
existing
emissions
units
 
the
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test.
This
test
has
changed
in
some
ways
from
both
the
1996
NPRM
and
the
1998
NOA.
As
described
in
greater
detail
in
sections
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80194
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
16
We
do
make
use
of
the
term
``
resumes
regular
operations''
(
as
opposed
to
``
normal
operations'')
in
the
final
rule,
but
that
term
has
a
very
different
meaning
and
we
are
using
it
for
an
entirely
different
purpose.
Specifically,
we
are
not
using
the
term
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
change
results
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
Rather,
we
use
it
only
to
identify
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
must
begin
tracking
emissions
of
changed
units
when
using
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
method.
17
The
1980
rulemaking
also
discussed
that
``
reconstruction''
would
have
only
been
applied
on
a
plantwide
basis
and
EPA
believed
that
there
would
be
few
instances
of
plantwide
reconstructions.

18
For
simplicity,
we
state
this
rule
without
addressing
whether
the
replacement
or
reconstruction
has
resulted
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase,
but
under
our
two­
step
approach
for
evaluating
whether
a
change
constitutes
a
major
modification,
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
would
of
course
also
be
required.
We
have
also
retained
the
term
``
representative
of
normal
operations''
in
the
context
of
an
EUSGU's
option
to
seek
use
of
a
different
baseline
period,
but
there
the
question
whether
to
seek
such
use
is
at
the
source's
option,
obviating
many
of
the
difficulties
with
it
in
other
contexts.
II.
C
and
II.
D
below,
the
key
features
of
the
methodology
are
as
follows.
 
If
you
are
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
EUSGU),
you
will
determine
the
pre­
change
(
baseline)
actual
emissions
by
calculating
an
average
annual
emissions
rate,
in
tpy,
using
any
consecutive
24
months
during
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
the
change.
This
rate
must
be
adjusted
downward
to
reflect
any
legally
enforceable
emission
limitations
imposed
after
the
selected
baseline
period.
 
We
are
codifying
the
``
2­
in­
5­
years''
presumption
for
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
EUSGUs.
 
If
you
are
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
including
EUSGUs),
you
will
estimate
post­
change
emissions
(
projected
actual
emissions),
in
tpy,
to
reflect
any
increase
in
annual
emissions
that
may
result
from
the
proposed
change.
You
should
exclude,
in
calculating
any
increase
in
emissions
that
results
from
the
particular
project,
that
portion
of
the
unit's
emissions
following
the
project
that
an
existing
unit
could
have
accommodated
during
the
baseline
period
and
that
is
also
unrelated
to
the
particular
project,
including
any
increased
utilization
due
to
product
demand
growth.
You
must
make
the
projection
before
you
begin
actual
construction.
When
using
this
method,
you
must
record
the
projection
and
certain
other
information
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
a
change
may
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
In
addition,
EUSGUs
must
send
a
copy
of
the
projections
and
other
information
to
your
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction.
 
If,
for
a
project
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
EUSGU)
at
a
major
stationary
source,
you
elect
to
project
your
post­
change
emissions,
we
are
also
requiring
you
to
maintain
information
on
these
emissions,
for
5
years
following
a
physical
or
operational
change,
or
in
some
cases
for
10
years
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
change.
If
your
annual
emissions
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount
and
also
exceed
your
projection,
you
must
report
this
information
to
your
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
the
year.
 
If
you
project
post­
change
emissions
for
EUSGUs,
you
must
report
these
emissions
to
your
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
the
year
without
regard
to
whether
such
emissions
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
or
projected
actual
emissions
for
a
period
of
5
years
(
or
in
some
cases
10
years,
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
change).
 
Instead
of
projecting
your
postchange
emissions,
for
all
existing
emissions
units
you
may
instead
project
post­
change
emissions
on
the
basis
of
each
unit's
post­
change
PTE.
If
you
use
this
method,
you
need
not
record
your
projections
or
track
or
report
postchange
emissions.
As
discussed
earlier,
our
prior
regulations
provide
that
when
your
emissions
unit,
other
than
an
EUSGU,
``
has
not
begun
normal
operations,
``
actual
emissions
equal
the
PTE
of
the
unit.
There
have
been
considerable
number
issues
raised
with
this
approach.
For
example,
using
PTE
as
a
measure
of
post­
change
emissions
automatically
attributes
all
possible
emissions
increases
to
the
change.
There
are
many
cases,
however,
where
this
simply
is
not
true.
Moreover,
when
the
actual­
to­
potential
test
is
applied,
it
is
automatically
assumed
that
the
emissions
unit
has
not
begun
normal
operations
after
the
change
period.
In
many
such
cases,
however,
the
changed
unit
as
a
practical
matter
will
function
essentially
as
it
did
before
the
change.
We
are,
therefore,
allowing
all
existing
emissions
units
to
use
an
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test.
Accordingly,
we
are
generally
eliminating
the
term
``
begun
normal
operations''
from
the
determination
of
whether
a
change
results
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
16
For
essentially
the
same
reasons,
while
our
1992
rules
did
not
authorize
use
of
projections
in
evaluating
whether
replacement
of
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
which
we
understood
to
require
application
of
the
NSPS
50
percent
cost
threshold)
constitutes
a
major
modification,
upon
reflection
we
have
decided
this
exception
to
the
availability
of
the
actual­
to­
projectedactual
applicability
test
is
also
unnecessary.
In
our
1980
rulemaking,
we
decided
against
applying
PSD
to
``
reconstruction,''
even
of
entire
sources,
on
the
grounds
that,
as
to
existing
sources
that
would
not
otherwise
be
subjected
to
PSD
review
as
a
major
modification
(
i.
e.,
such
source
would
not
cause
a
significant
net
emissions
increase),
changes
that
had
no
emission
consequences
should
not
be
subject
to
PSD
regardless
of
their
magnitude.
17
In
addition,
we
now
believe
that,
as
with
modified
units,
the
fact
that
replacement
units
are
replacing
similar
units
with
a
record
of
historical
operational
data
provides
sufficient
reasons
to
believe
that
a
projection
of
future
actual
emissions
can
be
sufficiently
reliable
that
an
up­
front
emissions
cap
based
on
PTE
is
unnecessary.
In
other
words,
a
source
replacing
a
unit
should
be
able
to
adequately
project
and
track
emissions
for
the
replacement
unit
based,
in
part,
on
the
operating
history
of
the
replaced
unit.
In
contrast,
sources
adding
``
new''
units
that
do
not
qualify
as
replacement
units
must
project
that
the
future
emissions
of
the
new
unit
equal
its
PTE,
effectively
applying
the
``
actual­
topotential
test
because
there
is
no
relevant
historical
data
that
could
be
used
to
establish
an
actual
emissions
baseline
or
projection
of
future
actual
emissions
for
such
new
units.
For
these
reasons,
we
have
eliminated
the
requirement
that
replaced
or
reconstructed
units
be
evaluated
as
to
whether
they
constitute
major
modifications
on
an
actual­
to­
potential
basis.
Instead,
you
may
compare
an
emission
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions
with
your
projected
actual
emission
in
measuring
whether
the
replacement
or
reconstruction
has
resulted
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
You
must
treat
these
emissions
units
as
modifications
only
if
the
replacement
or
reconstruction
of
the
unit
results
in
a
signficant
increase
so
measured.
18
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80195
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
C.
Changes
to
the
Procedures
for
Calculating
the
Pre­
Change
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
for
Existing
Emissions
Units
Other
Than
EUSGUs
1.
Under
Today's
New
Requirements,
How
Should
I
Calculate
the
Pre­
Change
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
for
an
Existing
Emissions
Unit
That
Is
Not
an
EUSGU?
When
you
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
EUSGU),
you
may
select
any
consecutive
24
months
of
source
operation
within
the
past
10
years.
Using
the
relevant
source
records
for
that
24­
month
period,
including
such
information
as
the
utilization
rate
of
the
equipment,
fuels
and
raw
materials
used
in
the
operation
of
the
equipment,
and
applicable
emission
factors,
you
must
be
able
to
calculate
an
average
annual
emissions
rate,
in
tpy,
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit
that
is
modified,
or
is
affected
by
the
modification.
The
new
requirements
prohibit
you
from
counting
as
part
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
any
pollution
levels
that
are
not
allowed
under
any
legally
enforceable
limitations
and
that
apply
at
the
time
of
the
project.
Therefore,
you
must
identify
the
most
current
legally
enforceable
limits
on
your
emissions
unit.
If
these
legally
enforceable
emission
limitations
and
operating
restrictions
are
more
stringent
than
those
that
applied
during
the
24­
month
period,
you
must
adjust
downward
the
average
annual
emissions
rate
that
you
calculated
from
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
to
reflect
these
current
restrictions.
(
See
section
II.
C.
5
of
this
preamble
for
further
discussion
of
the
adjustment
that
you
may
need
to
make.)
In
summary,
when
the
average
annual
emissions
rate
that
you
originally
calculated
is
still
legally
achievable
(
see
discussion
below),
then
your
baseline
actual
emissions
will
be
the
same
as
the
average
annual
emissions
rate
calculated
from
the
24­
month
period.
If
it
is
not,
you
must
adjust
it
downward
so
that
it
does
not
reflect
emissions
that
are
no
longer
legally
allowed.

2.
Can
Existing
Emissions
Units
(
Other
Than
EUSGUs)
Still
Use
a
``
More
Representative
Time
Period''
for
Selecting
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions?
No,
under
today's
new
requirements
neither
you
nor
your
reviewing
authority
will
have
the
authority
to
select
another
period
of
time
from
which
to
calculate
your
baseline
actual
emissions.
You
must
select
a
24­
month
period
within
the
10­
year
period
before
the
physical
or
operational
change.
3.
From
What
Point
in
Time
Is
the
10­
Year
Look
Back
Measured?

If
you
believe
that
you
will
need
either
a
major
or
minor
NSR
permit
to
proceed
with
your
proposed
physical
or
operational
change,
then
you
must
use
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
the
date
on
which
you
submit
a
complete
permit
application.
If,
however,
you
believe
that
the
physical
or
operational
change(
s)
you
plan
to
make
will
not
result
in
either
a
significant
emissions
increase
from
the
project
or
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
your
major
stationary
source
(
that
is,
your
project
will
not
be
a
major
modification),
and
you
are
not
otherwise
required
to
obtain
a
minor
NSR
permit
before
making
such
change,
then
you
must
use
the
10­
year
period
that
immediately
precedes
the
date
on
which
you
begin
actual
construction
of
the
physical
or
operational
change.

4.
What
if,
for
an
Existing
Emissions
Unit
(
Other
Than
an
EUSGU),
I
Do
Not
Have
Adequate
Documentation
for
Its
Operation
for
the
Past
10
Years?

Your
ability
to
use
the
full
10
years
of
the
look
back
period
will
depend
upon
the
availability
of
relevant
data
for
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
you
wish
to
select.
The
data
must
adequately
describe
the
operation
and
associated
pollution
levels
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
If
you
do
not
have
the
data
necessary
to
determine
the
units'
actual
emission
factors,
utilization
rate,
and
other
relevant
information
needed
to
accurately
calculate
your
average
annual
emissions
rate
during
that
period
of
time,
then
you
must
select
another
consecutive
24­
month
period
within
the
10­
year
look
back
period
for
which
you
have
adequate
data.

5.
For
an
Existing
Unit
(
Other
Than
EUSGUs),
When
Must
I
Adjust
My
Calculation
of
the
Pre­
Change
Baseline
Actual
Emissions?

Today's
amendments
require
you
to
adjust
the
average
annual
emissions
rate
derived
from
the
selected
24­
month
period
under
certain
circumstances.
Specifically,
you
must
adjust
downward
this
average
annual
rate
if
any
legally
enforceable
emission
limitations,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
State
or
Federal
requirements
such
as
RACT,
BACT,
LAER,
NSPS,
and
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP),
restrict
the
emissions
unit's
ability
to
emit
a
particular
pollutant
or
to
operate
at
levels
that
existed
during
the
selected
24­
month
period
from
which
you
calculate
the
average
annual
emissions
rate.
For
example,
assume
that
during
the
selected
consecutive
24­
month
period
you
burned
fuel
oil
and
you
were
subjected
to
a
sulfur
limit
of
2
percent
sulfur
(
by
weight).
Today,
you
are
only
allowed
to
burn
fuel
oil
with
a
sulfur
content
of
0.5
percent
or
less.
Consequently,
you
would
be
required
to
adjust
your
preliminary
calculation
of
baseline
actual
emissions
for
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
(
that
is,
substitute
the
lower
sulfur
limit
into
the
emissions
calculation,
yielding
a
75
percent
reduction
in
the
emissions
rate
from
the
initial
calculation)
to
reflect
the
current
restriction
allowing
only
0.5
percent
sulfur
in
fuel
oil.
The
original
average
annual
utilization
rate
would
not
be
adjusted
unless
a
more
stringent
legally
enforceable
operational
limitation
has
since
been
imposed
that
restricts
that
rate.
You
must
also
adjust
for
legally
enforceable
emission
limitations
you
may
have
voluntarily
agreed
to,
such
as
limits
you
may
have
taken
in
your
permit
for
netting,
emissions
offsets,
or
the
creation
of
ERCs.
Also,
you
must
adjust
your
emissions
from
the
24­
month
period
if
a
raw
material
you
used
during
the
baseline
period
is
now
prohibited.
For
example,
you
may
have
used
a
paint
with
a
high
solvent
concentration
during
a
portion
of
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
Today,
you
are
prohibited
from
using
that
particular
paint.
You
must
then
adjust
your
emissions
rate
to
reflect
the
raw
material
restriction.

6.
How
Should
I
Calculate
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
for
Emissions
Units
(
Other
Than
EUSGUs)
That
Use
Multiple
Fuels
or
Raw
Materials?
For
an
emissions
unit
that
is
capable
of
burning
more
than
one
type
of
fuel,
you
must
relate
the
current
emission
factors
to
the
fuel
or
fuels
that
were
actually
used
during
the
selected
24­
month
period.
For
example,
when
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
an
emissions
unit
that
burned
natural
gas
for
a
portion
of
the
24­
month
period
and
fuel
oil
for
the
remainder,
you
must
retain
that
fuel
apportionment
(
for
example,
natural
gas
to
fuel
oil
ratio),
but
you
must
also
use
the
current
legally
enforceable
emission
factors
for
natural
gas
and
fuel
oil,
respectively,
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
If,
however,
you
are
no
longer
allowed
or
able
to
use
one
of
those
fuel
types,
then
you
must
make
your
calculations
assuming
use
of
the
currently
allowed
fuel
for
the
entire
24­
month
period.
You
must
use
the
same
approach
for
emissions
units
that
use
multiple
feedstock
or
raw
materials,
which
may
vary
in
use
during
the
unit's
ongoing
production
process.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80196
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
7.
How
Should
I
Calculate
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
for
Construction
Projects
That
Involve
Multiple
Units?

Today's
new
requirements
require
that
you
select
the
same
single
consecutive
24­
month
period
within
the
10­
year
look
back
period
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
existing
emissions
units
that
will
be
changed.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
48)(
ii)(
e).
The
result
will
be
that
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
affected
pollutant
will
be
based
on
the
same
consecutive
24­
month
period
as
well.
You
will
have
the
option
to
select
the
single
24­
month
period
that
best
represents
the
collective
level
of
operation
(
and
emissions)
for
your
existing
emissions
units.
If
a
particular
existing
emissions
unit
did
not
yet
exist
during
the
24­
month
period
you
select
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
you
must
count
that
emissions
unit's
emissions
rate
as
zero
for
that
full
period
of
time.
If
an
emissions
unit
operated
for
only
a
portion
of
the
particular
24­
month
period
that
you
select,
you
must
calculate
its
average
annual
emissions
rate
using
an
emissions
rate
of
zero
for
that
portion
of
time
when
the
unit
was
not
in
operation.
For
new
emissions
units
(
a
unit
that
has
existed
for
less
than
2
years)
that
will
be
changed
by
the
project,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
rate
is
zero
if
you
have
not
yet
begun
operation
of
the
unit,
and
is
equal
to
the
unit's
PTE
once
it
has
begun
to
operate.

8.
Am
I
Able
To
Apply
Today's
Changes
for
Calculating
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
to
Other
Major
NSR
Requirements?

No,
as
stated
in
section
II.
A,
you
are
only
allowed
to
use
the
new
baseline
methodology
in
today's
rule
for
three
specific
purposes
involving
existing
emissions
units
as
follows.
 
For
modifications,
to
determine
a
modified
unit's
pre­
change
baseline
actual
emissions
as
part
of
the
new
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
 
For
netting,
to
determine
the
prechange
actual
emissions
of
an
emissions
unit
that
underwent
a
physical
or
operational
change
within
the
contemporaneous
period.
You
may
select
separate
baseline
periods
for
each
contemporaneous
increase
or
decrease.
 
For
PALs,
to
establish
the
PAL
level.
If
you
determine
that
the
modification
of
your
source
is
a
major
modification,
you
must
revert
to
using
the
existing
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
to
determine
your
source's
actual
emissions
on
a
particular
date
to
satisfy
all
other
NSR
permitting
requirements,
including
any
air
quality
analyses
(
for
example,
compliance
with
NAAQS,
PSD
increments,
AQRVs)
and
the
amount
of
emissions
offsets
required.
For
example,
when
you
must
determine
your
source's
compliance
with
the
PSD
increments
following
a
major
modification,
you
must
still
use
the
allowable
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
that
is
modified,
or
is
affected
by
the
modification.
An
existing
source's
contribution
to
the
amount
of
increment
consumed
should
be
based
on
that
source's
actual
emissions
rate
from
the
2
years
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
the
change,
although
the
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
another
2­
year
period
if
it
determines
that
such
period
is
more
representative
of
that
source's
normal
operation.
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
21)(
ii).
Also,
any
determination
of
the
amount
of
emissions
offset
that
must
be
obtained
by
a
major
modification
subject
to
the
nonattainment
NSR
requirements
under
§
51.165(
a)
should
be
based
on
calculations
using
the
existing
definitions
of
``
actual
emissions''
and
``
allowable
emissions.''
See
new
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
H).

D.
The
Actual­
to­
Projected­
Actual
Applicability
Test
for
Physical
or
Operational
Changes
to
Existing
Emissions
Units
Including
EUSGUs
1.
How
are
post­
change
actual
emissions
calculated
under
today's
revised
rule?

Today,
we
are
amending
the
major
NSR
rules
to
enable
you
to
use
an
applicability
test
that
is
similar
to
the
applicability
test
that
currently
applies
to
EUSGUs
(
that
is,
the
actual­
torepresentative
actual­
annual
emissions
test).
The
new
test
allows
you
to
project
the
post­
change
emissions
of
all
modified
existing
emissions
units
(
including
EUSGUs)
in
the
same
manner.
That
is,
under
today's
new
provisions
for
non­
routine
physical
or
operational
changes
to
existing
emissions
units,
rather
than
basing
a
unit's
post­
change
emissions
on
its
PTE,
you
may
project
an
annual
rate,
in
tpy,
that
reflects
the
maximum
annual
emissions
rate
that
will
occur
during
any
one
of
the
5
(
or
in
some
circumstances
10)
years
immediately
after
the
physical
or
operational
change.
The
first
year
begins
on
the
day
the
emissions
unit
resumes
regular
operation
following
the
change
and
includes
the
12
months
after
this
date.
This
projection
of
the
unit's
annual
emissions
rate
following
the
change
is
defined
as
the
``
projected
actual
emissions''
(
see,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
48)),
and
will
be
based
on
your
maximum
annual
rate
in
tons
per
year
at
which
you
are
projected
to
emit
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
less
any
amount
of
emissions
that
could
have
been
accommodated
during
the
selected
24­
month
baseline
period
and
is
not
related
to
the
change.
Accordingly,
you
will
calculate
the
unit's
projected
actual
emissions
as
the
product
of:
(
1)
The
hourly
emissions
rate,
which
is
based
on
the
emissions
unit's
operational
capabilities
following
the
change(
s),
taking
into
account
legally
enforceable
restrictions
that
could
affect
the
hourly
emissions
rate
following
the
change(
s);
and
(
2)
the
projected
level
of
utilization,
which
is
based
on
both
the
emissions
unit's
historical
annual
utilization
rate
and
available
information
regarding
the
emissions
unit's
likely
post­
change
capacity
utilization.
In
calculating
the
projected
actual
emissions,
you
should
consider
both
the
expected
and
the
highest
projections
of
the
business
activity
that
you
expect
could
be
achieved
and
that
are
consistent
with
information
your
company
publishes
for
business­
related
purposes
such
as
a
stockholder
prospectus,
or
applications
for
business
loans.
From
the
initial
calculation,
you
may
then
make
the
appropriate
adjustment
to
subtract
out
any
portion
of
the
emissions
increase
that
could
have
been
accommodated
during
the
unit's
24­
month
baseline
period
and
is
unrelated
to
the
change.
Once
the
appropriate
subtractions
have
been
made,
the
final
value
for
the
projected
actual
emissions,
in
tpy,
is
the
value
that
you
compare
to
the
baseline
actual
emissions
to
determine
whether
your
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
The
adjustment
to
the
projected
actual
emissions
allows
you
to
exclude
from
your
projection
only
the
amount
of
the
emissions
increase
that
is
not
related
to
the
physical
or
operational
change(
s).
In
comparing
your
projected
actual
emissions
to
the
units'
baseline
actual
emissions,
you
only
count
emissions
increases
that
will
result
from
the
project.
For
example,
as
with
the
electric
utility
industry,
you
may
be
able
to
attribute
a
portion
of
your
emissions
increase
to
a
growth
in
demand
for
your
product
if
you
were
able
to
achieve
this
higher
level
of
production
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
you
selected
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
and
the
increased
demand
for
the
product
is
unrelated
to
the
change.
For
Clean
Units,
if
a
given
project
can
be
constructed
and
operated
at
a
Clean
Unit
without
causing
the
emissions
unit
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80197
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
19
Your
ability
to
use
the
full
10
years
for
calculating
any
contemporaneous
emissions
change
is
contingent
upon
the
availability
of
valid
and
sufficient
source
information
for
the
selected
24­
month
period.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
48)(
ii)(
f).
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
status,
then
no
emissions
increase
will
occur.
For
new
units,
however,
you
must
continue
to
calculate
post­
change
emissions
on
the
basis
of
a
unit's
PTE.

2.
Will
My
Projection
of
Projected
Actual
Emissions
Become
an
Enforceable
Emission
Limitation
as
Suggested
in
the
1998
NOA?
No,
we
did
not
adopt
such
a
requirement.
If
you
have
an
existing
emissions
unit
and
your
project
results
in
an
increase
in
annual
emissions
that
exceeds
the
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount,
and
differs
from
your
projection
of
post­
change
emissions
that
you
were
required
to
calculate
and
maintain
records
of,
then
you
must
report
this
increase
to
your
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
the
year.
Since
modified
EUSGUs
are
required
to
report
their
post­
change
annual
emissions
to
the
reviewing
authority
annually,
any
occurrence
of
a
significant
increase
will
be
covered
under
that
report
for
the
affected
calendar
year.
See
section
II.
D.
6
of
this
preamble
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
reporting
requirements.

3.
How
Do
I
Determine
How
Long
My
Post­
Change
Emissions
Will
Be
Tracked
To
Ensure
That
My
Project
Is
Not
a
Major
Modification?
Generally,
your
projected
actual
emissions
must
be
tracked
against
your
facility's
post­
change
emissions
for
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
whether
you
are
an
EUSGU
or
other
type
of
existing
emissions
unit.
We
will
presume
that
any
increases
that
occur
after
5
years
are
not
associated
with
the
physical
or
operational
changes.
However,
you
may
be
required
to
track
emissions
for
a
longer
period
of
time
under
the
following
circumstances.
If
you
are
an
existing
emissions
unit
and
one
of
the
effects
of
your
physical
or
operational
change(
s)
is
to
increase
a
unit's
design
capacity
or
PTE,
you
must
track
your
emissions
for
a
period
of
10
years
after
the
completion
of
the
project.
This
extended
period
allows
for
the
possibility
that
you
could
end
up
using
the
increased
capacity
more
than
you
projected
and
such
use
might
lead
to
significant
emissions
increases.

4.
What
Are
the
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Projects?
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
for
a
project
is
required
when
three
criteria
are
met:
(
1)
You
elect
to
project
postchange
emissions
rather
than
use
PTE;
(
2)
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
the
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase;
and
(
3)
the
project
will
not
constitute
a
major
modification.
In
such
circumstances,
you
must
document
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
following
information:
a
description
of
the
project;
an
identification
of
emissions
units
whose
emissions
could
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project;
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
emissions
unit;
and
your
projected
actual
emissions,
including
any
emissions
excluded
as
unrelated
to
the
change
and
the
reason
for
the
exclusion.
In
addition,
if
your
project
increase
is
significant,
you
must
record
your
netting
calculations
if
you
use
emissions
reductions
elsewhere
at
your
major
stationary
source
to
conclude
that
the
project
is
not
a
major
modification.
For
covered
projects,
you
must
record
this
information
before
beginning
actual
construction.
If
you
are
an
EUSGU,
you
must
also
send
this
information
to
your
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction.
Note,
however,
that
if
you
chose
to
use
potential
emissions
as
your
projection
of
post­
change
emissions,
you
are
not
required
to
maintain
a
record
of
this
decision.
In
addition,
today's
final
rules
require
you
to
maintain
emissions
data
for
all
emissions
units
that
are
changed
by
the
project.
You
must
maintain
this
information
for
5
years,
or
10
years
if
applicable.
The
information
you
must
maintain
may
include
continuous
emissions
monitoring
data,
operational
levels,
fuel
usage
data,
source
test
results,
or
any
other
readily
available
information
of
sufficient
accuracy
for
the
purpose
of
determining
an
emissions
unit's
post­
change
emissions.
If
you
are
an
EUSGU,
you
must
report
this
information
to
your
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
any
year
in
which
you
are
required
to
generate
such
information.
Other
existing
units
must
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
any
increase
in
the
post­
change
annual
emissions
rate
when
that
rate:
(
1)
Exceeds
the
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount,
and
(
2)
differs
from
the
projection
that
was
calculated
before
the
change.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
r)(
6)(
iii).
In
addition
to
the
reporting
requirements
discussed
above,
you
are
also
obligated
to
ensure
that
the
necessary
emissions
information
you
are
required
to
maintain
is
available
for
examination
upon
request
by
the
reviewing
authority
or
the
general
public.

5.
How
Do
Today's
Changes
Affect
the
Netting
Methodology
for
Existing
Emissions
Units
(
Other
Than
EUSGUs)?
If
your
calculations
show
that
a
significant
emissions
increase
will
result
from
a
modification,
you
have
the
option
of
taking
into
consideration
any
contemporaneous
emissions
changes
that
may
enable
you
to
``
net
out''
of
review,
that
is,
show
that
the
net
emissions
increase
at
the
major
stationary
source
will
not
be
significant.
The
contemporaneous
time
period
will
not
change
under
the
Federal
PSD
program
as
a
result
of
today's
action.
That
is,
creditable
increases
and
decreases
in
emissions
that
have
occurred
between
the
date
5
years
before
construction
of
the
particular
change
commences
and
the
date
the
increase
from
that
change
occurs
are
contemporaneous.
See
§
52.21(
b)(
3)(
ii).
States
will
continue
to
have
some
discretion
in
defining
``
contemporaneous''
for
their
own
NSR
programs.
Although
we
are
not
changing
our
definition
of
``
contemporaneous,''
today's
action
allows
existing
emissions
units
(
other
than
EUSGUs)
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
contemporaneous
event
using
the
10­
year
look
back
period.
That
is,
you
can
select
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
during
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
the
change
occurring
in
the
contemporaneous
period
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
creditable
emissions
change.
Generally,
for
each
emissions
unit
at
which
a
contemporaneous
emissions
change
has
occurred,
you
should
use
the
10­
year
look
back
period
relevant
to
that
change.
19
When
evaluating
emissions
increases
from
multi­
unit
modifications,
if
more
than
one
emissions
unit
was
changed
as
part
of
a
single
project
during
the
contemporaneous
period,
you
may
select
a
separate
consecutive
24­
month
period
to
represent
each
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
project.
In
any
case,
the
calculated
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
emissions
unit
must
be
adjusted
to
reflect
the
most
current
emission
limitations
(
including
operational
restrictions)
applying
to
that
unit.
``
Current''
in
the
context
of
a
contemporaneous
emissions
change
refers
to
limitations
on
emissions
and
source
operation
that
existed
just
prior
to
the
date
of
the
contemporaneous
change.

E.
Clarifying
Changes
to
WEPCO
Provisions
for
EUSGUs
The
method
you
use
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
an
existing
EUSGU
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80198
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
20
Letter
from
John
S.
Seitz,
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
to
Patrick
M.
Raher,
August
6,
2001.
significant
emissions
increase
from
a
physical
or
operational
change
at
an
EUSGU,
and
to
determine
whether
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
will
occur
at
the
major
stationary
source,
will
not
change
as
a
result
of
today's
final
rulemaking.
The
rule
provides
that
for
an
existing
EUSGU
you
may
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
as
the
average
annual
emissions
(
tpy)
of
the
emissions
unit
using
any
2­
year
period
out
of
the
5
years
immediately
preceding
the
modification.
(
This
was
set
out
as
a
presumption
in
the
preamble
for
the
1992
WEPCO
amendments.)
This
rule
recognizes
the
ordinary
variability
in
demand
for
electricity.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
21)(
ii).
For
example,
a
cold
winter
or
hot
summer
will
result
in
high
levels
of
demand
while
a
relatively
mild
year
will
produce
lower
demand.
By
allowing
a
utility
to
use
any
consecutive
2
years
within
the
past
5,
the
rule
recognizes
that
electricity
demand
and
resultant
utility
operations
fluctuate
in
response
to
various
factors
such
as
annual
variability
in
climatic
or
economic
conditions
that
affect
demand,
or
changes
at
other
plants
in
the
utility
system
that
affect
the
dispatch
of
a
particular
plant.
By
allowing
utilities
to
use
as
a
baseline
any
consecutive
2
years
in
the
last
5
years,
these
types
of
fluctuations
in
operations
can
be
more
realistically
considered.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
In
an
August
6,
2001
letter,
20
we
addressed
the
issue
of
whether
combined
cycle
gas
turbines
(
the
gas
turbines
and
waste
heat
recovery
components)
came
within
the
definition
of
``
electric
utility
steam
generating
units''
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
such
units
are
eligible
to
use
the
WEPCO
``
applicability
test.''
The
letter
concluded
that
``
steam
generating
units''
include
not
only
electric
utility
plants
with
boilers,
but
also
plants
with
combined
cycle
gas
turbines
if
the
combined
cycle
gas
turbine
systems
supply
more
than
one­
third
of
their
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
MW
electrical
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale.
Consequently,
qualifying
combined
cycle
gas
turbines
must
also
use
the
2­
in­
5­
years
baseline
method.
Finally,
today's
rules
provide
the
same
method
for
EUSGUs
that
will
exist
for
all
other
existing
emissions
units
to
project
post­
change
emissions
following
a
physical
or
operational
change
to
a
unit.
In
the
1996
proposal,
we
proposed
a
range
of
options
for
addressing
the
applicability
of
changes
that
are
made
to
existing
emissions
units,
including
the
option
of
extending
the
actual­
to­
futureactual
test,
then
available
only
to
utilities,
to
all
source
categories.
While
we
have
decided
to
leave
the
WEPCO
rules
intact
in
most
respects,
we
believe
that
it
is
reasonable
and
appropriate
to
establish
a
consistent
method
for
sources
to
use
for
projecting
the
postchange
emissions
that
will
result
from
a
physical
or
operational
change
to
an
existing
emissions
unit.
Therefore,
under
today's
new
rules,
the
current
method
of
basing
the
projection
on
the
2
years
following
the
change
to
an
EUSGU
is
being
replaced
with
the
method
available
to
all
other
existing
units,
under
which
you
project
a
unit's
post­
change
emissions
as
the
maximum
annual
rate
that
the
unit
will
emit
in
any
one
of
the
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations.

F.
The
``
Hybrid''
Applicability
Test
for
Projects
Affecting
Multiple
Types
of
Emissions
Units
1.
When
Does
the
Hybrid
Applicability
Test
Apply
to
You?
The
hybrid
applicability
test
applies
if
you
plan
a
project
(
or
series
of
related
projects)
that
will
affect
emissions
units
of
two
or
more
of
the
following
types.
 
Existing
emissions
units
 
New
emissions
units
 
Clean
Units
2.
How
Do
I
Determine
Whether
My
Project
Will
Result
in
a
Significant
Emissions
Increase
Under
the
Hybrid
Test?
For
the
first
two
types
of
emissions
units
listed
above
that
are
affected
by
the
project,
calculate
the
emissions
increase
as
we
have
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.
That
is,
use
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
existing
units
and
the
actual­
to­
potential
test
for
new
emissions
units.
Clean
Units
are
discussed
fully
in
section
V
of
this
preamble.
If
a
given
project
can
be
constructed
and
operated
at
a
Clean
Unit
without
causing
the
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
status,
no
emissions
increase
shall
be
deemed
to
occur
at
that
Clean
Unit.
If
a
given
project
would
cause
the
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
status,
then
the
increase
in
emissions
should
be
calculated
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
After
you
calculate
the
emissions
increase
for
each
relevant
unit,
total
the
increases
across
all
the
emissions
units
of
all
types.
If
this
total
emissions
increase
equals
or
exceeds
the
level
defined
as
significant
for
the
regulated
NSR
pollutant
in
question,
the
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
for
that
pollutant.
You'll
find
the
regulatory
language
for
determining
whether
a
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
at
§
§
51.165(
a)(
2)(
vii)(
D),
51.166(
a)(
7)(
vi)(
d),
and
52.21(
a)(
2)(
vi)(
d).
In
section
II.
C.
8
of
this
preamble,
we
indicate
that
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
units
that
are
not
EUSGUs
that
are
changed
by
a
project
must
be
calculated
based
on
the
same
consecutive
24­
month
period
within
the
previous
10
years.
The
same
principle
applies
under
the
hybrid
test,
but
it
can
be
slightly
more
complicated
if
both
EUSGUs
and
non­
EUSGUs
are
involved.
In
this
case,
you
must
use
the
same
baseline
period
for
all
emissions
units
affected
by
the
project.
This
baseline
period
must
be
selected
so
as
to
meet
the
requirements
for
both
EUSGUs
and
non­
EUSGUs.
Thus,
you
must
select
a
2­
year
period
out
of
the
previous
5
years
for
your
baseline
period,
as
required
for
EUSGUs
(
and
within
the
requirements
for
non­
EUSGUs).
If
you
wish
to
use
another
period
that
you
believe
is
more
representative
(
as
allowed
for
EUSGUs),
the
entire
period
must
fall
within
the
previous
10
years
(
as
required
for
non­
EUSGUs).

3.
How
Do
I
Determine
the
Net
Emissions
Increase
From
My
Project
Under
the
Hybrid
Test?
If
you
conclude
that
a
significant
emissions
increase
will
result
from
the
proposed
project,
you
have
the
option
of
taking
into
consideration
any
contemporaneous
emissions
changes
that
may
enable
you
to
``
net
out''
of
review,
that
is,
show
that
the
net
emissions
increase
at
the
major
stationary
source
will
not
be
significant.
The
netting
analysis
is
carried
out
under
the
hybrid
test
just
as
it
is
under
the
other
applicability
tests.
Refer
to
section
II.
D.
7
of
this
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
netting
methodology.

G.
Legal
Basis
for
Today's
Action
The
Act
defines
modification
for
the
purposes
of
PSD
and
nonattainment
NSR
through
cross­
reference
to
the
NSPS
definition
of
``
modification.''
The
NSPS
definition
states
that
a
modification
``
means
any
physical
change
in,
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of,
a
stationary
source
which
increases
the
amount
of
any
air
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80199
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
21
See,
for
example,
WEPCO
Rule,
57
FR
32316
(``
fundamental
distinctions
between
the
technologybased
provisions
of
NSPS
and
the
air
quality­
based
provisions
of
NSR'').
See
also
ASARCO
Inc.
v.
EPA,
578
F.
2d
319
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1978).
22
The
explanation
of
the
applicability
test
for
``
Clean
Units''
is
discussed
in
section
V.
23
``
Business
Cycles
in
Major
Emitting
Source
Industries.''
Eastern
Research
Group;
September
25,
1997.
This
study
examined
the
business
fluctuations
for
nine
source
categories
described
as
CAA
major
emitting
sources.
Industry
business
cycles
were
examined
using
industry
output
data
Continued
pollutant
emitted
by
such
source
or
which
results
in
the
emission
of
any
air
pollutant
not
previously
emitted.''
CAA
section
111(
a)(
4),
42
U.
S.
C.
7411(
a)(
4).
The
Act
is
silent,
however,
on
the
issue
of
how
one
is
to
determine
whether
a
physical
or
operational
change
increases
the
amount
of
any
air
pollutant
emitted
by
the
source.
Accordingly,
EPA
is
exercising
its
discretion
in
interpreting
and
providing
clarity
to
this
issue.
We
believe
that
the
rules
set
forth
today
are
``
a
permissible
construction
of
the
statute.''
Chevron
U.
S.
A.,
Inc.
v.
NRDC,
467
U.
S.
843
 
4
(
1984).
The
reviewing
court
should
defer
to
it.
Id.
at
837.
In
the
NSPS
program,
we
determine
whether
there
has
been
an
``
increase
in
any
air
pollutant
emitted''
by
the
source
by
comparing
its
maximum
hourly
achievable
emissions
before
and
after
the
change.
EPA
and
the
courts
have
recognized,
however,
that
the
NSR
programs
and
the
NSPS
programs
have
different
goals,
21
and
thus,
we
have
utilized
different
emissions
tests
in
the
NSR
programs.
Prior
to
today,
the
regulations
applied
an
actual­
to­
futureactual
applicability
test
for
EUSGUs
and
an
actual­
to­
potential
applicability
test
for
all
other
emissions
units.
Today,
we
are
establishing
a
new
applicability
test
for
calculating
emissions
increases
for
``
Clean
Units''
and
an
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test
for
all
other
emissions
units.
We
believe
that
establishing
an
actual­
to­
projectedactual
applicability
test
for
all
emissions
units
is
a
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
phrase
``
increase
of
any
pollutant
emitted.''
22
H.
Response
to
Comments
and
Rationale
for
Today's
Actions
We
received
numerous
comments
on
our
proposed
rule
regarding
the
calculation
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
and
the
actual­
to­
futureactual
test.
Some
of
the
significant
comments
and
our
responses
to
them
are
provided
below.
A
complete
set
of
comments
and
our
responses
can
be
found
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
located
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.

1.
Why
Are
We
Extending
the
Look
Back
Period
for
Determining
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
to
10
Years?
Most
commenters
generally
support
our
proposal
to
allow
owners
and
operators
to
use
a
10­
year
look
back
period
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
modifications
at
any
existing
emissions
unit.
Commenters
have
various
reasons
for
supporting
or
opposing
the
proposed
approach.
Many
supporters
agree
that
extending
the
baseline
look
back
period
to
10
years
would
simplify
current
regulations
and
provide
certainty
to
sources
who
otherwise
would
have
to
demonstrate
to
the
reviewing
authority
that
a
period
other
than
the
2
years
immediately
preceding
the
proposed
change
was
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
Some
commenters
support
the
proposal
because
it
would
prevent
the
perceived
confiscation
of
underused
capacity
at
sources
that
have
had
low
utilization
rates
for
an
extended
period.
These
commenters
agree
that
a
10­
year
look
back
period
is
more
likely
to
afford
a
source
a
baseline
actual
emissions
calculation
that
best
reflects
representative
source
operating
conditions
and
would
also
account
for
fluctuations
in
the
business
cycle.
Some
commenters
criticize
the
proposed
10­
year
look
back
period
as
being
too
long.
These
commenters
recommend
either
a
5­
year
or
2­
year
look
back
period.
One
of
these
commenters
states
that
the
10­
year
look
back
creates
the
opportunity
for
a
source
to
increase
production
to
the
10­
year
maximum,
and
prevents
the
State
or
local
air
regulators
from
addressing
the
increase
in
emissions.
Thus,
the
commenter
believes
that
sources
would
be
allowed
to
use
historic
emissions
levels
that
are
higher
than
current
levels
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
Some
commenters
add
that
the
proposed
change
would
not
reduce
program
complexity.
Some
commenters
believe
that
instead
of
extending
the
period
for
establishing
baseline
actual
emissions,
the
test
for
establishing
modifications
should
be
changed.
According
to
the
commenters,
the
problem
is
not
that
the
current
system
does
not
go
back
far
enough
to
set
a
fair
actual
emissions
baseline,
but
that
the
methodology
does
not
account
for
the
fact
that
most
emissions
units
are
operating
at
an
activity
level
much
lower
than
the
allowed
activity
level.
The
commenters
believe
that
many
of
the
real
problems
associated
with
the
current
major
modification
applicability
test
would
be
eliminated
if
the
procedure
was
modified
in
an
equitable
manner.
A
commenter
also
adds
that
EPA
may
also
want
to
include
provisions
that
prevent
a
source
from
applying
the
new
definition
of
actual
emissions
in
a
way
that
would
retroactively
enable
the
source
to
reverse
a
previous
major
modification
determination
and
to
eliminate
any
emissions
reduction
previously
required
for
that
major
modification.
We
continue
to
believe
that
it
is
reasonable
and
appropriate
to
adopt
the
new
method
for
establishing
a
modified
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions.
It
is
important
to
understand
the
difference
between
the
purpose
of
the
new
procedure,
which
uses
the
10­
year
look
back,
and
the
existing
procedure
under
the
pre­
existing
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
at
§
52.21(
b)(
21(
ii),
which
generally
requires
the
use
of
an
average
annual
emissions
rate
based
on
the
2­
year
period
immediately
preceding
a
particular
date.
The
latter
procedure
is
designed
to
estimate
a
source's
actual
emissions
at
a
particular
time
and
continues
to
be
appropriate
for
such
things
as
estimating
a
source's
impact
on
air
quality
for
PSD
increment
consumption.
On
the
other
hand,
the
new
baseline
procedure
is
specifically
designed
to
allow
a
source
to
consider
a
full
business
cycle
in
determining
whether
there
will
be
an
emissions
increase
from
a
physical
or
operational
change.
Generally,
a
source's
operations
over
a
business
cycle
cover
a
range
of
operating
(
and
emissions)
levels
 
not
simply
a
single
level
of
utilization.
The
new
procedure
recognizes
that
market
fluctuations
are
a
normal
occurrence
in
most
industries,
and
that
a
source's
operating
level
(
and
emissions)
does
not
remain
constant
throughout
a
source's
business
cycle.
The
use
of
a
24­
month
period
within
the
past
10
years
to
establish
an
average
annual
rate
is
intended
to
adjust
for
unusually
high
short­
term
peaks
in
utilization.
Consequently,
the
new
procedure
ensures
that
a
source
seeking
to
make
changes
at
its
facility
at
a
time
when
utilization
may
not
be
at
its
highest
can
use
a
normal
business
cycle
baseline
by
allowing
the
source
to
identify
capacity
actually
used
in
order
to
determine
an
average
annual
emissions
rate
from
which
to
calculate
any
projected
actual
emissions
resulting
from
the
change.
With
respect
to
the
commenters'
general
concerns
that
a
10­
year
look
back
period
is
too
long,
we
sought
to
better
understand
what
time
period
best
represents
an
industry's
normal
business
cycle.
Therefore,
we
contracted
for
a
study
of
several
industries
in
1997.23
This
study
found
that,
for
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80200
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
for
the
years
1982
to
1994
inclusive,
based
on
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
SIC
codes
for
individual
industries
(
OMB,
1987).
industries
analyzed,
business
cycles
differ
markedly
by
industry,
and
may
vary
greatly
both
in
duration
and
intensity
even
within
a
particular
industry.
Nevertheless,
we
concluded
from
the
study
that
10
years
of
data
is
reasonable
to
capture
an
entire
industry
cycle.
Comments
from
various
industries
support
a
conclusion
that
a
10­
year
look
back
period
is
a
fair
and
representative
time
frame
for
encompassing
a
source's
normal
business
cycle.
We
believe
that
the
use
of
a
10­
year
look
back
period
will
help
provide
certainty
to
the
process
and
eliminate
the
ambiguity
and
confusion
that
occurred
when
an
applicant
and
the
reviewing
authority
disagreed
on
what
time
frame
provides
the
period
most
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
The
new
requirements
also
provide
certainty
to
the
look
back
period,
since
there
is
no
opportunity
to
select
another
period
of
time
outside
this
10­
year
period.
(
See
additional
discussion
in
section
II.
E.
2.)
In
addition,
we
have
placed
certain
restrictions
on
when
the
full
10­
year
look
back
period
may
be
used.
(
See
section
II.
E.
3.)
With
regard
to
the
concern
that
industry
may
try
to
apply
the
new
requirements
retroactively
to
undo
current
restrictions
on
existing
sources,
we
want
to
reiterate
that
the
new
procedures
do
not
apply
retroactively
to
existing
NSR
permits
or
changes
that
sources
have
made
in
the
past.
Prior
applicability
determinations
on
major
modifications
and
the
control
requirements
that
currently
apply
to
sources
remain
valid
and
enforceable
and
have
to
be
adjusted
for
in
the
calculation
of
baseline
actual
emissions.
However,
as
part
of
the
transition
process
for
implementing
the
new
provisions,
we
do
intend
to
allow
permit
applicants
to
withdraw
any
permit
applications
submitted
for
review
under
the
part
52
Federal
PSD
permit
program
so
that
they
may
reevaluate
their
projects
in
light
of
the
new
requirements.
States
may
allow
for
the
same
type
of
transition
process
under
their
own
NSR
programs.
Finally,
we
considered
whether
we
should
change
the
length
of
the
look
back
period
for
EUSGUs
for
establishing
the
actual
emissions
baseline
period
to
be
consistent
with
the
10­
year
look
back
period
we
are
adopting
for
other
existing
emissions
units.
The
data
we
collected
to
support
the
1992
rule
changes
show
that
allowing
EUSGUs
to
use
any
2­
year
period
out
of
the
preceding
5
years
is
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
capture
normal
business
cycles
at
an
EUSGU.
We
do
not
believe
that
any
information
received
during
the
public
comment
period
for
this
final
rule
adequately
supports
a
different
conclusion.
Thus,
we
have
decided
to
retain
the
2­
in­
5­
years
baseline
period
for
EUSGUs.
However,
for
consistency
with
the
baseline
period
for
other
existing
emissions
units,
we
have
specified
that
the
2­
year
period
is
a
consecutive
24­
month
period.

2.
Why
Do
the
New
Requirements
Not
Provide
Discretion
for
the
Reviewing
Authority
To
Consider
Another
Time
Period
More
Representative
of
Normal
Operation
for
Non­
EUSGUs?
Several
commenters
oppose
our
proposed
elimination
of
the
reviewing
authority's
discretion
to
allow
a
different
representative
period
(
outside
of
the
10­
year
period),
because
they
argue
certain
sources
(
for
example,
emissions
units
placed
in
cold
reserve
due
to
reduced
demand)
require
this
flexibility.
Some
commenters
say
the
discretion
should
be
given
to
the
reviewing
authority,
while
other
commenters
wanted
the
discretion
given
directly
to
source
owners
and
operators.
Instead
of
the
discretion
to
use
an
alternate
period,
one
commenter
prefers
that
all
sources
should
be
required
to
show
that
they
have
selected
a
representative
period
that
precedes
the
most
recent
2­
year
period.
We
believe
that
use
of
a
fixed
10­
year
look
back
period
provides
the
desired
clarity
and
certainty
to
the
process
of
selecting
an
appropriate
utilization/
emissions
level
that
is
representative
of
a
source's
normal
operation.
A
bounded
10­
year
look
back
provides
certainty
to
the
regulated
community
that
may
be
undermined
by
an
option
to
allow
an
unbounded
alternative
period
as
well.

3.
Why
Are
We
Placing
Restrictions
on
the
Use
of
a
10­
Year
Look
Back
for
Setting
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions?
Numerous
commenters
responded
to
our
concern
that
many
sources
might
lack
accurate
records
for
the
full
10­
year
look
back
period,
and
to
our
request
for
comments
on
the
need
to
condition
the
full
use
of
the
10­
year
period
upon
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
available
data,
as
well
as
the
need
to
establish
specific
criteria
for
accuracy,
completeness,
and
recordkeeping
when
using
older
data.
A
number
of
commenters
generally
support
limiting
full
use
of
the
10­
year
look
back
period
to
situations
in
which
adequate
emissions
and/
or
capacity
utilization
data
are
available.
Some
commenters
also
recommend
that
EPA
issue
minimum
criteria
to
reduce
the
number
of
case­
by­
case
determinations
and
help
reviewing
authorities
avoid
debates
with
sources
on
what
constitutes
sufficient
data.
On
the
other
hand,
one
commenter
recommends
that
we
not
adopt
a
variable
look
back
period
based
on
the
quality
of
the
older
data
because
it
would
``
add
considerable
uncertainty
and
protracted
debate
to
the
process.
.
.
.''
If,
however,
we
choose
to
limit
the
look
back
period
based
on
the
quality
of
older
data,
then
this
commenter
and
several
others
prefer
provisions
allowing
for
case­
by­
case
decisions
by
State
or
local
reviewing
authorities
over
specific
criteria
established
by
EPA.
Today's
amendments
condition
the
full
use
of
the
new
10­
year
look
back
period
on
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
your
records
of
emissions
and
capacity
utilization,
with
respect
to
the
24­
month
period
you
select,
for
any
emissions
unit
that
undergoes
a
physical
or
operational
change.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
48)(
f).
As
with
all
emissions
calculations,
accuracy
and
completeness
are
central
elements
for
applicability
determinations.
In
many
cases,
sources
presently
maintain
accurate
records
on
emissions
and
operations
for
only
3
to
5
years.
Thus,
we
think
it
is
appropriate
to
limit
use
of
the
full
10­
year
look
back
period
when
you
do
not
have
adequate
data
for
the
time
period
you
wish
to
select.
However,
this
limitation
should
be
alleviated
over
time
as
sources
begin
to
maintain
records
for
longer
periods
to
accommodate
the
10­
year
look
back
opportunity.
We
also
agree
that
adequacy
of
any
given
data
should
be
left
to
the
case­
bycase
judgment
of
individual
reviewing
authorities.
The
type
of
data
necessary
to
determine
emissions
will
vary
drastically
from
source
category
to
source
category
and
from
process
to
process
within
a
source
category.
At
this
time,
we
are
not
able
to
issue
generic
criteria
that
would
apply
to
all
types
of
industries.
We
are
further
restricting
your
use
of
the
10­
year
look
back
for
emissions
units
that
are
located
in
nonattainment
areas
and
OTRs.
In
such
cases,
you
are
precluded
from
using
any
portion
of
the
10­
year
look
back
that
precedes
November
15,
1990
 
the
date
of
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
 
to
establish
baseline
actual
emissions
for
those
units.
This
limit
on
the
use
of
the
10­
year
look
back
is
consistent
the
intent
of
the
1996
NPRM,
which
was
originally
proposed
to
apply
to
the
use
of
the
10­
year
look
back
for
any
modification
of
an
existing
facility
in
a
nonattainment
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80201
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
area
or
OTR.
See
61
FR
38259
(
July
23,
1996).
However,
because
we
are
now
beyond
the
point
where
the
November
15,
1990
limit
is
relevant
to
modifications,
we
are
only
applying
this
limitation
in
the
netting
context
with
respect
to
emissions
units
changed
within
the
contemporaneous
period.

4.
Why
Were
Changes
Made
to
the
Proposed
Approach
for
Establishing
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
Using
a
10­
Year
Look
Back?
Commenters
raise
specific
questions
about
how
to
use
the
10­
year
look
back
to
calculate
an
emissions
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions.
Several
commenters
are
concerned
about
how
the
utilization
rate
would
be
considered
in
the
calculation.
For
example,
some
commenters
support
the
proposal
to
allow
sources
to
use
their
highest
capacity
achieved
during
any
consecutive
12
months,
because
it
provides
improved
flexibility
in
establishing
a
capacity
level
that
is
representative
of
normal
operations.
However,
other
commenters
object
to
using
the
12
months
with
the
highest
utilization.
These
commenters
argue
that
the
use
of
production
rates
can
be
unworkable
because
there
is
not
always
a
clear
relationship
between
production
rate
and
emissions.
In
addition,
reliable
records
may
not
be
available
to
determine
the
highest
production
rates.
As
an
alternative,
commenters
suggest
using
emissions
from
any
12­
month
period
in
the
preceding
10
years,
adjusted
to
reflect
current
rules,
or
allowing
the
source
to
use
any
12­
month
period
of
its
choice.
A
related
issue
raised
by
commenters
is
whether
to
require
any
current
Federal,
State,
or
voluntary
limit
to
be
included
in
the
establishment
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
Some
commenters
say
these
provisions
would
penalize
sources
that
complied
with
other
regulatory
requirements
or
chose
to
implement
pollution
prevention
programs.
Commenters
are
particularly
concerned
that
sources
be
given
credit
for
voluntary
reductions.
However,
other
commenters
support
including
all
of
these
factors
in
the
baseline
to
better
represent
actual
emissions
and
avoid
inconsistencies
between
emissions
units
that
have
permits
and
those
that
do
not.
Commenters
also
raise
specific
questions
about
how
the
calculation
would
include
the
effect
of
other
emission
limitations.
As
described
earlier,
we
have
decided
to
require
the
use
of
a
consecutive
24­
month
period
within
the
10­
year
look
back
instead
of
the
proposed
12­
month
period
to
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
any
emissions
unit
that
undergoes
a
physical
or
operational
change,
or
is
affected
by
such
change.
The
longer
24­
month
period
allows
you
to
reference
levels
of
utilization
achieved
in
the
past,
but
also
eliminates
the
potential
problem
associated
with
short­
term
peaks
that
do
not
truly
represent
the
unit's
normal
operation.
In
this
respect,
the
use
of
a
24­
month
period
is
consistent
with
the
preexisting
approach
for
calculating
actual
emissions.
With
respect
to
commenters'
concerns
about
being
required
to
use
the
period
of
highest
utilization,
our
reference
in
the
proposal
preamble
to
selecting
the
period
of
highest
utilization
was
based
on
our
general
assumption
that
the
period
of
maximum
utilization
also
represents
the
period
of
highest
pollution
levels
for
the
unit
of
concern.
However,
you
are
not
required
to
select
the
period
of
highest
utilization.
The
choice
of
which
consecutive
24­
month
period
within
the
10­
year
window
to
use
is
up
to
you.
The
two
restrictions
on
the
selection
of
the
appropriate
consecutive
24­
month
period,
as
described
earlier,
are
the
availability
of
adequate
and
complete
source
records
for
the
unit
of
concern
and
the
limit
on
using
dates
earlier
than
November
15,
1990
for
contemporaneous
emissions
changes
in
nonattainment
areas
and
OTRs.
We
agree
with
the
concerns
expressed
by
some
commenters
that
the
baseline
actual
emissions
calculated
from
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
could
yield
a
higher
pollution
level
than
a
unit
is
currently
allowed
to
emit.
We
do
not
believe
that
we
should
allow
a
source
to
take
credit
for
baseline
actual
emissions
that
exceed
the
current,
legally
allowable
emissions
rate.
Consequently,
the
new
requirements
require
you
to
determine
whether
any
legally
enforceable
limitations
currently
exist
that
would
prevent
the
affected
unit
from
emitting
a
pollutant
at
the
levels
calculated
from
the
24­
month
baseline
period.
The
approach
that
we
have
adopted
allows
you
to
reference
plant
capacity
that
has
actually
been
used,
but
not
pollution
levels
that
are
not
legally
allowed
at
the
time
the
modification
is
to
occur.
You
will
be
required
to
make
adjustments
for
voluntary
reductions
that
you
may
have
taken
only
to
the
extent
that
the
reductions
resulted
from
conditions
that
are
legally
enforceable
limitations.
5.
How
Does
the
Change
in
the
Baseline
Period
Affect
Related
Requirements
Regarding
Protection
of
Air
Quality?

a.
How
Does
the
Extended
Baseline
Period
Conform
With
the
Special
Modification
Provisions
Under
Sections
182(
c)
and
(
e)
of
the
Act?
Most
commenters
feel
the
proposed
extension
of
the
look
back
period
fits
within
the
design
and
intent
of
the
special
modification
procedures
set
forth
in
sections
182(
c)
and
(
e)
of
the
Act,
applicable
in
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
However,
one
commenter
representing
State
and
local
air
pollution
control
agencies
considers
the
new
requirements
to
be
in
significant
conflict
with
the
special
modification
procedures
contained
in
those
sections
of
the
Act.
The
commenter
indicates
that
this
conflict
could
be
resolved
by
deferring
to
relevant
requirements
for
modifications
in
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
areas.
The
commenter
adds
that
while
NSR
programs
are
tools
to
attain
and
maintain
compliance
with
the
NAAQS,
they
should
not
be
available
to
undermine
specific
statutory
and
SIP
requirements
designed
to
resolve
nonattainment
problems.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter's
concern
that
the
use
of
a
10­
year
look
back
period
to
implement
sections
182(
c)
and
(
e)
of
the
Act
for
purposes
of
establishing
a
modified
unit's
baseline
emissions
will
undermine
any
statutory
or
SIP
requirements
designed
to
address
nonattainment
problems.
The
two
sections
establish
special
procedures
for
determining
whether
a
proposed
modification
of
a
major
stationary
source
of
ozone
in
a
serious,
severe,
or
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
area
will
be
subject
to
major
NSR
under
part
D
of
the
Act.
The
Act
is
silent
on
the
issue
of
how
one
is
to
determine
whether
a
physical
or
operational
change
increases
the
amount
of
a
pollutant
for
a
changed
emissions
unit.
We
believe,
therefore,
that
we
have
the
authority
to
establish
a
regulatory
procedure
for
making
the
required
determinations
concerning
emissions
increases
resulting
from
physical
or
operational
changes.
In
light
of
the
fact
that
the
10­
year
look
back
period
may
be
used
for
emissions
units
(
other
than
EUSGUs)
that
are
involved
in
contemporaneous
emissions
changes
(
for
netting
purposes),
it
should
be
noted
that
the
new
requirements
prohibit
the
use
of
the
look
back
period
earlier
than
November
15,
1990.
Consequently,
for
emissions
units
whose
contemporaneous
emissions
changes
occurred
before
November
15,
2000,
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80202
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
24
Guidance
for
modeling
NAAQS
compliance
under
the
PSD
program
is
set
forth
in
EPA's
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models
contained
in
appendix
W
of
40
CFR
part
51.
This
guidance
is
incorporated
by
reference
both
in
the
Federal
PSD
regulations
and
in
the
minimum
requirements
for
SIPs
under
the
part
51
PSD
regulations.
for
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions
relevant
to
the
contemporaneous
emissions
change
cannot
include
a
date
prior
to
November
15,
1990.
It
should
be
pointed
out,
however,
that
for
modifications
involving
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
in
areas
classified
as
``
extreme,''
the
statutory
language
is
clear
that
the
increase
in
emissions
resulting
from
the
change
is
not
required
to
be
a
significant
increase,
but
rather
that
``
any
increase''
that
is
projected
using
the
new
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test
will
trigger
the
applicable
NSR
requirements.

b.
Will
the
Longer
Look
Back
Period
Related
to
the
Baseline
Actual
Emissions
Protect
Short­
term
Increments
and
NAAQS?
Some
commenters
express
concerns
that
the
opportunity
to
take
credit
for
older
baseline
actual
emissions
would
result
in
adverse
environmental
consequences.
One
commenter
specifically
indicates
that
the
proposed
baseline
actual
emissions
determination
process,
involving
a
10­
year
look
back,
would
allow
significant
increases
in
emissions
to
escape
the
ambient
impact
review
requirements
otherwise
required
by
NSR.
Today's
new
rule
modifies
the
way
your
NSR
applicability
determinations
are
made
for
changes
made
to
existing
emissions
units.
The
new
rule
does
not
affect
the
way
in
which
a
source's
ambient
air
quality
impacts
are
evaluated.
Compliance
with
the
NAAQS
is
accomplished
with
air
quality
dispersion
models
using
maximum
allowable
emission
limitations
(
or
federally
enforceable
permit
limits)
combined
with
operating
factors,
which
consider
either
design
capacity
or
actual
operating
factors
averaged
over
the
most
recent
2
years
of
operation,
from
all
modeled
sources.
24
In
addition,
any
increase
in
actual
emissions,
based
on
the
existing
definition
of
``
actual
emissions,''
consumes
PSD
increment
whether
it
occurs
through
normal
source
operation
or
as
a
result
of
a
physical
or
operational
change.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
existing
definition
of
``
actual
emissions''
continues
to
apply
with
regard
to
all
NSR
requirements
other
than
the
new
source
applicability
tests.
See,
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
21)(
i).
Thus,
we
do
not
believe
there
is
a
basis
for
concluding
that
the
use
of
a
longer
look
back
period
for
determining
a
modified
emissions
unit's
baseline
actual
emissions
(
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
physical
or
operational
change
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase)
will
cause
any
adverse
environmental
impacts.

6.
Why
Was
the
Contemporaneous
Period
for
Netting
Not
Also
Changed
to
a
10­
Year
Look
Back
Period?
In
the
1996
NPRM,
we
indicated
that
we
were
not
proposing
to
extend
the
5­
year
contemporaneous
period
along
with
the
proposed
10­
year
look
back
period
associated
with
the
establishment
of
baseline
actual
emissions.
See
61
FR
38259
(
July
23,
1996).
We
did,
however,
solicit
comments
on
the
effect
of
the
differing
look
back
periods
and
any
reasons
why
these
periods
should
be
the
same.
Commenters
responded
in
a
variety
of
ways
to
our
request,
with
no
clear
consensus
as
to
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
establish
a
uniform
look
back
period.
One
commenter
supports
the
10­
year
contemporaneous
period
for
reasons
of
consistency.
Other
commenters
believe
that
it
was
reasonable
to
use
two
different
time
frames.
Some
commenters
support
retaining
the
5­
year
contemporaneous
period
because
changing
it
could
have
adverse
effects
on
existing
permit
determinations.
Several
commenters
support
the
selection
of
a
different
contemporaneous
time
frame
than
the
existing
5­
year
period,
but
they
differ
in
their
recommendations
for
changing
it.
One
suggests
giving
the
source
the
option
of
choosing
either
a
10­
year
or
5­
year
contemporaneous
period.
Another
commenter
believes
that
a
1­
year
period
would
reduce
confusion.
Finally,
another
commenter
proposes
a
5­
year
contemporaneous
period
that
would
not
mandate
that
5
consecutive
years
be
considered.
We
do
not
believe
that
there
is
a
compelling
reason
to
change
the
existing
5­
year
contemporaneous
period.
The
look
back
periods
serve
different
purposes
and
need
not
be
the
same
in
order
to
effectively
implement
the
NSR
program
objectives.
States
retain
the
flexibility
in
defining
a
different
contemporaneous
period
under
SIP­
approved
NSR
programs,
and
may
use
that
flexibility
to
adjust
the
contemporaneous
period
if
they
believe
that
a
different
period
is
more
appropriate
for
their
purposes
under
the
new
applicability
requirements.
See,
for
example,
§
51.166(
b)(
3)(
ii).
Therefore,
under
today's
new
requirements,
we
have
not
changed
the
5­
year
contemporaneous
period
under
the
Federal
PSD
program.
It
should
be
noted
that
for
purposes
of
determining
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
a
contemporaneous
change
in
emissions
from
an
emissions
unit
that
was
an
existing
unit
at
the
time
of
the
contemporaneous
change,
the
new
requirements
authorize
a
source
to
use
the
10­
year
look
back
period.

7.
Why
Was
the
Demand
Growth
Exclusion
Retained?
When
we
proposed
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
WEPCO
rulemaking
to
cover
modifications
at
any
existing
emissions
unit,
we
solicited
comment
on
whether
the
demand
growth
exclusion
(
currently
available
only
to
EUSGUs)
should
also
be
available
to
all
source
categories.
In
1998,
we
noted
that
there
were
problems
that
could
arise
with
the
demand
growth
exclusion.
63
FR
39860
 
39861
(
July
24,
1998).
Accordingly,
we
solicited
comment
on
this
new
position.
Several
regulatory
agency
and
environmental
commenters
support
the
total
elimination
of
the
demand
growth
exclusion.
These
commenters
maintain
that
a
facility's
post­
change
emissions
increases
due
to
demand
growth
could
not
be
disassociated
from
those
that
resulted
directly
from
the
physical
or
operational
change.
These
commenters
believe
the
demand
growth
exclusion
would
be
difficult
to
enforce.
The
demand
growth
exclusion
would,
they
claim,
also
be
burdensome
because
it
would
require
projections,
estimates,
and
post­
modification
evaluations
of
increased
emissions
to
determine
whether
the
increases
were
the
result
of
increased
demand.
On
the
other
hand,
numerous
industry
commenters
oppose
eliminating
the
demand
growth
provisions,
stating
that
market
factors
do
independently
cause
emissions
increases
absent
physical
and
operational
changes.
These
commenters
maintain
that
when
projected
increased
capacity
utilization
is
in
response
to
an
independent
factor,
such
as
demand
growth,
the
increased
utilization
cannot
be
said
to
result
from
the
change
and
therefore
may
rightfully
be
excluded
from
the
projection
of
the
emissions
unit's
future­
actual
emissions.
They
further
argue
that
such
increases
should
not
be
included
in
post­
change
emissions
even
in
the
absence
of
a
demand
growth
exclusion,
as
the
increases
would
not
be
the
result
of
the
physical
or
operational
changes
that
were
made.
Consequently,
these
commenters
state
that
the
proposed
demand
growth
exclusion
simply
makes
that
principle
explicit
and
eliminates
confusion
as
to
how
emissions
should
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80203
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
be
calculated.
The
same
commenters
who
support
retaining
demand
growth
provisions
for
utilities
also
believe
these
provisions
should
be
extended
to
nonutilities
Under
today's
new
requirements,
you
will
be
allowed
to
apply
the
causation
provision
as
originally
contained
in
the
WEPCO
amendments.
Both
the
statute
and
implementing
regulations
indicate
that
there
should
be
a
causal
link
between
the
proposed
change
and
any
post­
change
increase
in
emissions,
that
is,
``*
*
*
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
that
would
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
*
*
*''
[
emphasis
added].
See,
for
example,
existing
§
52.21(
b)(
2)(
i).
Consequently,
under
today's
new
rules,
when
a
projected
increase
in
equipment
utilization
is
in
response
to
a
factor
such
as
growth
in
market
demand,
you
may
subtract
the
emissions
increases
from
the
unit's
projected
actual
emissions
if:
(
1)
The
unit
could
have
achieved
the
necessary
level
of
utilization
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
you
selected
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions;
and
(
2)
the
increase
is
not
related
to
the
physical
or
operational
change(
s)
made
to
the
unit.
See
for
example,
new
§
52.21(
b)(
41)(
ii)(
c).
On
the
other
hand,
demand
growth
can
only
be
excluded
to
the
extent
that
the
physical
or
operational
change
is
not
related
to
the
emissions
increase.
Thus,
even
if
the
operation
of
an
emissions
unit
to
meet
a
particular
level
of
demand
could
have
been
accomplished
during
the
representative
baseline
period,
but
the
increase
is
related
to
the
changes
made
to
the
unit,
then
the
emissions
increases
resulting
from
the
increased
operation
must
be
attributed
to
the
project,
and
cannot
be
subtracted
from
the
projection
of
projected
actual
emissions.

8.
Should
Increases
in
Plant
Utilization
Be
Reviewed
as
Potential
Major
Modifications?
Many
commenters
argue
that
emissions
increases
resulting
from
increased
utilization
should
not
be
subjected
to
review
as
major
modifications.
They
insist
that
EPA's
policy
and
rules
have
always
allowed
increases
in
capacity
utilization
without
triggering
a
modification,
and
not
allowing
utilization
increases
will
limit
new
capacity
to
new
emissions
units
instead
of
promoting
increased
efficiency
at
existing
emissions
units.
One
commenter
argues
that
these
sorts
of
changes
do
not
require
any
sort
of
applicability
determination
and
that
Congress
never
anticipated
that
the
NSR
program
would
hamper
a
source's
ability
to
increase
utilization
up
to
the
original
design
capacity.
We
believe
that
an
increase
in
utilization
should
not
trigger
the
major
NSR
requirements
unless
it
is
related
to
a
physical
or
operational
change.
As
explained
earlier,
the
CAA
only
applies
the
major
NSR
requirements
to
emissions
increases
that
are
the
result
of
a
physical
or
operational
change.
Thus,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
major
NSR
requirements
should
apply
to
a
utilization
increase
unless
the
increase
is
related
to
the
modification.
Under
today's
final
rules,
you
may
exclude
emissions
related
to
an
increase
in
utilization
if
you
were
able
to
accommodate
the
increase
in
utilization
during
the
24­
month
period
you
select
to
establish
your
baseline
actual
emissions
and
the
increased
utilization
is
not
related
to
the
change.

9.
Why
Must
You
Track
Physical
or
Operational
Changes
That
Increase
a
Unit's
Design
Capacity
or
Potential
To
Emit
Post­
Change
Actual
Emissions
for
a
Longer
Period
of
Time?
We
raised
this
issue
in
the
1998
NOA.
Several
commenters
support
applying
what
we
then
termed
the
``
actual­
toenforceable
future­
actual''
test
to
increases
in
design
capacity
or
PTE
because
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
automatically
assume
that
such
increases
will
affect
normal
operations,
which
would
require
the
actual­
topotential
test.
They
say
that
these
types
of
modifications
are
common
and
do
not
generally
increase
emissions
because
they
improve
efficiency
and
add
control
devices.
One
commenter
explains
that
it
is
not
uncommon
for
an
emissions
unit's
capacity
to
be
increased
so
as
to
speed
up
normal
operations
without
increasing
production,
and
that
projected
actual
emissions
could
easily
be
calculated
on
the
basis
of
past
operating
experience.
On
the
other
hand,
another
commenter
indicates
that
it
is
very
expensive
to
increase
design
capacity.
Therefore,
it
can
be
assumed
that
a
company
would
use
the
additional
capacity
as
soon
as
it
becomes
available.
Several
regulatory
agency
commenters
support
the
use
of
the
actual­
topotential
test
for
modifications
that
increase
design
capacity
or
PTE.
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
such
modifications
would
alter
an
emissions
unit's
normal
operation
and
make
previous
actual
emissions
``
unreliable
and
irrelevant.''
We
do
not
believe
that
every
modification
that
includes
added
capacity
or
an
increase
in
the
PTE
is
intended
for
full
use
of
that
new
capacity
or
PTE.
Such
actions
could
well
be
intended
to
enhance
current
operations
without
resulting
in
increased
production
or
operation.
Therefore,
under
today's
new
requirements,
you
are
not
required
to
count
the
emissions
increase
that
would
result
from
full
use
of
new
capacity
or
PTE
if
you
conclude
that:
(
1)
Such
capacity
or
PTE
will
not
be
fully
utilized,
and
(
2)
the
emissions
increase
resulting
from
that
portion
of
the
capacity
that
will
be
used
will
not
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
from
the
modification
or
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
the
source.
The
new
requirements
include
a
provision
that
requires
you
to
monitor
the
emissions
from
the
project
for
10
years
following
the
resumption
of
regular
operation
of
the
emissions
units
modified.
The
10­
year
period
reflects
our
determination
that
this
time
frame
best
captures
the
normal
business
cycle
for
industry
in
general.
Thus,
in
situations
where
your
proposed
project
will
in
fact
add
new
capacity
or
PTE
to
an
existing
emissions
unit,
yet
you
determine
that
the
objective
of
the
physical
or
operational
change
is
not
to
use
the
increased
capacity,
your
calculation
of
representative
projected
actual
emissions
may
reflect
this.
However,
you
must
maintain
adequate
information
for
10
years
following
the
completion
of
the
project
to
track
the
actual
annual
emissions
from
the
units
associated
with
the
project.
This
represents
a
special
condition
that
supersedes
the
normal
5­
year
period
for
the
recordkeeping
requirements
being
adopted
today.
During
the
10­
year
period,
you
must
report
to
your
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
any
year
if
the
annual
emissions,
in
tpy,
from
the
project
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount
for
the
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
if
such
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection.

10.
Does
the
Actual­
To­
Projected­
Actual
Applicability
Test
Apply
to
Netting?
We
did
not
specifically
request
comment
on
this
issue
in
the
1996
proposal.
Nonetheless,
we
received
several
comments
that
assert
that
use
of
different
methods
to
compute
an
emissions
increase
and
determine
a
net
emissions
increase
would
result
in
``
absurd
results''
and
require
two
separate
accounting
records.
Other
commenters
oppose
using
the
actual­
tofuture
actual
test
for
netting.
One
commenter
says
that
the
sole
purpose
of
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual
test
was
to
determine
if
an
emissions
increase
will
occur.
One
commenter
says
we
should
go
further
and
revise
the
definition
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80204
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
25
Information
supporting
these
values
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
today's
rulemaking.
``
contemporaneous''
to
limit
it
to
project
activities
(
vs.
plantwide)
and
reduce
credits
for
shutdowns
and
curtailments.
As
stated
previously,
we
did
not
specifically
request
comment
on
this
issue
and
we
are
not
promulgating
amendments
to
the
netting
regulations,
on
this
point,
at
this
time.

11.
Should
We
Impose
an
Enforceable
Projected
Actual
Emissions
Level?
Some
commenters
on
our
1996
proposal
support
the
establishment
of
an
enforceable
limitation
on
the
modified
source's
projected
future
emissions
level.
Other
commenters
support
our
specific
proposal
in
the
1998
NOA
to
use
the
projected
actual
emissions
as
a
temporary
cap
for
the
emissions
units
involved
in
the
project,
that
is,
an
enforceable
10­
year
emissions
level.
On
the
other
hand,
many
other
commenters
oppose
the
concept,
citing
various
reasons
for
their
opposition.
These
included
concerns
that
it
would
become
a
de
facto
baseline
for
any
additional
permitting
and
create
additional
enforcement
liability,
usurp
State
prerogatives,
be
inconsistent
with
the
CAA,
and
require
enforceable
restrictions
for
too
long.
A
few
State
and
local
air
reviewing
agencies
indicate
that
they
do
not
have
the
resources
to
adequately
administer
a
program
that
would
require
permits
to
be
issued
for
every
physical
or
operational
change
at
a
major
stationary
source.
Today's
new
requirements
follow
the
1996
proposal.
You
will
not
be
required
to
make
the
projected
actual
emissions
projection
through
a
permitting
action.
After
considering
the
comments
received,
we
are
concerned
that
such
a
requirement
may
place
an
unmanageable
resource
burden
on
reviewing
authorities.
We
also
believe
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
make
your
future
projections
enforceable
in
order
to
adequately
enforce
the
major
NSR
requirements.
The
Act
provides
ample
authority
to
enforce
the
major
NSR
requirements
if
your
physical
or
operational
change
results
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
your
major
stationary
source.

12.
Why
Are
Modified
Sources
That
Are
Not
Considered
Major
Modifications
Not
Required
To
Submit
Annual
Reports
of
Actual
Emissions
Under
the
New
Requirements?
Several
commenters
support
our
proposal
to
require
sources
to
track
post­
change
emissions
for
a
5­
year
period
so
that
there
is
a
factual
finding
as
to
whether
emissions
from
the
modified
units
actually
increased.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
requirement
to
track
emissions
is
a
needed
safeguard
and
that
it
should
not
be
too
difficult
to
track
various
operating
parameters.
They
add
that
non­
utilities
should
be
able
to
track
emissions
as
well
as
utilities.
Finally,
commenters
who
oppose
the
proposed
10­
year
enforceable
limit
support
retaining
the
5­
year
tracking
period
in
its
place.
Many
other
commenters
object
to
the
burden
that
tracking
would
impose
in
the
absence
of
any
additional
environmental
benefit.
Some
commenters
suggest
ways
to
reduce
the
burden,
such
as
not
requiring
sources
to
report
emissions
unless
there
is
a
problem
or
reducing
the
tracking
period
to
2
or
3
years.
Another
industry
commenter
suggests
that
we
require
an
up­
front
notification
to
the
reviewing
authority
whenever
the
actual­
to­
futureactual
applicability
test
is
used.
We
agree
with
those
commenters
who
recommend
that
you
should
be
required
to
track
emissions
for
a
period
of
time
following
a
modification.
Thus,
we
have
retained
our
proposed
requirement
to
maintain
annual
emissions
information
for
a
period
of
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change.
As
discussed
previously,
we
expanded
this
requirement
to
10
years
for
changes
that
increase
an
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
its
potential
to
emit
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
However,
although
we
proposed
a
requirement
for
annual
emissions
reporting,
we
have
concluded
that
the
combination
of
the
recordkeeping
requirements
of
this
rule,
along
with
a
requirement
to
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
any
annual
emissions
that
exceed
your
baseline
actual
emissions
by
a
significant
amount
for
the
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
differ
from
your
preconstruction
projection,
is
an
equally
effective
way
to
ensure
that
a
reviewing
authority
can
receive
the
information
necessary
to
enforce
the
major
NSR
requirements.
Moreover,
your
reviewing
authority
has
the
authority
to
request
emissions
information
from
you
at
any
time
to
determine
the
status
of
your
post­
change
emissions.
In
response
to
the
concern
that
these
requirements
might
impose
unnecessary
burdens,
we
have
also
included
further
limits.
First,
you
are
only
required
to
keep
records
if
you
elect
to
use
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
to
calculate
your
emissions
increase
from
the
project.
Second,
you
are
only
required
to
keep
the
records
if
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
your
project
might
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
Finally,
you
only
need
keep
those
records
for
projects
that
are
not
major
modifications.
We
also
considered
requiring
you
to
submit
an
up­
front
notification
to
your
reviewing
authority,
but
concluded
that
this
would
result
in
an
unnecessary
paperwork
burden.
(
EUSGUs,
however,
will
be
required
to
submit
a
copy
of
their
projections
to
reviewing
authorities
before
beginning
actual
construction.)
We
anticipate
that
a
large
majority
of
the
projects
that
are
not
major
modifications
may
nonetheless
be
required
to
undergo
a
permit
action
through
States'
minor
NSR
permit
programs.
In
such
cases,
the
minor
NSR
permitting
procedures
could
provide
an
opportunity
to
ensure
that
your
reviewing
authority
agrees
with
your
emission
projections.
Requiring
a
separate
notification
would
not
provide
the
reviewing
authority
with
any
additional
information
in
such
circumstances.
Accordingly,
we
believe
today's
requirements
provide
reviewing
agencies
with
the
ability
to
obtain
all
the
information
necessary
to
ensure
compliance.

13.
Why
Are
We
Promulgating
Different
Reporting
Requirements
for
Existing
Emissions
Units
Than
for
EUSGUs?
Today
we
are
finalizing
slightly
different
requirements
for
EUSGUs
than
other
industries.
In
2000,
boilers
and
turbines
with
greater
than
25
MWe
or
250
mmBTU/
hr
of
generating
capacity
represented
76
percent
of
this
nation's
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOX)
and
85
percent
of
this
nation's
emissions
of
SO2
from
stationary
sources.
25
In
view
of
the
disproportionate
amount
of
emissions
generated
by
EUSGUs
compared
to
other
industry
sectors,
we
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
for
reviewing
authorities
to
have
information
on
construction
and
modification
activities
at
EUSGUs
readily
available.
Accordingly,
we
are
requiring
EUSGUs
to
provide
a
copy
of
their
emissions
projection
to
the
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction
of
a
project.
We
are
also
requiring
them
to
report
their
postchange
annual
emissions
for
every
year
they
are
required
to
generate
them.
This
approach
also
makes
sense
because
it
focuses
the
limited
resources
of
both
sources
and
agencies
on
the
sources
that
matter
most.

III.
CMA
Exhibit
B
In
addition
to
the
proposed
changes
based
on
the
1992
WEPCO
amendments
(
see
section
II
of
this
preamble),
the
1996
proposal
package
included
alternative
regulatory
language
that
would
enable
you
to
determine
whether
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80205
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
your
facility
has
undertaken
a
modification
based
on
the
facility's
prechange
and
post­
change
potential
emissions
instead
of
its
actual
emissions.
This
action
was
part
of
the
settlement
of
a
challenge
to
our
1980
NSR
regulations
by
CMA
and
other
industry
petitioners.
The
exact
language
we
proposed
was
set
forth
in
Exhibit
B
to
the
Settlement
Agreement,
which
is
contained
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.
Under
this
method,
sources
may
calculate
emissions
increases
and
decreases
based
on
the
actual
emissions
method
or
the
unit's
pre­
change
and
post­
change
potential
emissions,
measured
in
terms
of
hourly
emissions
(
that
is,
pounds
of
pollutant
per
hour).
Sources
could
use
this
potential­
topotential
test
for
NSR
applicability,
as
well
as
for
calculating
offsets,
netting
credits,
and
other
ERCs.
We
proposed
to
make
several
changes
to
the
NSR
regulations.
First,
we
proposed
to
add
the
following
exclusion
to
the
definition
of
``
major
modification'':

A
major
modification
shall
be
deemed
not
to
occur
if
one
of
the
following
occurs:
(
a)
there
is
no
significant
net
increase
in
the
source's
PTE
(
as
calculated
in
terms
of
pounds
of
pollutant
emitted
per
hour);
or
(
b)
there
is
no
significant
net
increase
in
the
source's
actual
emissions.

Second,
we
proposed
to
delete
all
references
to
``
actual
emissions''
in
the
definition
of
``
net
emissions
increase''
and
added
language
indicating
that
all
references
to
``
increase
in
emissions''
and
``
decreases
in
emissions''
in
the
definition
of
``
net
emissions
increases''
``
shall
refer
to
changes
in
the
source's
PTE
(
as
calculated
in
terms
of
pounds
of
pollutant
emitted
per
hour)
or
in
its
actual
emissions.''
Third,
we
proposed
to
modify
the
applicability
baseline
by
eliminating
the
reference
to
the
2­
year
baseline
period
and
to
a
method
for
determining
actual
emissions
during
the
representative
period.
Finally,
we
proposed
to
provide
express
authorization
for
sources
to
use
potential
emissions
in
calculating
offsets
and
in
creating
ERCs.
We
also
indicated
in
the
preamble
for
the
1996
proposed
rulemaking
that
if
we
promulgated
the
Exhibit
B
settlement
as
a
final
rule,
the
Exhibit
B
rules
would
need
to
be
updated
to
reflect
other
rule
changes
since
1980,
as
well
as
relevant
provisions
of
the
1990
Amendments.
Before
proposing
the
Exhibit
B
language,
we
did
a
preliminary
analysis
of
the
impact
on
the
NSR
program
of
the
Exhibit
B
changes.
These
changes
would
provide
maximum
flexibility
to
existing
facilities
with
respect
to
determining
if
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
would
result
from
a
physical
or
operational
change.
However,
we
also
expressed
concern
about
the
environmental
consequences
associated
with
the
Exhibit
B
provisions.
For
one,
you
could
modernize
your
aging
facilities
(
restoring
lost
efficiency
and
reliability
while
lowering
operating
costs)
without
undergoing
preconstruction
review,
while
increasing
annual
pollution
levels
as
long
as
hourly
potential
emissions
did
not
change.
Also,
Exhibit
B
would
allow
your
facilities
to
generate
netting
credits
and
ERCs
for
offsets
based
on
potential
hourly
emissions,
even
if
never
actually
emitted.
This
could
sanction
greater
actual
emissions
increases
to
the
environment,
often
from
older
facilities,
without
any
preconstruction
review.
In
addition,
actual
emissions
increases
resulting
from
unreviewed
projects
could
go
largely
undocumented
until
a
PSD
review
is
performed
by
a
new
or
modified
facility
that
ultimately
must
undergo
review.
By
that
time,
however,
a
violation
of
an
increment
could
have
unknowingly
occurred.
We
were
also
concerned
that
Exhibit
B
would
ultimately
stymie
major
new
source
growth
by
allowing
unreviewed
increases
of
emissions
from
modifications
of
existing
sources
to
consume
all
available
increment
in
PSD
areas.
In
our
analysis
supporting
the
1996
proposal,
we
were
unable
to
reach
any
conclusions
as
to
the
magnitude
of
any
environmental
impacts
beyond
noting
that
the
effects
would
vary
from
State
to
State
depending
on
how
much
cumulative
difference
exists
between
the
unused
potential
emissions
and
actual
emissions
in
a
given
inventory
of
sources
and
on
the
extent
to
which
any
unused
potential
emissions
have
been
used
in
attainment
demonstrations.
However,
our
analysis
did
show
that
typical
source
operation
frequently
does
result
in
actual
emissions
that
are
below
allowable
emission
levels.
We
received
many
comments
in
response
to
the
1996
proposal
regarding
CMA
Exhibit
B.
Some
commenters
believe
the
potential­
to­
potential
test
appropriately
focuses
on
the
significant
emissions
changes
that
could
produce
an
adverse
environmental
impact.
Several
other
commenters
believe
that
a
potential­
to­
potential
test
would
be
environmentally
detrimental.
These
commenters
believe
that
CMA
Exhibit
B
represents
a
substantial
weakening
of
the
PSD
program
with
large
increases
in
actual
emissions,
which
in
itself
could
lead
to
a
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.
They
also
express
concerns
regarding
the
creation
of
paper
credits
and
other
impacts
on
the
broader
air
quality
planning
process.
One
commenter
states
that
the
potential­
topotential
test
would
conflict
with
SIPs
that
are
based
on
actual
emissions,
threaten
a
State's
efforts
to
make
reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP)
demonstrations,
and
interfere
with
emission
credits
relied
on
by
SIPs.
These
commenters
also
cite
the
following
concerns.
 
The
potential­
to­
potential
test
would
allow
sources
to
escape
the
major
modification
provisions
and
could
virtually
eliminate
NSR
in
most
modification
cases.
 
Once
a
facility
has
proceeded
without
NSR
based
on
actual
emissions,
it
would
be
difficult
to
take
an
enforcement
action
years
later
that
would
successfully
require
that
facility
to
retrofit
LAER
and
obtain
offsets
retrospectively.
We
agree
that
a
potential­
to­
potential
test
for
major
NSR
applicability
could
lead
to
unreviewed
increases
in
emissions
that
would
be
detrimental
to
air
quality
and
could
make
it
difficult
to
implement
the
statutory
requirements
for
state­
of­
the­
art
controls.
After
consideration,
we
believe
some
of
the
comments
in
support
of
Exhibit
B
have
merit.
As
noted
by
commenters
who
supported
the
CMA
Exhibit
B
proposal,
a
potential­
to­
potential
test
could
simplify
and
improve
the
NSR
process.
According
to
commenters,
the
CMA
Exhibit
B
approach
would
have
the
following
benefits.
 
Limit
the
scope
of
the
program
to
encompass
only
those
significant
physical
changes
that
Congress
intended
to
cover
 
Reduce
unnecessary
NSR
costs
and
delays
and
improve
compliance
and
enforcement
 
Lower
the
cost
of
the
NSR
process
by
reducing
the
complexity
of
the
NSR
applicability
determinations
 
Facilitate
applicability
decisions
at
the
plant
level
The
commenters
also
say
that
the
CMA
Exhibit
B
approach
is
more
equitable
than
the
existing
actual­
topotential
approach,
which
results
in
the
capture
of
a
source's
unused
capacity.
These
commenters
prefer
the
potentialto
potential
test
because
it
would
allow
utilization
increases.
This
provision
is
especially
useful
for
sources
in
cyclical
industries
where
using
existing
capacity
is
critical.
Sources
in
sectors
where
utilization
and
demand
are
closely
related
would
also
benefit.
Our
own
concerns,
coupled
with
the
concerns
expressed
by
some
commenters,
have
caused
us
to
reject
the
use
of
the
Exhibit
B
regulatory
changes
for
general
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
proposed
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80206
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
26
In
our
1996
proposal
we
used
the
term
``
actual
emissions,''
while
today
we
are
using
the
term
``
baseline
actual
emissions.''
This
change
in
terminology
is
consistent
with
the
regulatory
changes
discussed
in
section
II
of
today's
preamble.
Despite
this
change
in
terminology,
there
may
be
places
in
this
section
of
the
preamble
where
we
still
use
the
phrase
``
actual
emissions.''
In
such
cases
we
are
either
discussing
PALs
established
under
the
old
regulatory
provisions,
or
summarizing
and
responding
to
comments
received
on
the
1996
proposal.
27
Under
our
current
NSR
program,
you
can
make
physical
changes
or
changes
in
the
method
of
operation
without
triggering
major
NSR
applicability,
provided
the
individual
changes
do
not
result
in
significant
net
emissions
increases.
We
have
interpreted
this
requirement
to
permit
you
to
make
unrelated
changes
that,
standing
alone,
do
not
result
in
significant
emissions
increases
and
to
allow
such
changes
to
occur
without
considering
whether
other
contemporaneous
emissions
increases
render
the
change
significant.
Over
time
you
could
undertake
numerous
unrelated
projects
without
triggering
major
NSR,
provided
the
individual
projects
did
not
increase
emissions
by
a
significant
amount,
thus
allowing
source­
wide
emissions
to
increase
over
time
without
requiring
any
emissions
controls
for
these
individual
projects.
For
example,
a
large
chemical
plant
that
is
located
in
an
ozone
attainment
area
adds
a
new
product
line
in
2001
and
properly
avoids
PSD
(
including
the
BACT
requirement)
by
limiting
the
VOC
emissions
increase
to
39
tpy.
Later,
in
2003
the
plant
adds
a
different
product
line
and
also
properly
avoids
PSD
by
limiting
VOC
emissions
from
the
new
line
to
39
tpy.
For
this
example,
two
process
lines
at
the
same
plant
with
total
potential
emissions
(
78
tpy)
above
the
40
tpy
VOC
significant
level
under
PSD
were
properly
permitted
over
a
3­
year
period
without
BACT
applying
to
either
new
product
line.
physical
or
operational
change
would
result
in
a
major
modification.
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
we
do
not
believe
that
a
potential­
to­
potential
approach
is
acceptable
for
major
NSR
applicability
as
a
general
matter.
However,
we
agree
with
the
commenters
in
part
 
some
of
the
benefits
of
a
potential­
to­
potential
approach
are
desirable.
We
believe
that
in
more
limited
circumstances
a
``
potential­
to­
potential''­
like
approach
would
be
acceptable.
Therefore,
we
are
promulgating
two
new
applicability
provisions
that
capture
the
benefits
of
a
potential­
to­
potential
approach
but
still
have
the
necessary
safeguards
to
ensure
environmental
protection
 
PALs,
and
the
Clean
Unit
Test.
Today's
rules
provide
for
a
PAL
based
on
plantwide
actual
emissions.
If
you
keep
the
emissions
from
your
facility
below
a
plantwide
actual
emissions
cap,
then
you
need
not
evaluate
whether
each
change
might
be
subject
to
the
major
NSR
permitting
when
you
make
alterations
to
the
facility
or
individual
emissions
units.
The
cumulative
actual
emissions
become
the
de
facto
potential
emissions
for
the
plant,
and
you
may
emit
up
to
the
permitted
level
without
going
through
major
NSR,
even
if
you
are
making
changes
to
the
facility.
The
PAL
allows
you
to
make
changes
quickly
by
allowing
you
to
alter
your
facility
without
first
going
through
major
NSR
review.
It
thus
limits
the
number
and
complexity
of
NSR
applicability
determinations,
and
reduces
unnecessary
costs
and
delays.
It
also
allows
a
plant
manager
to
authorize
changes,
as
long
as
the
emissions
remain
under
the
permitted
level,
without
first
obtaining
reviewing
authority
review.
Furthermore,
it
provides
an
incentive
to
use
state­
of­
theart
controls
and
install
new,
lower
emitting
equipment,
which
will
allow
sources
to
increase
utilization.
In
return
for
the
flexibility
a
PAL
allows,
you
must
monitor
emissions
from
all
of
your
emissions
units
under
the
PAL.
Therefore,
the
PAL
ensures
good
controls
and
protection
of
air
quality.
We
believe
there
are
other
mechanisms
for
establishing
PALs
that
would
achieve
beneficial
results.
For
example,
we
believe
PALs
based
on
allowable
emissions
would
produce
flexibility
and
assure
environmental
protection,
provided
affected
sources
had
adequate
safeguards.
Therefore,
we
intend
in
the
near
future
to
propose
a
rule
that
would
adopt
PALs
based
on
allowable
emissions.
Analogous
to
what
the
PAL
does
for
facilities,
the
Clean
Unit
Test
sets
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determinations
and
identifies
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
for
a
particular
unit.
The
Clean
Unit
Test
recognizes
that
if
you
go
through
major
NSR
review
(
including
air
quality
review)
and
install
BACT
or
LAER
or
comparable
technology,
then
you
may
make
any
subsequent
changes
to
the
Clean
Unit
without
triggering
an
additional
major
NSR
review,
as
long
as
there
is
no
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
or
to
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination.
Therefore,
for
Clean
Units,
given
that
the
permit
is
based
on
a
determination
that
is
protective
of
air
quality,
the
new
test
would
deem
there
is
no
emissions
increase
as
a
result
of
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation.
With
these
provisions,
sources
will
have
improved
certainty
and
flexibility,
reduced
burden,
and
opportunity
for
utilization
increases
without
compromising
air
quality.
Like
the
PAL,
the
Clean
Unit
includes
necessary
safeguards
by
requiring
enforceable
permit
terms
and
conditions
to
ensure
environmental
protection.

IV.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
A.
Introduction
Today
we
are
adopting
a
final
rule
for
a
PAL
option
that
is
based
on
the
baseline
actual
emissions
26
from
major
stationary
sources.
A
PAL
is
an
optional
approach
that
will
provide
you,
the
owners
or
operators
of
major
stationary
sources,
with
the
ability
to
manage
facility­
wide
emissions
without
triggering
major
NSR.
We
believe
the
added
flexibility
of
a
PAL
allows
you
to
respond
rapidly
to
market
changes
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
NSR
program.
The
final
rules
we
are
adopting
today
also
benefit
the
public
and
the
environment.
Reviewing
authorities,
usually
States,
can
only
establish
a
PAL
by
using
a
public
process
that
affords
citizens
the
opportunity
to
comment
upon
the
proposed
PAL.
This
process
is
designed
to
assure
local
communities
that
air
emissions
from
your
major
stationary
source
will
not
exceed
the
facility­
wide
cap
set
forth
in
the
permit
unless
you
first
meet
the
major
NSR
requirements.
We
believe
that
a
PAL
provides
a
more
complete
perspective
to
the
public
because
in
setting
a
PAL,
your
reviewing
authority
accounts
for
all
current
processes
and
all
emissions
units
together
and
reflects
the
long­
term
maximum
amount
of
emissions
it
would
allow
from
your
source.
Moreover,
to
comply
with
a
PAL
you
must
meet
monitoring
requirements
prescribed
in
the
rules
that
ensure
that
both
your
reviewing
authority
and
the
public
have
sufficient
information
from
which
to
determine
plantwide
compliance.
Additionally,
through
the
final
PAL
regulations,
we
are
promoting
voluntary
improvements
in
pollution
controls
by
creating
an
incentive
for
you
to
control
existing
and
new
emissions
units
to
maintain
a
maximum
amount
of
operational
flexibility
under
the
PAL.
Most
importantly,
for
pollutants
subject
to
a
PAL,
we
are
prohibiting
serial,
small,
unrelated
emissions
increases,
27
which
otherwise
can
occur
under
our
existing
regulations.
If
you
choose
to
use
it,
we
believe
you
will
benefit
from
the
PAL
option
because
you
will
have
increased
operational
flexibility
and
regulatory
certainty,
a
simpler
NSR
applicability
approach,
and
fewer
administrative
burdens.
To
comply
with
a
PAL,
you
need
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
emissions
increases
from
your
major
stationary
source,
as
measured
against
the
PAL.
For
you
to
do
that,
there
is
no
need
for
you
to
quantify
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80207
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
28
The
term
``
voluntary''
means
that
you
have
the
option
of
entering
into
a
PAL,
rather
than
voluntary
compliance
with
a
PAL
that
is
in
place.
Once
you
have
a
permit
with
PAL
requirements,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements.
29
Results
of
our
study
are
reported
in
``
Evaluation
of
the
Implementation
Experience
with
Innovative
Air
Permits.''
A
complete
copy
of
this
report
is
located
in
the
docket
for
today's
rulemaking.
contemporaneous
emissions
increases
and
decreases
for
individual
emissions
units.
Through
the
PAL
we
are
allowing
you
to
make
timely
changes
to
react
to
market
demand
and
providing
you
additional
certainty
regarding
the
level
of
emissions
at
which
your
source
will
be
required
to
undergo
major
NSR.
The
benefit
to
you
is
that
you
will
not
have
to
make
numerous
applicability
decisions
using
different
baselines.
Also,
in
some
situations
where
you
would
have
been
unable
to
``
net
out''
a
new
project
in
the
major
NSR
program,
under
a
PAL
you
can
begin
construction
on
your
new
project
without
obtaining
a
major
NSR
permit,
which
can
take
from
a
few
months
up
to
2
years.
In
addition,
because
you
may
make
emissions
reductions
at
emissions
units
under
the
PAL
to
create
room
for
growth
at
other
units,
through
the
PAL
we
are
providing
a
strong
incentive
for
you
to
employ
innovative
control
technologies
and
pollution
prevention
measures,
to
create
voluntary
emissions
reductions
to
facilitate
economic
expansion.

B.
Relevant
Background
1.
What
Is
a
PAL
and
How
Does
a
PAL
Compare
to
Other
Major
NSR
Requirements
and
Netting?
The
concept
of
a
PAL
is
simple.
Under
the
Act,
you
are
not
subject
to
major
NSR
unless
you
make
a
``
modification,''
which
by
definition
cannot
occur
without
an
emissions
increase.
CAA
section
111(
a)(
4).
A
PAL
is
a
source­
wide
cap
on
emissions
and
is
one
way
of
making
sure
that
emissions
increases
from
your
major
stationary
source
do
not
occur.
The
existing
regulations
require
``
major
modifications''
to
undergo
NSR,
and
the
existence
of
a
``
significant
net
emissions
increase''
at
the
facility
is
a
necessary
prerequisite
to
a
``
major
modification.''
See,
for
example,
§
§
52.21(
b)(
2)
&
(
3);
see
also
Chevron
v.
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
467
U.
S.
837,
863
 
64
(
1984).
Under
our
current
system,
we
determine
whether
a
``
significant
net
emissions
increase''
occurs
at
your
major
stationary
source
by
focusing
initially
on
the
change
to
the
emissions
unit(
s)
and
then
broadening
the
analysis
to
include
other
changes
within
the
source.
In
order
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
``
significant
net
emissions
increase''
under
major
NSR
as
revised
today,
you
must
establish
a
pre­
change
baseline
for
each
change,
project
the
actual
level
of
emissions
after
the
change,
calculate
the
creditable
emissions
increases
and
decreases
that
have
occurred
that
are
contemporaneous
with
the
change,
and
determine
whether
the
change
would
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
We
refer
to
this
applicability
process
as
``
netting''
under
the
major
NSR
regulations.
Both
you
and
reviewing
authorities
have
maintained
that
the
netting
rules
are
unnecessarily
complex
and
burdensome,
and
have
urged
us
to
craft
rules
that
link
NSR
applicability
to
compliance
with
a
predictable
source­
wide
emissions
cap.
We
are
responding
to
that
request
with
the
PAL
concept.
A
PAL
is
a
voluntary,
28
source­
specific,
straightforward,
flexible
approach
to
account
for
changes,
including
alterations
to
existing
emissions
units
and
the
addition
of
new
emissions
units,
at
your
existing
major
stationary
sources.
Complying
with
the
PAL
ensures
that
there
are
no
emissions
increases
that
trigger
major
NSR.
If
your
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
remain
below
the
PAL,
and
you
comply
with
all
other
PAL
requirements,
whatever
changes
occur
at
your
plant
will
not
be
subject
to
major
NSR
for
the
PAL
pollutant.
Our
July
23,
1996
proposal
contains
a
thorough
discussion
of
the
proposed
PAL
concept
and
the
background
information
used
to
develop
the
proposal.

2.
Why
Does
EPA
Believe
That
PALs
Will
Benefit
the
Environment?
Over
the
past
several
years,
we
have
allowed
use
of
major
stationary
sourcewide
emissions
caps
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
major
NSR
in
a
select
number
of
pilot
projects.
We
recently
reviewed
six
of
these
innovative
air
permitting
efforts
and
found
substantial
benefits
associated
with
the
implementation
of
permits
containing
emissions
caps
(
among
other
types
of
permit
terms
offering
greater
flexibility
than
major
NSR
permitting
programs).
29
Specifically,
we
reviewed
on­
site
records
to
track
utilization
of
these
flexible
permit
provisions,
to
assess
how
well
the
permits
are
working
and
any
emissions
reductions
achieved,
and
to
determine
if
there
were
any
economic
benefits
of
the
permits.
Overall,
we
found
that
significant
environmental
benefits
occurred
for
each
of
the
permits
reviewed.
In
particular,
the
six
flexible
permits
established
emissions
cap­
based
frameworks
that
encouraged
emissions
reductions
and
pollution
prevention,
even
though
such
environmental
improvements
were
not
an
explicit
requirement
of
the
permits.
We
found
that
in
a
cap­
based
program,
sources
strive
to
create
enough
headroom
for
future
expansions
by
voluntarily
controlling
emissions.
For
instance,
one
company
lowered
its
actual
VOC
emissions
over
threefold
in
becoming
a
synthetic
minor
source
(
that
is,
190
tpy
to
56
tpy).
Other
companies
lowered
their
actual
VOC
emissions
by
as
much
as
3600
tpy
by
increasing
capture,
by
using
voluntary
pollution
prevention
and
other
voluntary
emissions
control
measures,
and
by
reducing
production
rates.
Participants
reported
that
having
the
ability
to
make
rapid,
iterative
changes
to
optimize
process
performance
in
ways
that
minimize
emissions,
and
that
reduce
the
administrative
``
friction''
(
time
delays
and
uncertainty)
associated
with
making
operational
and
equipment
changes,
encourages
facilities
to
make
changes
that
improve
yields
and
reduce
per­
unit
emissions.
It
is
also
critical
for
responding
to
product
development
needs
and
market
demand,
and
for
maintaining
overall
competitiveness.
Reviewing
authorities
consistently
reported
that
the
permits
worked
well
and
proved
beneficial,
and
that
there
was
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
caseby
case
permitting
actions
they
needed
to
undertake.
Specifically,
we
found
that
flexible
permit
provisions
(
for
example,
emissions
caps)
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
by
using
a
mixture
of
mass
balance­
based
equations,
CEMS,
and
parameter
monitoring.
No
emissions
cap
exceedances
or
violations
of
the
monitoring
provisions
were
experienced
by
any
of
the
pilot
sources.
In
addition,
the
monitoring
and
reporting
approaches
worked
well
and
were
generally
of
higher
quality
and
of
more
extensive
scope
than
those
directly
required
by
individual
applicable
requirements.
Based
on
the
results
of
these
pilot
projects,
we
believe
that
PALs
will
over
time
tend
to
shift
growth
in
emissions
to
cleaner
units,
because
the
growth
will
have
to
be
accommodated
under
the
PAL
cap.
Specifically,
we
expect
that
PALs
will
encourage
you
to
undertake
such
projects
as:
replacing
outdated,
dirty
emissions
units
with
new,
more
efficient
models;
installing
voluntary
emissions
controls;
and
researching
and
implementing
improvements
in
process
efficiency
and
use
of
pollution
prevention
technologies,
so
that
you
can
maintain
maximum
operational
flexibility.
We
also
expect
that
you
and
the
reviewing
authority
will
need
to
devote
substantially
fewer
resources
to
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80208
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
30
The
key
determination
to
be
made
is
whether
an
emissions
unit
is
``
permanently
shut
down.''
This
issue
is
discussed
in
the
Administrator's
response
to
a
petition
objecting
to
an
operating
permit
for
a
facility
in
Monroe,
Louisiana.
See
Monroe
Electric
Generating
Plant,
Petition
No.
6
 
99
 
2
(
Adm'r
1999).
A
copy
of
this
decision
is
in
the
docket.
In
general,
we
explained
in
our
``
reactivation
policy''
that
whether
or
not
a
discussing
and
reviewing
whether
major
NSR
applies
to
individual
changes.
Thus,
overall,
we
believe
that
PALs
will
prove
to
be
as
beneficial
to
the
environment
as
they
are
to
you
and
your
reviewing
authority.

3.
What
Did
We
Propose
for
PALs?
On
July
23,
1996,
we
proposed
to
amend
the
NSR
regulations
to
specifically
authorize
PALs
and
to
clarify
the
methodology
under
which
you
can
obtain
a
PAL.
Under
the
proposal,
your
reviewing
authority
could
have
elected
to
include
provisions
in
its
SIP
to
allow
you
to
apply
for
a
permit
that
based
your
source's
major
NSR
applicability
on
compliance
with
a
pollutant­
specific,
source­
wide
emissions
cap.
We
proposed
that
a
facility's
PAL
would
generally
be
based
on
source­
wide
``
actual
emissions''
plus
an
operating
margin
of
emissions
less
than
a
significant
emissions
increase.
We
also
sought
comment
on
the
circumstances
under
which
it
would
be
appropriate
to
use
something
other
than
actual
(
for
example,
``
allowable'')
emissions
to
set
the
PAL.
On
July
24,
1998,
we
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
seeking
further
comment
on
how
the
PAL
regulations
could
be
reconciled
with
several
environmental
and
legal
concerns.
The
notice
discussed
how
the
PAL
alternative
fits
within
the
Act's
requirements
for
determining
if
changes
at
existing
sources
are
subject
to
major
NSR.
Today
we
are
adopting
final
regulations
that
address
the
issues
and
comments
raised
in
the
1998
notice
and
the
1996
proposal.

C.
Final
Regulations
for
Actuals
PALs
Today's
action
establishes
final
regulatory
provisions
for
actuals
PALs.
We
are
placing
these
requirements
in
the
major
NSR
rules
for
nonattainment
areas
at
§
51.165(
f),
and
in
the
PSD
regulations
(
applicable
in
attainment
and
unclassifiable
areas)
at
§
§
51.166(
w)
and
52.21(
aa).
The
PAL
option
adopted
today
provides
you
with
a
voluntary
alternative
for
determining
NSR
applicability.
Actuals
PALs
are
rolling
12­
month
emissions
caps
(
that
is,
tpy
limits)
that
include
all
conditions
necessary
to
make
the
limitation
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
Through
the
regulations,
we
are
allowing
PALs
on
a
pollutant­
specific
basis
and
are
also
allowing
you
to
opt
for
actuals
PALs
for
more
than
one
pollutant
at
your
existing
major
stationary
sources.
You
must
continue
to
apply
the
major
NSR
applicability
provisions
to
air
pollutants
at
your
source
for
which
you
have
no
PAL.
This
section
sets
forth
the
specific
requirements
for
actuals
PALs.
The
section
addresses
the
following
items:
(
1)
The
process
used
to
establish
a
PAL
and
the
public
participation
requirements;
(
2)
how
the
PAL
level
is
determined;
(
3)
how
long
a
PAL
is
effective
and
what
happens
when
a
PAL
expires;
(
4)
can
a
PAL
be
terminated
before
the
end
of
its
effective
period;
(
5)
how
a
PAL
is
renewed;
(
6)
how
a
PAL
can
be
increased
during
the
effective
period;
(
7)
circumstances
that
would
cause
your
PAL
to
be
adjusted
during
the
PAL
effective
period;
(
8)
whether
a
PAL
can
eliminate
enforceable
emission
limitations
previously
taken
to
avoid
major
NSR;
(
9)
the
compliance
requirements
and
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
reporting,
and
testing
(
MRRT)
requirements
that
the
permit
must
contain
for
emissions
units
under
your
PAL;
(
10)
the
process
for
incorporating
conditions
of
the
PAL
into
your
title
V
operating
permit;
and
(
11)
an
example
of
how
an
actuals
PAL
would
work
under
the
regulations
finalized
today.

1.
What
Are
the
Permit
Application
Requirements,
What
Is
the
Process
Used
To
Establish
a
PAL,
and
What
Are
the
Public
Participation
Requirements?
Under
today's
final
rules,
you
must
submit
a
complete
application
to
your
reviewing
authority
requesting
a
PAL.
The
application,
at
a
minimum,
must
include
a
list
of
all
emissions
units,
their
size
(
major,
significant,
or
small);
the
Federal
and
State
applicable
requirements,
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
that
each
emissions
unit
is
subject
to;
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
at
the
source
(
with
supporting
documentation).
The
calculation
of
baseline
actual
emissions
must
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
they
are
quantifiable.
The
reviewing
authority
must
establish
a
PAL
in
a
federally
enforceable
permit
(
for
example,
a
``
minor''
NSR
construction
permit,
a
major
NSR
permit,
or
a
SIP­
approved
operating
permit
program).
To
comply
with
our
final
regulations,
the
reviewing
authority
must
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
participation
when
issuing
a
PAL
permit.
This
process
must
be
consistent
with
the
requirements
at
§
51.161
and
include
a
minimum
of
a
30­
day
period
for
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
public
comment
on
the
proposed
permit.
Where
the
PAL
is
established
in
a
major
NSR
permit,
major
NSR
public
participation
procedures
apply.
When
establishing
a
PAL,
you
must
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
the
reviewing
authority's
minor
NSR
program,
including
modeling
to
ensure
the
protection
of
the
ambient
air
quality.
Additionally,
you
must
meet
all
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
requirements.
When
adding
new
emissions
units
under
a
PAL,
you
must
comply
with
the
reviewing
authority's
minor
NSR
permit
requirements
for
public
notice,
review,
and
comment.
In
contrast,
when
adding
new
emissions
units
that
will
require
an
increase
in
a
PAL,
you
must
comply
with
the
reviewing
authority's
major
NSR
permit
requirements
for
public
notice,
review,
and
comment.

2.
How
Is
the
Level
of
the
PAL
Determined?

We
calculate
the
PAL
level
for
a
specific
pollutant
by
summing
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
each
emissions
unit
at
your
existing
major
stationary
source,
and
then
adding
an
amount
equal
to
the
applicable
significant
level
for
the
PAL
pollutant
under
§
52.21(
b)(
23)
or
under
the
CAA,
whichever
is
lower.
You
must
first
identify
all
your
existing
emissions
units
(
greater
than
2
years
of
operating
history)
and
new
emissions
units
(
less
than
2
years
of
operating
history
since
construction).
When
establishing
the
actuals
PAL
level,
you
must
calculate
the
baseline
actual
emissions
from
existing
emissions
units
that
existed
during
the
24­
month
period
as
described
below.
The
baseline
actual
emissions
will
equal
the
average
rate,
in
tpy,
at
which
your
emissions
units
emitted
the
PAL
pollutant
during
a
consecutive
24­
month
period,
within
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
the
application
for
a
PAL.
Consistent
with
today's
final
rules,
you
will
have
broad
discretion
to
select
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
in
the
last
10
years
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions.
Only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
may
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
such
existing
emissions
units.
For
any
emissions
unit
(
currently
classified
as
existing
or
new)
that
is
constructed
after
the
24­
month
period,
emissions
equal
to
its
PTE
must
be
added
to
the
PAL
level.
Additionally,
for
any
emissions
unit
that
is
permanently
shut
down
or
dismantled
30
since
the
24­
month
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80209
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
shutdown
should
be
treated
as
permanent
depends
on
the
intention
of
the
owner
or
operator
at
the
time
of
shutdown
based
on
all
facts
and
circumstances.
Shutdowns
of
more
than
2
years,
or
that
have
resulted
in
the
removal
of
the
source
from
the
State's
emissions
inventory,
are
presumed
to
be
permanent.
In
such
cases
it
is
up
to
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
rebut
the
presumption.
period,
its
emissions
must
be
subtracted
from
the
PAL
level.
Different
rules
apply
for
determining
baseline
actual
emissions
for
EUSGUs.
You
should
refer
to
the
definition
of
baseline
actual
emissions
to
determine
the
specific
method
for
calculating
baseline
actual
emissions
for
your
emissions
units.
Consistent
with
today's
final
rules
for
determining
baseline
actual
emissions,
your
baseline
actual
emissions
for
an
emissions
unit
cannot
exceed
the
emission
limitation
allowed
by
your
permit
or
newly
applicable
State
or
Federal
rules
(
RACT,
NSPS,
etc.)
in
effect
at
the
time
the
reviewing
authority
sets
the
PAL.
This
means
that
for
the
purpose
of
setting
the
PAL,
your
baseline
actual
emissions
for
an
emissions
unit
will
include
an
adjustment
downward
to
reflect
currently
applicable
requirements.
Additionally,
your
reviewing
authority
shall
specify
a
reduced
PAL
level(
s)
(
in
tpy)
in
the
PAL
permit
to
become
effective
on
the
future
compliance
date(
s)
of
any
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirement(
s)
that
the
reviewing
authority
is
aware
of
prior
to
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
See
section
II
of
today's
preamble
for
additional
information
on
determining
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
your
emissions
units.

3.
How
Long
Can
a
PAL
Be
Effective
and
What
Happens
When
a
PAL
Expires?
Through
the
final
rules,
we
are
requiring
that
the
term
of
an
actual
PAL
be
10
years.
At
least
6
months
prior
to,
but
not
earlier
than
18
months
from,
the
expiration
date
of
your
PAL,
you
must
submit
a
complete
application
either
to
request
renewal
or
expiration
of
the
PAL.
If
you
meet
this
application
deadline
for
a
permit
renewal,
the
existing
PAL
will
continue
as
an
enforceable
requirement
until
the
reviewing
authority
renews
your
PAL,
even
if
the
reviewing
authority
fails
to
issue
a
PAL
renewal
within
the
specified
period
of
time.
As
part
of
an
application
to
request
expiration
of
the
PAL,
you
must
submit
a
proposed
approach
for
allocating
the
PAL
among
your
existing
emissions
units.
The
reviewing
authority
will
retain
the
ultimate
discretion
to
decide
whether
and
how
the
allowable
emission
limitations
will
be
allocated,
including
whether
to
establish
limits
on
individual
emissions
units
or
groups
of
emissions
units.
As
under
the
PAL,
your
emissions
units
must
comply
with
their
allowable
emission
limitations
on
a
12­
month
rolling
basis.
However,
the
reviewing
authority
retains
the
discretion
to
accept
monitoring
systems
other
than
CEMS,
CPMS,
PEMS,
etc.,
from
you
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
these
unit­
specific
limits.
Until
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
revised
permit
with
allowable
emission
limitations
covering
each
of
your
emissions
units,
your
source
must
comply
with
a
source­
wide
multi­
unit
emissions
cap
equivalent
to
the
PAL
level.
After
a
PAL
expires,
physical
or
operational
changes
will
no
longer
be
evaluated
under
the
PAL
applicability
provisions.
Notwithstanding
the
expiration
of
the
PAL,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
any
State
or
Federal
applicable
requirements
for
a
specific
emissions
unit.
(
BACT,
RACT,
NSPS,
etc.)
When
the
PAL
expires,
none
of
the
limits
established
pursuant
to
§
§
51.166(
r)(
2),
51.165(
a)(
5)(
ii),
or
52.21(
r)(
4),
which
the
PAL
originally
eliminated,
would
return
under
today's
final
rules.

4.
Can
a
PAL
Be
Terminated
Before
the
End
of
Its
Effective
Period?
Today's
final
rules
do
not
contain
specific
provisions
related
to
the
issue
of
terminating
a
PAL.
Decisions
about
whether
a
PAL
can
or
should
be
terminated
will
be
handled
between
you
and
your
reviewing
authority
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
permitting
program.

5.
How
Is
a
PAL
Renewed?
As
previously
discussed,
you
must
submit
a
complete
application
to
renew
a
PAL
at
least
6
months
prior
to,
but
not
earlier
than
18
months
from,
the
expiration
date
of
your
PAL.
If
you
submit
a
complete
application
to
renew
the
PAL
by
this
deadline,
the
existing
PAL
will
continue
as
an
enforceable
requirement
until
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
permit
with
the
renewed
PAL.
As
part
of
your
renewal
application,
you
must
recalculate
and
propose
your
maximum
PAL
level,
taking
into
account
newly
applicable
requirements
and
the
factors
described
below.
Your
reviewing
authority
must
review
the
complete
application
and
issue
a
proposed
permit
for
public
comment
consistent
with
the
permitting
procedures
for
issuing
the
initial
PAL.
As
part
of
this
public
process,
the
reviewing
authority
must
provide
a
written
rationale
for
its
proposed
PAL
level.
If
your
source's
PTE
has
declined
below
the
PAL
level,
the
reviewing
authority
must
adjust
the
PAL
downward
so
that
it
does
not
exceed
your
source's
PTE.
In
addition,
the
reviewing
authority
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
without
consideration
of
other
factors,
if
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
emissions
units
at
your
source
(
as
calculated
using
the
definition
of
``
baseline
actual
emissions''
at
§
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
xii)(
B),
51.166(
b)(
21),
and
52.21(
b)(
21)
as
amended
by
today's
final
rules)
plus
an
amount
equal
to
the
significant
level
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level
(
unless
greater
than
the
current
PTE
of
the
major
stationary
source).
However,
if
the
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
an
amount
equal
to
the
significant
level
is
less
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
the
reviewing
authority
may
set
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
it
determines
to
be
more
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
or
that
it
determines
to
be
appropriate
considering
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
desire
to
reward
or
encourage
the
source's
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
cost
effective
emissions
control
alternatives,
or
other
factors
as
specifically
identified
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
its
written
rationale.
For
instance,
a
reviewing
authority
may
determine
that
PAL
levels
are
inconsistent
with
the
levels
necessary
to
achieve
the
NAAQS,
or
a
State
may
determine
that
PAL
levels
need
to
be
reduced
to
provide
room
for
new
economic
growth
in
the
area.
In
some
circumstances,
such
as
in
the
example
cited
below,
the
reviewing
authority
may
exercise
its
discretion
in
deciding
that
an
adjustment
is
not
warranted.
We
believe
that
such
discretion
is
appropriate,
based
in
part
on
our
experience
with
the
pilot
projects
previously
mentioned.
In
one
instance,
a
participant
voluntarily
agreed
to
reduce
its
actual
emissions
by
54
percent
in
exchange
for
obtaining
a
source­
wide
emissions
cap.
After
agreeing
to
this
emissions
reduction,
the
participant
further
reduced
emissions
by
increasing
capture
efficiency
and
incorporating
pollution
prevention
strategies
into
its
operations.
Unexpectedly,
the
participant
also
suffered
an
unusual
economic
downturn
that
caused
a
decrease
in
the
rate
of
production
and
a
corresponding
decrease
in
actual
emissions.
At
the
time
of
renewal
of
the
source­
wide
emissions
cap,
the
participant's
actual
emissions
were
10
percent
of
its
actual
emissions
before
committing
to
the
emissions
cap.
The
participant
chose
not
to
renew
its
emissions
caps,
because
renewal
required
an
automatic
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80210
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
adjustment
to
its
current
actual
emissions
level.
Clearly,
such
a
result
contravenes
the
mutual
benefits
that
operating
under
a
PAL
provides,
and
discourages
you
from
undertaking
voluntary
reductions.
If
your
source
would
ordinarily
be
subject
to
a
downward
adjustment,
but
you
believe
such
an
adjustment
is
not
appropriate,
you
may
propose
another
level.
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
the
level
that
you
propose
if
it
determines,
in
writing,
that
the
level
is
reasonably
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
Similarly,
the
reviewing
authority
may
determine
that
a
lower
level
best
represents
the
baseline
actual
emissions
from
the
source.
Consistent
with
the
effective
period
for
the
initial
PAL,
all
renewed
PALs
will
have
a
10­
year
effective
period.

6.
How
Can
a
PAL
Be
Increased
During
the
Effective
Period?

The
reviewing
authority
may
allow
you
to
increase
a
PAL
during
the
effective
period
if
you
are
adding
new
emissions
units
or
changing
existing
emissions
units
in
a
way
that
would
cause
you
to
exceed
your
PAL.
However,
today's
rule
only
authorizes
your
reviewing
authority
to
allow
such
an
increase
if
you
would
not
be
able
to
maintain
emissions
below
the
PAL
level
even
if
you
assumed
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls
on
all
existing
major
and
significant
units
(
emissions
units
that
have
a
PTE
greater
than
a
significant
amount
(
as
defined
by
§
52.21(
b)(
23)
or
the
CAA,
whichever
is
lower).
Such
units
must
be
adjusted
for
current
BACT
levels
of
control
unless
they
are
currently
subject
to
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
has
been
determined
within
the
preceding
10
years,
in
which
case
the
assumed
control
level
shall
be
equal
to
the
emissions
unit's
existing
BACT
or
LAER
control
level.
The
PAL
permit
must
require
that
the
increased
PAL
level
will
be
effective
on
the
day
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
Your
proposed
new
emissions
unit(
s)
and
your
existing
emissions
units
undergoing
a
change
must
go
through
major
NSR
permitting,
regardless
of
the
magnitude
of
the
proposed
emissions
increase
that
would
result
(
for
example,
no
significant
level
applies).
This
is
because
the
significant
level
for
the
pollutant
is
incorporated
into
the
PAL.
These
emissions
units
must
comply
with
any
emissions
requirements
resulting
from
the
major
NSR
process
(
for
example,
LAER),
even
though
they
have
also
become
subject
to
the
PAL
program
or
remain
subject
to
the
PAL.
To
request
a
PAL
increase,
you
must
submit
a
complete
major
NSR
permit
application.
As
part
of
this
application,
you
must
demonstrate
that
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
your
small
emissions
units,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
from
your
significant
and
major
emissions
units
(
adjusted
for
a
current
BACT
level
of
control
unless
the
emissions
units
are
currently
subject
to
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
has
been
determined
within
the
preceding
10
years,
in
which
case
the
assumed
control
level
shall
be
equal
to
the
emissions
unit's
existing
BACT
or
LAER
control
level),
plus
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
of
the
new
or
modified
existing
emissions
unit(
s),
exceeds
the
PAL.
After
the
reviewing
authority
has
completed
the
major
NSR
process,
and
thereby
determined
the
allowable
emissions
for
the
new
or
modified
emissions
unit(
s),
the
reviewing
authority
will
calculate
the
new
PAL
as
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
of
the
new
or
modified
emissions
unit(
s),
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
your
small
emissions
units,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
from
significant
and
major
emissions
units
adjusted
for
the
appropriate
BACT
level
of
control
as
described
above.
Your
reviewing
authority
must
modify
the
PAL
permit
to
reflect
the
increased
PAL
level
pursuant
to
the
public
notice
requirements
of
§
§
51.166(
w)(
5),
51.165(
f)(
5),
or
52.21(
aa)(
5)
of
today's
final
rule.

7.
Are
There
Any
Circumstances
That
Would
Cause
Your
PAL
To
Be
Adjusted
During
the
PAL
Effective
Period?
During
the
term
of
the
PAL,
at
PAL
renewal
or
at
title
V
permit
renewal,
your
reviewing
authority
may
reopen
your
PAL
permit
and
adjust
the
PAL
level,
either
upward
or
downward,
as
needed
by
the
reviewing
authority.
While
certain
activities
require
mandatory
reopening,
for
others
the
reviewing
authority
may
reopen
at
its
discretion.
The
reviewing
authority
must
reopen
the
permit
for
the
following
reasons:
(
1)
To
correct
typographical/
calculation
errors
made
in
setting
the
PAL
or
to
reflect
a
more
accurate
determination
of
emissions
used
to
establish
the
PAL;
(
2)
to
reduce
the
PAL
if
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
creates
creditable
emissions
reductions
for
use
as
offsets;
or
(
3)
to
revise
a
PAL
to
reflect
an
increase
in
the
PAL.
The
reviewing
authority
may
reopen
the
permit
to:
(
1)
Reduce
the
PAL
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
requirements
(
for
example,
NSPS)
with
compliance
dates
after
the
PAL
effective
date;
(
2)
reduce
the
PAL
consistent
with
any
other
requirement
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
and
that
the
State
may
impose
on
the
major
stationary
source
under
the
SIP;
or
(
3)
reduce
the
PAL
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
a
reduction
is
necessary
to
avoid
causing
or
contributing
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
to
an
adverse
impact
on
an
AQRV
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
While
the
final
rule
does
not
require
your
reviewing
authority
to
immediately
reopen
the
PAL
permit
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirements
(
for
example,
NSPS,
RACT)
that
become
effective
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
it
does
require
the
PAL
to
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
your
title
V
permit
renewal
or
PAL
permit
renewal,
whichever
occurs
first.
Notwithstanding
this
requirement,
today's
final
rule
provides
your
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
to
reduce
the
PAL
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirements
before
the
time
we
otherwise
require.

8.
Can
a
PAL
Eliminate
Existing
Emission
Limitations?
An
actuals
PAL
may
eliminate
enforceable
permit
limits
you
may
have
previously
taken
to
avoid
the
applicability
of
major
NSR
to
new
or
modified
emissions
units.
Under
the
major
NSR
regulations
at
§
§
52.21(
r)(
4),
51.166(
r)(
2),
and
51.165(
a)(
5)(
ii),
if
you
relax
these
limits,
the
units
become
subject
to
major
NSR
as
if
construction
had
not
yet
commenced
on
the
source
or
modification.
Should
you
request
a
PAL,
today's
revised
regulations
allow
the
PAL
to
eliminate
annual
emissions
or
operational
limits
that
you
previously
took
at
your
stationary
source
to
avoid
major
NSR
for
the
PAL
pollutant.
This
means
that
you
may
relax
or
remove
these
limits
without
triggering
major
NSR
when
the
PAL
becomes
effective.
Before
removing
the
limits,
your
reviewing
authority
should
make
sure
that
you
are
meeting
all
other
regulatory
requirements
and
that
the
removal
of
the
limits
does
not
adversely
impact
the
NAAQS
or
PSD
increments.
We
are
not
taking
a
position
on
whether
compliance
with
requirements
contained
in
a
PAL
permit
could
serve
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
certain
pre­
existing
requirements
on
individual
units.
The
reviewing
authority
may
assess
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
whether
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80211
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
any
streamlining
would
be
appropriate
in
the
title
V
permit
consistent
with
part
70
procedures
and
our
existing
policies
and
guidance
on
permit
streamlining.

9.
What
MRRT
(
Collectively
Referred
to
as
``
Monitoring'')
Requirements
Must
the
Permit
Contain
for
Emissions
Units
Under
Your
PAL?

Each
permit
must
contain
enforceable
requirements
that
accurately
determine
plantwide
emissions.
A
PAL
monitoring
system
must
be
comprised
of
one
or
more
of
the
four
general
approaches
that
meet
the
minimum
requirements
discussed
below,
and
such
monitoring
systems
must
be
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
You
may
also
employ
an
alternative
approach
if
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
Use
of
monitoring
systems
that
do
not
meet
the
minimum
requirements
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority
renders
the
PAL
invalid.
Any
monitoring
system
authorized
for
use
in
the
PAL
permit
must
be
based
on
sound
science
and
must
conform
to
generally
acceptable
scientific
procedures
for
data
quality
and
manipulation.
In
return
for
the
increased
operational
flexibility
of
a
PAL,
your
permit
must
include
sufficient
data
collection
requirements
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
PAL
at
all
times.
In
addition,
the
PAL
permit
must
contain
enforceable
provisions
that
ensure
that
the
monitoring
data
meet
the
minimum
legal
requirements
for
admissibility
in
a
judicial
proceeding
to
enforce
the
PAL
permit.
This
section
addresses
a
number
of
issues
associated
with
the
practical
enforceability
of
PALs
and
describes
concepts
that
you
and
reviewing
authorities
must
follow
when
establishing
your
PAL.
The
issues
addressed
include
the
following.
 
How
do
monitoring
requirements
for
emissions
units
under
a
PAL
differ
from
those
for
emissions
units
that
are
not
under
a
PAL?
 
What
are
the
testing
requirements
for
your
emissions
units
under
a
PAL?
 
What
monitoring
systems
are
appropriate
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
your
PAL?
 
What
information
about
your
proposed
data
collection
systems
must
be
submitted
to
your
reviewing
authority
for
approval?
 
What
recordkeeping
requirements
must
your
permit
contain
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
your
PAL?
 
What
reporting
requirements
for
your
PAL
must
your
permit
contain?
a.
How
Do
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Emissions
Units
Under
a
PAL
Differ
From
Those
for
Emissions
Units
That
Are
Not
Under
a
PAL?

Typically,
when
an
emission
limitation
applies
on
a
unit­
by­
unit
basis,
the
monitoring
must
be
sufficient
to
provide
data
that
demonstrate
that
emissions
do
not
exceed
the
applicable
limit
for
a
particular
unit.
Under
this
approach,
if
an
emissions
unit
has
to
meet
an
NSPS
VOC
limit
of
9
ppm,
the
monitoring
need
only
demonstrate
that
VOC
emissions
are
no
higher
than
9
ppm
but
not
measure
VOC
emissions
at
any
precise
level
below
9
ppm
(
for
example,
7
ppm,
8
ppm).
In
contrast,
under
a
VOC
emissions
actual
PAL,
the
VOC
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
must
be
quantified
(
in
tpy),
generally
each
month
as
the
sum
of
the
previous
12
months
of
VOC
emissions.
Thus,
it
becomes
necessary
to
require
monitoring
that
quantifies
the
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
to
ensure
that
the
annual
limit
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
As
a
result,
the
monitoring
requirements
for
emissions
units
under
a
PAL
may
be
more
stringent
than
for
those
emissions
units
not
under
a
PAL.
In
many
instances,
your
emissions
units
may
have
monitoring
suitable
for
determining
compliance
with
a
unitspecific
emission
limitation
on
a
periodic
basis,
in
accordance
with
title
V
requirements,
but
that
monitoring
frequency
of
data
collection
may
not
be
appropriate
for
ongoing
emissions
quantification
for
a
12­
month
rolling
total.
Thus,
even
if
your
emissions
unit's
monitoring
meets
the
title
V
requirements
in
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
or
70.6(
c)(
1),
you
must
upgrade
that
monitoring
if
you
request
a
PAL
and
the
existing
monitoring
does
not
meet
the
minimum
requirements
of
the
PAL
regulations.
All
units
operating
under
a
PAL
must
have
sufficient
monitoring
to
accurately
determine
plantwide
emissions
for
a
12­
month
rolling
total.
For
example,
a
source
owner
or
operator
with
five
units
must
be
able,
at
any
time,
to
quantify
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
past
12
months
for
each
of
the
five
units.
That
source
should,
in
advance,
outline
how
it
plans
to
monitor
each
of
the
units
in
order
to
quantify
the
emissions.
If
one
of
the
five
units
cannot
accommodate
one
of
the
monitoring
options
provided
in
the
rule
in
order
to
quantify
the
emissions,
then
the
source
owner
or
operator
would
be
incapable
of
demonstrating
ongoing
compliance
with
the
source's
PAL.
b.
What
Are
the
Testing
Requirements
for
Your
Emissions
Units
Under
a
PAL?

As
part
of
your
PAL
application
and
as
directed
by
your
reviewing
authority,
you
must
use
current
emissions
or
other
current
direct
measurement
data
to
demonstrate
that
your
monitoring
systems
accurately
determine
emissions
from
each
unit
subject
to
a
PAL.
You
will
need
to
collect
such
data
from
all
units
subject
to
the
PAL,
including
those
that
are
unregulated
at
the
present
time.
If
you
do
not
have
current
emissions
data,
or
if
your
emissions
unit's
operation
and
equipment
have
changed
since
collection
of
that
data,
you
will
need
to
obtain
current,
accurate
data,
typically
by
conducting
performance
tests
or
other
direct
measurements
before
submission
of
your
complete
permit
application
to
obtain
a
PAL.
In
addition,
you
will
need
to
revalidate
the
data
and
any
correlation
to
demonstrate
that
your
monitoring
systems
continue
to
accurately
determine
emissions
from
each
unit
subject
to
a
PAL.
This
re­
validation
must
occur
at
least
once
every
5
years
for
the
life
of
the
PAL.
Data
must
be
revalidated
through
a
performance
evaluation
test
or
other
scientifically
valid
means
that
is
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
You
must
conduct
all
testing
in
accordance
with
test
methods
appropriate
to
your
emissions
unit
and
applicable
requirements.
For
example,
among
the
test
methods
for
measuring
organic
emissions
are
Methods
18,
25,
25A,
and
25B,
which
can
be
found
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
During
testing,
your
emissions
unit
must
operate
within
the
range
you
wish
to
operate,
so
as
to
provide
an
accurate
quantification
of
emissions
across
the
entire
range.
This
may
require
you
to
perform
more
than
one
performance
test.

c.
What
Monitoring
Systems
Are
Appropriate
To
Demonstrate
Compliance
With
Your
PAL?

The
PAL
monitoring
system
must
be
comprised
of
one
or
more
of
four
general
approaches:
(
1)
Mass
balance
for
processes,
work
practices,
or
emissions
sources
using
coatings
or
solvents;
(
2)
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
System
(
CEMS);
(
3)
Continuous
Parameter
Monitoring
System
(
CPMS)
or
Predictive
Emissions
Monitoring
System
(
PEMS)
with
Continuous
Emissions
Rate
Monitoring
System
(
CERMS)
or
automated
data
acquisition
and
handling
system
(
ADHS),
as
needed;
or
(
4)
emission
factors.
Alternatively,
another
monitoring
approach
may
be
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80212
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
used
if
approved
in
advance
by
the
reviewing
authority.
The
monitoring
approaches
mentioned
above
must
meet
minimum
requirements
established
by
today's
rule.
In
the
mass
balance
approach,
you
would
consider
all
of
the
PAL
pollutant
contained
in
or
created
by
any
raw
material
or
fuel
used
in
or
at
your
emissions
unit
to
be
emitted.
Currently,
we
are
limiting
this
approach
to
monitoring
for
processes,
work
practices,
or
emissions
sources
using
coatings
or
solvents.
In
order
to
use
the
mass
balance
approach,
you
must
validate
the
content
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
any
raw
material
or
fuel
used
on
site.
This
validation
may
be
accomplished
by
a
regular
testing
program
conducted
by
the
vendor
of
the
materials
or
by
an
independent
laboratory.
In
addition,
you
are
required
to
use
the
upper
limit
of
any
content
range
in
the
calculations,
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
there
is
a
site­
specific
data
monitoring
system
in
place
at
the
unit
or
that
there
are
data
to
support
the
use
of
another
content
within
the
range.
If
your
reviewing
authority
allows
you
to
use
a
mass
balance
approach,
then
the
PAL
permit
must
require
you
to
account
for
all
material
containing
the
PAL
pollutant
or
use
of
all
materials
that
could
create
PAL
pollutant
emissions
(
through
chemical
decomposition,
by­
product
formation,
etc.).
For
instance,
if
you
are
subject
to
a
VOC
PAL
and
your
emissions
units
do
not
utilize
add­
on
control
devices,
you
may
use
a
mass
balance
approach
to
determine
compliance.
For
example,
suppose
over
1
month
you
were
using
8
tons
of
solvent
with
25
percent
VOCs
(
as
demonstrated
using
Method
311).
You
would
be
required
to
report
and
include
2
tons
of
VOC
emissions
(
since
8
×
0.25
=
2)
for
that
month
to
compare
with
the
PAL,
even
though
some
of
the
VOCs
may
not
ultimately
be
emitted.
(
For
example,
they
could
be
retained
in
your
emissions
unit's
product
or
in
a
process
waste.)
A
CEMS,
coupled
with
a
CERMS
as
well
as
an
ADHS
(
collectively
known
as
a
CEMS),
may
be
used
to
measure
and
verify
the
PAL
pollutant
concentration,
volumetric
gas
flow
(
if
applicable),
and
PAL
pollutant
mass
emissions
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
each
emissions
unit
emitting
the
PAL
pollutant.
If
your
source
utilize
a
CEMS
approach,
you
must
ensure
that
the
CEMS
meets
the
applicable
Performance
Specifications
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
The
CEMS
must
be
capable
of
data
sampling
at
least
once
every
15
minutes.
In
addition,
you
must
be
able
to
convert
the
data
obtained
from
the
CEMS
system
to
a
mass
emissions
rate.
These
types
of
monitoring
systems
are
appropriate
for
emissions
sources
subject
to
respective
SO2,
NOX,
carbon
monoxide,
particulate
matter
(
PM),
VOC,
total
reduced
sulfur
(
TRS),
or
hydrogen
sulfide
(
H2S)
regulations.
A
CPMS
or
PEMS
coupled
with
CERMS
and
ADHS
(
collectively
known
as
parameter
monitoring),
may
be
used
for
emissions
units
as
reviewed
and
approved
by
your
reviewing
authority.
To
determine
emissions,
parameter
monitoring
relies
on:
(
1)
Use
of
physical
principles;
(
2)
parameters
such
as
temperature,
mass
flow,
or
pressure
differential;
and
(
3)
performance
testing
results.
Users
of
parameter
monitoring
must
show
a
correlation
between
predicted
and
actual
emissions
across
the
anticipated
operating
range
of
the
unit.
An
example
is
a
source
owner
or
operator
who
determines
VOC
emissions
from
an
incinerator
by
multiplying
the
incinerator
efficiency
by
the
amount
of
VOC­
containing
material
used.
Three
assumptions
are
built
into
the
emissions
algorithm:
(
1)
The
VOC
content
remains
constant;
(
2)
the
control
device
reduction
efficiency
remains
constant
over
the
temperature
range
established
during
performance
testing;
and
(
3)
the
unit
load
remains
constant.
Checks
on
these
assumptions
are
established
by:
ongoing
monitoring
requirements
(
for
example,
combustion
chamber
temperature
and
control
device
load);
ongoing
emissions
testing
requirements
(
for
example,
periodic
reevaluation
of
the
correlation
between
combustion
chamber
temperature
and
control
device
efficiency);
and
ongoing
testing
of
the
VOC
content
of
the
material.
Another
example
of
parameter
monitoring
is
an
organic
emissions
condenser.
The
parameter
monitoring
design
in
this
case
is
based
on
the
laws
of
physics
and
the
physical
properties
of
the
material
(
for
example,
the
lowest
condensation
temperature
of
the
VOC
constituent),
the
temperature
of
the
condenser,
and
the
maximum
material
feed
rate.
Some
parameter
monitoring
works
by
calculating
emissions
using
data
from
monitored
parameters
and
a
neural
network
system
to
optimize
performance
of
a
unit.
By
measuring
numerous
parameters,
the
network
can
then
automatically
analyze
current
operations,
as
well
as
emissions,
and
make
adjustments
to
optimize
performance.
Establishing
parameter
monitoring
is
a
resource­
intensive
effort,
requiring
extensive
up­
front
testing,
analysis,
and
development.
Recently,
we
have
developed
draft
performance
specifications
for
evaluating
appropriate,
acceptable
parameter
monitoring
accuracy,
repeatability,
and
reproducibility
(
e.
g.,
Performance
Specification
16).
You
and
your
reviewing
authority
should
review
these
performance
specifications
in
developing
an
interim
protocol
for
using
parameter
monitoring
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
a
PAL.
Your
approved
protocol
may
require
revision
as
we
finalize
performance
specifications.
Today's
rule
requires
you
to
revalidate
your
monitoring
systems,
including
parameter
re­
certification
emissions
testing,
at
least
once
every
5
years
during
the
PAL
permit
term.
You
may
conduct
such
re­
validation
as
part
of
any
other
testing
required
by
other
non­
PAL
program
requirements,
such
as
title
V
program
requirements.
If
a
parameter
monitoring
approach
is
taken,
the
owner
or
operator
must
use
current
site­
specific
data
to
establish
the
emissions
correlations
between
the
monitored
parameter
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
across
the
entire
range
of
the
operation
of
the
emissions
unit.
If
the
owner
or
operator
cannot
establish
a
correlation
for
the
entire
operation
range,
the
reviewing
authority
shall,
at
the
time
of
the
permit
issuance,
establish
a
default
value(
s)
for
determining
compliance
with
the
PAL
based
on
the
highest
potential
emissions
reasonably
estimated
during
the
operational
times
when
an
emissions
correlation
is
not
available.
Alternatively,
the
reviewing
authority
may
decide
that
operation
of
the
emissions
unit
during
periods
where
there
is
no
emissions
correlation
is
a
violation
of
the
PAL.
The
PAL
permit
must
include
enforceable
requirements
if
either
of
these
alternatives
to
the
required
correlation
for
parameter
monitoring
are
used.
Emission
factors
may
be
used
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
PALs,
so
long
as
the
factors
are
adjusted
for
the
degree
of
uncertainty
or
limitations
in
the
factors'
development.
In
ascertaining
whether
an
emission
factor
is
appropriate,
you
and
your
reviewing
authority
should
consider
the
contribution
of
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
in
relation
to
the
PAL,
the
size
of
the
emissions
unit,
and
the
margin
of
compliance
of
the
emissions
unit.
In
addition,
if
the
emission
factor
approach
is
taken,
the
emissions
unit
shall
operate
within
the
designated
range
of
use
for
the
emission
factor.
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
significant
emissions
unit
that
relies
on
an
emission
factor
to
calculate
PAL
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80213
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
pollutant
emissions
shall
conduct
validation
testing
using
other
monitoring
approaches
(
if
technically
practicable)
to
determine
a
site­
specific
emission
factor
within
6
months
of
PAL
permit
issuance,
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
testing
is
not
required.
For
example,
should
you
demonstrate
to
your
reviewing
authority's
satisfaction
that
the
use
of
your
emission
factor
would
yield
a
result
that
is
protective
of
the
environment,
then
you
may
not
need
to
conduct
site­
specific
performance
testing.
An
emissions
unit
is
considered
significant
if
the
emissions
unit
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
amounts
greater
than
those
listed
in
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
x).
In
the
event
you
choose
to
use
one
or
more
emission
factors
for
your
significant
or
small
emissions
units,
you
bear
the
burden
to
prove
to
the
reviewing
authority
that
the
emission
factors
are
appropriate
and
adjusted
for
any
uncertainty
in
the
factors'
development.
By
way
of
example,
the
sulfur
dioxide
emission
factor
for
2­
stroke,
lean­
burn,
natural
gas
fired
reciprocating
engines,
5.88
*
10­
4
pounds
of
sulfur
dioxide
emitted
per
million
British
Thermal
Unit
(
mmBTU)
of
natural
gas
combusted,
as
published
in
our
Compilation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emission
Factors
AP
 
42,
Fifth
Edition
Volume
1:
Stationary
Point
and
Area
Sources,
which
is
found
on
our
Internet
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
ap42/
index.
html,
represents
an
appropriate
emission
factor.
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
other
types
of
monitoring
systems
that
quantify
emissions
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
PALs.
Other
types
of
monitoring
that
may
be
approved
include
a
Gas
Chromatographic
(
GC)
or
a
Fourier
Transform
Infrared
Spectroscopy
(
FTIR)
CEMS
that
relies
on
extractive
techniques,
coupled
with
a
CERMS
as
well
as
an
ADHS,
to
measure
and
verify
the
VOC
concentration,
volumetric
gas
flow
(
if
applicable),
and
VOC
mass
emissions
(
in
lb/
hr)
discharged
from
stacks
(
that
is,
non­
fugitive
emissions)
to
the
atmosphere.
For
processes,
work
practices,
or
emissions
sources
subject
to
VOC
or
organic
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
regulations,
these
types
of
monitoring
systems
may
be
used
for
each
emissions
unit
emitting
VOC.
d.
What
information
about
your
monitoring
system
must
be
submitted
to
your
reviewing
authority
for
approval?
You
need
to
propose
a
monitoring
system
as
part
of
your
PAL
permit
application
submission
to
your
reviewing
authority.
The
monitoring
system
proposed
must
accurately
determine
plantwide
emissions.
In
your
permit
application,
you
must
describe
how
you
will
collect
and
transform
data
from
each
emissions
unit
subject
to
a
PAL
permit,
so
that
the
emissions
from
each
unit
can
be
quantified
as
a
12­
month
rolling
total.
In
addition,
you
need
to
demonstrate
how
you
can
be
assured
the
data
are
and
remain
accurate
by
describing
how
you
will
install,
operate,
certify,
test,
calibrate,
and
maintain
the
performance
of
your
monitoring
system(
s)
on
each
emissions
unit
that
will
be
subject
to
the
PAL.
You
will
also
need
to
provide
calculations
for
the
maximum
potential
emissions
without
considering
enforceable
emission
limitations
or
operational
restrictions
for
each
unit
in
order
to
determine
emissions
during
periods
when
the
monitoring
system
is
not
in
operation
or
fails
to
provide
data.
In
lieu
of
the
permit
requiring
maximum
potential
emissions
during
periods
when
there
is
no
monitoring
data,
you
may
propose
another
alternate
monitoring
approach
as
a
backup.
This
backup
monitoring,
however,
must
still
meet
the
minimum
requirements
for
the
monitoring
approaches
prescribed
in
the
regulation.
Note
that
each
monitoring
system
with
applicable
requirements
contained
in
appendix
B
of
40
CFR
part
60
must
be
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
according
to
the
applicable
Performance
Specification
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
For
purposes
of
determining
emissions
from
an
emissions
unit,
a
unit
is
considered
operational
not
only
during
periods
of
normal
operation,
but
also
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
maintenance,
and
malfunction'even
if
compliance
with
a
non­
PAL
emission
limitation
is
excused
during
these
latter
periods.
Your
reviewing
authority
may
approve
different
monitoring
for
various
operating
conditions
(
for
example,
startup,
shutdown,
low
load,
or
high
load
conditions
as
demonstrated
through
multiple
performance
tests)
for
each
emissions
unit.
You
must,
however,
use
one
of
the
accepted
monitoring
approaches,
including
alternative
monitoring
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority,
for
these
periods
or
calculate
the
emissions
during
these
periods
by
assuming
the
highest
PTE
without
considering
enforceable
emission
limitations
or
operational
restrictions.
In
addition,
the
rule
permits
the
reviewing
authority
to
use
the
reasonably
estimated
highest
potential
emissions
for
periods
when
your
emissions
unit
operates
outside
its
parameter
range(
s)
established
in
the
performance
test,
unless
another
method
is
specified
in
the
permit,
and
include
those
emissions
in
the
12­
month
rolling
total
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
PAL.
Alternatively,
the
reviewing
authority
may
decide
that
operation
outside
the
range(
s)
established
in
the
performance
test
is
a
violation
of
the
PAL.
The
reviewing
authority
must
decide
how
to
handle
emissions
when
the
unit
is
operating
outside
the
ranges
established
in
the
performance
tests
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit
and
must
include
appropriate
enforceable
conditions
in
the
PAL
permit.
For
parameter
monitoring
to
be
approved
by
your
reviewing
authority,
your
proposed
monitoring
system
must
measure
the
operational
parameter
value(
s)
within
the
established
sitespecific
range(
s)
of
operating
parameter
values
demonstrated
in
recent
performance
testing.
The
monitoring
system
must
then
record
the
associated
PAL
pollutant
mass
emissions
rate
for
that
period
based
on
the
correlations
demonstrated
with
the
current
test
data.

e.
What
Recordkeeping
Requirements
Must
Your
Permit
Contain
To
Demonstrate
Compliance
With
Your
PAL?

Your
permit
must
require
you
to
maintain
records
of
your
monitoring
and
testing
data
that
support
any
compliance
certifications,
reports,
or
other
compliance
demonstrations.
This
information
should
contain,
but
is
not
necessarily
limited
to,
the
following
data.
 
The
date,
place
(
specific
location),
and
time
that
testing
or
measuring
occurs
 
The
date(
s)
sample
analysis
or
analyses
occur
 
The
entity
that
performs
the
analysis
or
analyses
 
The
analytical
techniques
or
methods
used
 
The
results
of
the
analyses
 
Each
emissions
unit's
operating
conditions
during
the
testing
or
monitoring
 
A
summary
of
total
monthly
emissions
for
each
emissions
unit
at
the
major
stationary
source
for
each
calendar
month
 
A
copy
of
any
report
submitted
to
the
reviewing
authority
 
A
list
of
the
allowable
emissions
and
the
date
operation
began
for
any
new
emissions
units
added
to
the
major
stationary
source.
You
must
also
record
all
periods
of
deviation,
including
the
date
and
time
that
a
deviation
started
and
stopped
and
whether
the
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80214
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
You
must
retain
records
of
all
required
testing
and
monitoring
data,
as
well
as
supporting
information,
for
at
least
5
years
from
the
date
of
the
monitoring
sample,
measurement,
report,
or
application.
Supporting
information
includes
all
calibration
and
maintenance
records
and
all
original
strip­
chart
recordings
for
continuous
monitoring
instrumentation,
and
copies
of
all
required
reports.
Instead
of
paper
records,
you
may
maintain
records
on
alternative
media,
such
as
microfilm,
computer
files,
magnetic
tape
disks,
or
microfiche,
provided
that
the
use
of
such
alternative
media
allows
for
expeditious
inspection
and
review
and
does
not
conflict
with
other
recordkeeping
requirements.
You
must
also
retain
a
copy
of
the
following
records
for
the
duration
of
the
PAL
effective
period
plus
5
years:
(
1)
A
copy
of
the
PAL
permit
application
and
any
applications
for
revisions
to
the
PAL;
and
(
2)
each
annual
certification
of
compliance
pursuant
to
title
V
and
the
data
relied
on
in
certifying
the
compliance.
f.
What
reporting
requirements
for
your
PAL
must
your
permit
contain?
You
must
provide
semi­
annual
monitoring
and
prompt
deviation
reports.
The
terms
and
conditions
of
an
approved
PAL
become
title
V
applicable
requirements
that
will
be
placed
in
your
title
V
permit.
Therefore,
the
reports
required
under
title
V
may
meet
the
requirements
of
the
PAL
rule,
so
long
as
the
minimum
reporting
requirements
listed
in
the
regulations
are
met.
You
must
submit
a
semi­
annual
emissions
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
30
days
after
the
end
of
each
reporting
period.
The
reviewing
authority
will
use
this
report
to
determine
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
the
PAL,
including
the
PAL
level.
The
compliance
period
for
an
actuals
PAL
emissions
level
is
a
consecutive
12­
month
period,
rolled
monthly.
Block
12­
month
periods
are
not
allowed
(
for
example,
Jan.­
Dec.
of
each
year).
The
emissions
report
must
include
the
total
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
the
previous
12
months
and
compare
the
previous
12
months'
total
emissions
with
the
PAL
level
to
determine
compliance.
Additionally,
the
emissions
report
must
identify:
the
site;
the
owner
or
operator;
the
applicable
PAL;
the
monitored
parameters,
the
method
of
calculation
with
appropriate
formulas,
any
emission
factors
used,
the
capture
and
control
efficiencies
used
and
the
calculated
emissions;
total
monthly
emissions
(
tons)
and
the
equations
used
to
compute
this
value
for
each
of
the
12
months
before
submission
of
the
emissions
report
(
or
for
all
prior
months
if
the
PAL
has
not
been
effective
for
1
year);
total
annual
emissions
(
tpy);
a
PAL
compliance
statement;
a
list
of
any
emissions
units
added
or
modified
to
the
site;
and
information
concerning
shutdown
of
any
monitoring
system,
including
the
method
that
was
used
to
measure
emissions
during
that
period.
Finally,
in
accordance
with
title
V
requirements,
your
permit
will
require
all
reports
to
be
certified
by
your
responsible
official
as
true,
accurate,
and
complete.

10.
What
is
the
process
for
incorporating
conditions
of
the
PAL
into
your
title
V
operating
permit?
As
discussed
previously,
the
reviewing
authority
establishes
a
PAL
in
a
federally
enforceable
permit
using
its
minor
NSR
construction
permit
process
or
the
major
NSR
permit
construction
process
and
eventually
rolling
these
requirements
into
its
title
V
operating
permit.
The
reviewing
authorities'
rules
for
establishing
or
renewing
PALs
must
include
a
public
participation
process
prior
to
permit
approval
of
the
PAL.
The
process
must
be
consistent
with
the
requirements
at
§
51.161
and
include
a
minimum
30­
day
period
for
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
public
comment
on
the
proposed
permit.
PALs
established
through
the
major
NSR
process
are
subject
to
major
NSR
public
participation
requirements.
When
adding
a
new
emissions
unit
under
an
established
PAL,
you
must
comply
with
the
reviewing
authority's
minor
NSR
permit
requirements
for
public
notice,
review,
and
comment.
The
process
for
incorporating
the
conditions
of
a
PAL
into
the
title
V
operating
permit
depends
on
whether
the
initial
title
V
permit
has
already
been
issued
for
the
source.
If
the
initial
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
a
PAL
created
in
a
minor
or
major
NSR
permit
would
be
incorporated
during
initial
issuance
of
the
title
V
permit.
If
the
initial
title
V
permit
has
already
been
issued,
the
PAL
would
be
incorporated
through
the
appropriate
part
70
modification
procedures.
As
discussed
later
in
this
preamble,
we
suggest
that
you
request
that
your
reviewing
authority
renew
your
title
V
permit
concurrently
with
issuance
of
your
PAL
in
order
to
align
the
two
processes
together
and
decrease
the
administrative
burden
on
you
and
your
reviewing
authority.
Once
a
PAL
is
established,
a
change
at
a
facility
is
exempt
from
major
NSR
and
netting
calculations,
but
could
require
a
title
V
permit
modification,
as
could
any
other
change.
Whether
a
title
V
permit
modification
would
be
required,
and
which
permit
modification
process
would
be
used,
is
governed
by
the
current
part
70
rule
as
implemented
by
the
reviewing
authority.

11.
What
is
an
example
of
an
actuals
PAL?

The
following
example
is
based
upon
a
hypothetical
source
that
wishes
to
obtain
an
actuals
PAL
under
the
final
regulations
adopted
today.
A
manufacturing
plant
(
a
major
stationary
source)
located
in
a
serious
ozone
nonattainment
area
seeks
an
actuals
PAL
for
VOC
in
January
2002.
The
major
source
threshold
for
VOC
in
a
serious
ozone
nonattainment
area
is
50
tpy
and
the
significant
level
for
VOC
modifications
is
25
tpy.
The
plant
has
5
emissions
units
with
a
total
PTE
of
640
tpy
of
VOC.
The
PTE
for
VOC
for
each
of
the
emissions
units
at
the
plant
is
as
follows:
(
1)
Unit
A
is
335
tpy;
(
2)
unit
B
is
20
tpy;
(
3)
Unit
C
is
125
tpy;
(
4)
unit
D
is
60
tpy;
and
(
5)
unit
E
is
100
tpy.
Units
A,
B,
C,
and
D
are
existing
emissions
units
with
more
than
2
years
of
operating
history.
Unit
E
has
been
in
operation
for
only
a
year.
Unit
D
was
dismantled
in
year
2000
and
is
considered
permanently
shutdown.
For
units
A,
B,
C,
and
D,
the
source
has
selected
July
1,
1996
to
June
30,
1998
(
a
consecutive
24­
month
period)
to
determine
baseline
actual
emissions.
Unit
A
is
subject
to
a
RACT
requirement
that
became
effective
in
year
2000.
The
baseline
actual
emissions
for
each
emissions
unit
during
this
period
are
as
follows:
unit
A,
140
tpy
(
including
RACT
adjustment);
unit
B,
10
tpy;
unit
C,
90
tpy;
and
unit
D,
20
tpy.
The
actuals
PAL
level
for
VOC
is
=
260
+
100
¥
20
+
25
=
365
tpy
WHERE
 
260
tpy
=
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
emissions
units
A
 
D
(
with
2
or
more
years
of
operation)
 
100
tpy
=
the
allowable
emissions
(
PTE)
of
unit
E,
which
was
constructed
after
the
24­
month
period;
 
20
tpy
=
baseline
actual
emissions
of
unit
D,
which
is
permanently
shut
down
since
the
24­
month
period;
and
 
25
tpy
=
significant
level
for
VOC
in
a
serious
nonattainment
area.

D.
Rationale
for
Today's
Final
Action
on
Actuals
PALs
We
received
voluminous
comments
and
suggestions
in
response
to
the
1996
NSR
proposal,
the
1998
NOA,
and
numerous
meetings
with
interested
stakeholders.
This
section
addresses
the
more
significant
comments
we
received.
For
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
comments
received
and
our
responses,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80215
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
please
refer
to
the
Technical
Support
Document
included
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.
The
comment
areas
addressed
in
this
section
include:
(
1)
How
do
the
PAL
regulations
meet
the
major
NSR
requirements
of
the
Act?
(
2)
Are
PALs
consistent
with
the
concept
of
``
contemporaneity'?
(
3)
Are
PALs
permissible
in
serious
and
severe
nonattainment
areas?
(
4)
Is
it
appropriate
for
a
PAL
to
be
based
on
actual
emissions?
(
5)
How
should
actual
emissions
be
determined
in
setting
the
PAL
level?
(
6)
Should
emissions
from
shut
down
or
dismantled
units
be
excluded
from
a
PAL?
(
7)
Should
a
PAL
include
a
margin
for
growth?
(
8)
Should
PALs
be
required
to
expire?
(
9)
Should
we
require
PALs
to
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
PAL
renewal?
(
10)
Should
certain
new
emissions
units
that
are
added
under
a
PAL
be
required
to
meet
some
level
of
emissions
control?
(
11)
Under
what
circumstances
should
you
be
allowed
to
increase
your
PAL
and
how
should
we
apply
the
major
NSR
requirements
to
that
increase?
(
12)
What
monitoring
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
enforceability
of
PALs
as
a
practical
matter?
(
13)
Is
EPA
adopting
an
approach
that
allows
area­
wide
PALs?
and
(
14)
When
should
modeling
or
other
types
of
ambient
impact
assessments
be
required
for
changes
occurring
under
a
PAL?

1.
How
do
the
PAL
regulations
meet
the
major
NSR
requirements
of
the
Act?

The
PAL
regulations
adopted
today
meet
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
and
are
consistent
with
the
Congressional
purpose
and
intent
underlying
NSR.
We
believe
the
PAL
regulations
constitute
a
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
Act's
definition
of
``
modification''
and
are
permissible
under
current
law.
The
definition
of
``
modification''
set
forth
in
section
111(
a)(
4)
of
the
Act
is
fundamental
to
determining
major
NSR
applicability.
Pursuant
to
the
Act,
the
term
modification
means
``
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
stationary
source
which
increases
the
amount
of
any
air
pollutant
emitted
by
such
source
or
which
results
in
the
emission
of
any
air
pollutant
not
previously
emitted.''
The
statute,
however,
does
not
prescribe
the
methodology
for
establishing
a
stationary
source's
emissions
baseline
from
which
emissions
increases
are
measured.
When
a
statute
is
silent
or
ambiguous
with
respect
to
specific
issues,
the
relevant
inquiry
is
whether
the
agency's
interpretation
of
the
statutory
provisions
is
permissible.
Chevron
U.
S.
A.,
Inc.
v.
NRDC,
Inc.,
467
U.
S.
837,
865
(
1984).
Accordingly,
EPA
is
exercising
its
discretion
to
develop
reasonable
alternatives
to
determine
NSR
applicability
that
are
consistent
with
the
statutory
provisions
and
Congressional
intent
underlying
the
NSR
requirements.
We
believe
that
the
PAL
regulations
adopted
today
represent
a
permissible
construction
of
the
Act.

2.
Are
PALs
consistent
with
the
concept
of
``
contemporaneity''?
In
the
1998
NOA,
we
solicited
comment
on
whether
and
how
a
program
that
recognizes
PALs
as
an
alternate
method
for
determining
NSR
applicability
should
address
a
particular
legal
concern:
the
need
to
have
some
``
contemporaneity''
between
an
emissions
increase
and
any
decrease
relied
upon
to
net
the
increase
out
of
review.
As
we
discussed
in
the
1998
notice,
the
current
regulations
specify
that,
to
be
creditable,
emissions
increases
and
decreases
must
have
occurred
within
a
``
contemporaneous''
period.
Our
current
regulations
governing
SIP­
approved
programs
do
not
specify
a
precise
time
frame.
However,
the
Federal
PSD
rules
generally
only
credit
those
emissions
increases
and
decreases
that
occur
within
the
5
years
preceding
a
given
change.
We
established
these
regulatory
requirements
after
the
court's
decision
in
Alabama
Power,
in
which
the
court
interpreted
the
Act
as
requiring
plantwide
bubbling
in
the
PSD
program,
but
stated
that
``
any
offset
changes
claimed
by
industry
must
be
substantially
contemporaneous.''
636
F.
2d
402.
In
the
1998
notice,
we
sought
comment
on
whether
a
PAL
program
that
never
required
PALs
to
be
periodically
updated
to
reflect
current
emissions
at
the
source
would
allow
sources
to
make
emissions
reductions
and
hold
them
indefinitely,
only
to
use
them
several
decades
later
to
offset
new
increases,
and
whether
such
a
system
would
contravene
the
contemporaneity
principle
the
court
announced.
Many
commenters,
including
several
regulatory
agencies,
maintain
that
PALs
are
consistent
with
the
NSR
requirements
under
the
Act.
These
commenters
contend
that
the
court
gave
EPA
the
discretion
to
define
contemporaneity.
See
636
F.
2d
402
(``
The
Agency
has
discretion,
within
reason,
to
define
which
changes
are
substantially
contemporaneous.'').
Others
contend
that
changes
made
under
a
PAL
are
not
subject
to
the
Alabama
Power
``
contemporaneity''
requirement
because
a
change
made
under
the
PAL
is
either
excluded
from
NSR
or
alternatively
does
not
exceed
the
applicable
NSR
significance
threshold.
Therefore,
they
contend
that
netting
is
not
implicated
by
such
changes.
On
the
other
hand,
a
few
commenters
assert
that
PALs
conflict
with
the
purpose
of
the
Act.
We
believe
that
the
concept
of
contemporaneity,
as
articulated
in
Alabama
Power
and
as
set
forth
in
the
regulations
governing
the
major
NSR
program,
does
not
apply
to
PALs.
The
PAL
program
differs
in
certain
important
respects
from
our
current
regulations
and
from
the
1978
regulations
at
issue
in
Alabama
Power.
The
Alabama
Power
court
was
not
presented
with
the
PAL
approach
for
determining
whether
there
was
an
increase
in
emissions
and
did
not
consider
whether
the
principles
it
set
forth
in
its
opinion
would
apply
to
such
an
approach.
Under
the
1978
PSD
regulations
(
43
FR
26380),
a
source
was
subject
to
BACT
review
only
if
``
no
net
increase
in
emissions
of
an
applicable
pollutant
would
occur
at
the
source,
taking
into
account
all
emissions
increases
and
decreases
at
the
source
which
would
accompany
the
modification.''
43
FR
26385.
The
test
for
whether
a
``
major
modification''
had
occurred
required
the
source
to
sum
all
accumulated
increases
in
potential
emissions
that
had
occurred
at
the
source
since
issuance
of
the
regulations,
or
since
issuance
of
the
last
construction
permit,
whichever
was
more
recent.
Reductions
achieved
elsewhere
in
the
source
could
not
be
taken
into
account.
In
Alabama
Power,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
held
that
EPA
was
correct
in
excluding
from
BACT
review
any
changes
that
did
not
result
in
a
net
increase
of
a
pollutant.
636
F.
2d
401.
It
concluded,
however,
that
EPA
had
incorrectly
excluded
contemporaneous
decreases
from
the
calculation
of
whether
a
``
major
modification''
had
occurred.
Id.
at
402
 
03.
The
current
regulations
take
contemporaneous
decreases
into
account
for
all
PSD
review
purposes.
Under
the
current
regulations,
you
look
initially
at
the
emissions
unit
undergoing
the
change
and
determine
whether
there
will
be
a
significant
increase
at
that
unit.
If
there
is
no
significant
increase
at
the
unit,
the
inquiry
ends
there.
While
we
continue
to
believe
that
this
is
a
permissible
approach,
one
drawback
to
this
approach
is
that
it
allows
a
series
of
small,
unrelated
emissions
increases
to
occur,
which
is
discussed
elsewhere
in
this
preamble.
If
there
will
be
a
significant
increase
at
the
unit,
then
you
expand
the
inquiry
to
other
units
at
the
source.
You
take
into
account
contemporaneous
increases
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80216
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
31
Eastern
Research
Group
Inc.
report
on
``
Business
Cycles
in
Major
Emitting
Source
Industries''
dated
September
25,
1997.
decreases
at
the
source
in
determining
whether
there
will
be
an
increase
for
the
source
as
a
whole.
Thus,
you
must
calculate
increases
and
decreases
at
individual
units
in
order
to
arrive
at
a
net
figure
for
the
entire
source.
In
contrast,
under
today's
PAL
regulations,
the
inquiry
begins
and
ends
with
the
source.
Your
PAL
represents
source­
wide
baseline
actual
emissions.
As
such,
it
is
the
reference
point
for
calculating
increases
in
baseline
actual
emissions.
If
your
source's
emissions
will
equal
or
exceed
the
PAL,
then
there
will
be
an
emissions
increase
at
your
source.
There
is
no
need
to
calculate
increases
and
decreases
at
individual
units.
Today's
PAL
regulations
constitute
a
reasonable,
though
not
the
only,
approach
to
determining
whether
there
is
an
emissions
increase
at
your
source.
While
we
believe
that
the
principle
of
contemporaneity
continues
to
be
important
for
purposes
of
major
NSR
netting
calculations,
we
do
not
believe
that
it
is
a
necessary
concept
for
purposes
of
PALs.
This
is
because
if
your
source
has
a
PAL,
you
have
accepted
a
different
means
of
calculating
an
emissions
increase
for
the
PAL
pollutant.
The
only
relevant
question
is
whether
your
source
has
reached
or
exceeded
the
PAL
level.
Even
though
PALs
are
a
new
approach,
they
do
not
alter
the
fundamental
question,
which
is
whether
there
will
be
an
increase
in
emissions
from
your
source.
For
actuals
PALs,
we
consider
whether
there
will
be
an
increase
in
baseline
actual
emissions.
Because
the
PAL
serves
as
the
baseline
for
measuring
an
increase,
we
have
taken
steps
to
ensure
that
the
PAL
is
reasonably
representative
of
baseline
actual
emissions.
In
taking
these
steps,
we
have
also
ensured
that
actuals
PALs
as
finalized
today
are
consistent
with
the
concept
of
contemporaneity,
to
the
extent
such
a
concept
has
any
application
in
this
context.
One
way
of
viewing
a
PAL
is
to
focus
on
the
increases
and
decreases
at
individual
emissions
units
that,
taken
together,
result
in
the
net
emissions
from
your
source
as
a
whole.
As
long
as
the
decreases
that
have
occurred
during
the
term
of
the
PAL
are
sufficient
to
offset
any
increase
that
occurs,
total
emissions
for
your
source
will
remain
below
the
PAL,
and
your
source
will
not
experience
a
``
significant
net
emissions
increase.''
Viewed
from
this
perspective,
the
term
of
the
PAL
constitutes
the
``
contemporaneous''
period.
We
believe
that
10
years
is
a
reasonable
contemporaneous
period
for
PALs
for
the
following
two
reasons.
First,
we
believe
that
a
10­
year
period
is
practical
and
reasonable
both
for
you
and
for
the
reviewing
authority.
While
a
logical
stopping
point
may
seem
to
be
5
years
in
line
with
the
title
V
permit
period,
setting
a
PAL
can
be
a
complex
and
time
consuming
process,
so
a
5­
year
period
would
be
too
short
and
hence
not
beneficial
either
to
you
or
to
the
reviewing
authority.
Second,
a
study
conducted
by
Eastern
Research
Group,
Inc.
31
supported
a
10­
year
look
back
to
ensure
that
the
normal
business
cycle
would
be
captured
generally
for
any
industry.
In
addition,
we
believe
that
the
PAL
renewal
provisions
ensure
that
each
10­
year
term
represents
a
distinct
``
contemporaneous''
period.
The
renewal
process
is
designed
to
prevent
decreases
that
occurred
outside
of
the
current
10­
year
PAL
term
from
being
used
to
offset
increases
during
that
term.
At
renewal,
the
reviewing
authority
must
consider
whether
decreases
have
occurred
at
your
source
because
of
compliance
with
newly
applicable
requirements.
Thus,
for
example,
if
the
compliance
date
for
a
new
RACT
requirement
occurred
during
the
initial
term
of
the
PAL,
and
the
reviewing
authority
has
not
already
adjusted
the
PAL
downward
to
account
for
that
requirement,
it
must
do
so
at
renewal.
More
generally,
the
reviewing
authority
is
required
to
evaluate
baseline
actual
emissions
and
provide
a
written
rationale
for
public
comment
if
it
determines
that
an
adjustment
to
the
PAL
is
warranted.
As
part
of
this
process,
the
reviewing
authority
must
adjust
the
PAL
downward
if
your
source's
current
PTE
is
below
the
PAL
level.
We
believe
that
this
adjustment
is
important
for
air
quality
planning
purposes.
Additionally,
the
reviewing
authority
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
if
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
the
significant
level
are
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level
without
consideration
of
other
factors.
We
believe
that
this
level
is
reasonably
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
If
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
the
significant
level
are
less
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
the
reviewing
authority
may
set
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
it
determines
to
be
more
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
or
that
it
determines
to
be
appropriate
considering
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
desire
to
reward
or
encourage
the
source's
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
or
other
factors
as
specifically
identified
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
its
written
rationale.
We
recognize
that
fluctuations
in
baseline
actual
emissions
will
occur
at
most
sources
as
part
of
the
normal
business
cycle.
We
also
recognize
that
requiring
the
reviewing
authority
to
adjust
the
PAL
downward
if
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions
do
not
equal
100
percent
of
the
PAL
level
could
create
an
incentive
for
you
to
maximize
your
baseline
actual
emissions.
In
addition,
most
sources
do
not
emit
at
a
level
just
below
the
maximum
allowable
level
but
rather
build
in
a
margin
to
prevent
accidental
exceedances.
However,
the
PAL
should
be
reasonably
representative
of
baseline
actual
emissions
so
that
it
can
continue
to
serve
as
the
baseline
for
calculating
an
emissions
increase.
We
have
balanced
these
competing
concerns
in
adopting
a
requirement,
subject
to
the
provisions
noted
below,
to
provide
discretion
to
the
reviewing
authority
to
adjust
the
PAL
level
if
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
the
significant
level
do
not
equal
at
least
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level.
To
maintain
flexibility,
today's
actuals
PAL
regulations
allow
the
reviewing
authority
to
determine
representativeness
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
If
you
believe
that
the
new
PAL
level
that
the
reviewing
authority
proposes
for
your
source
is
not
representative
of
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
you
may
propose
a
different
level.
In
addition,
any
person
may
propose
a
different
level
as
being
more
representative
of
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
a
higher
or
lower
level
if
it
determines
that
it
is
reasonably
representative
of
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
For
example,
assume
that
your
source
was
designed
to
burn
either
fuel
oil
or
natural
gas,
and
that
your
source's
permit
allowed
the
use
of
either
fuel.
During
the
initial
term
of
the
PAL,
you
used
only
natural
gas
at
the
source
and
your
source­
wide
emissions
were
consistently
less
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level.
However,
due
to
shifting
market
conditions,
you
expected
to
use
fuel
oil
for
a
period
beginning
after
PAL
renewal.
Under
these
circumstances,
the
reviewing
authority
could
reasonably
determine
that
a
higher
level
would
be
more
representative
of
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
Similarly,
your
source
might
be
designed
to
manufacture
several
different
products,
and
your
permit
might
allow
you
to
switch
from
one
product
to
another.
During
the
initial
term
of
the
PAL,
you
might
produce
a
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80217
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
product
associated
with
low
emissions,
resulting
in
source­
wide
emissions
that
were
consistently
less
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level.
However,
you
might
be
planning
to
produce
a
product
that
would
cause
the
source
to
emit
at
a
higher
level
following
PAL
renewal.
This
is
another
example
of
a
circumstance
in
which
the
reviewing
authority
could
reasonably
determine
that
a
higher
level
was
more
representative
of
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
In
addition,
for
SIP
planning
purposes,
the
reviewing
authority
may
adjust
the
PAL
level
at
its
discretion
based
on
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
or
other
relevant
factors.
Because
of
the
safeguards
described
above,
we
believe
that
the
actuals
PAL
program
as
finalized
today
ensures
that
the
PAL
will
serve
as
an
appropriate
baseline
for
determining
whether
there
is
a
significant
net
``
increase''
in
overall
emissions
from
the
source,
and
thus
whether
the
source
is
undergoing
a
``
modification.''
Moreover,
we
believe
that
a
PAL
approach
satisfies
Congressional
intent
to
only
apply
the
NSR
permit
process
when
industrial
changes
cause
significant
net
emissions
increases
to
an
area
and
not
when
changes
in
plant
operations
result
in
no
emissions
increase
from
the
major
stationary
source.
See
Alabama
Power,
636
F.
2d
401.

3.
Are
PALs
Permissible
in
Serious,
Severe,
and
Extreme
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas?
In
our
1996
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
PALs
could
be
implemented
in
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
in
a
manner
that
was
consistent
with
section
182(
c)(
6)
of
the
Act.
Section
182(
c)(
6)
contains
special
provisions
for
major
stationary
sources
that
increase
VOC
emissions
in
serious
or
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
as
a
result
of
a
physical
change
or
a
change
in
the
method
of
operation.
In
some
of
these
areas,
the
provisions
also
apply
if
you
increase
NOX
emissions.
In
general,
these
special
provisions
change
the
significant
level
for
VOC
emissions
in
serious
and
severe
nonattainment
areas
from
40
tpy
to
greater
than
25
tpy.
They
also
specify
that
you
must
go
through
a
major
NSR
permitting
review
if
you
have
a
net
emissions
increase
in
the
aggregate
of
more
than
25
tpy
over
a
period
of
5
years.
In
addition,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
PALs
could
be
implemented
in
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Section
182(
e)(
2),
which
applies
in
such
areas,
provides
that
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
the
source
that
results
in
``
any
increase''
from
any
discrete
operation,
unit,
or
other
pollutant­
emitting
activity
at
the
source,
generally
must
be
considered
a
modification
subject
to
major
NSR
permit
requirements,
regardless
of
any
decreases
elsewhere
at
the
source.
A
few
industry
commenters
believe
that
the
``
accumulation''
provisions
of
CAA
section
182(
c)(
6)
should
make
no
difference
to
the
acceptability
of
a
PAL
in
``
serious''
and
``
severe''
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
They
contend
that
we
have
correctly
concluded
that
CAA
section
182(
c)(
6)
only
applies
when
net
emissions
at
the
source
as
a
whole
increase
above
the
25
ton
level.
Accordingly,
any
change
that
triggered
CAA
section
182(
c)(
6)
would
already
have
breached
the
PAL
limits.
On
the
other
hand,
an
environmental
commenter
states
that
a
PAL
in
a
serious,
severe,
or
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
area
could
be
problematic
because
it
could
allow
for
an
increase
at
an
emissions
unit
in
situations
where
source­
wide
emissions
would
not
exceed
the
PAL.
We
agree
with
commenters
who
believe
that
the
PAL
approach
does
not
conflict
with
the
provisions
of
CAA
section
182(
c)(
6).
We
do
not
interpret
section
182(
c)(
6)
to
be
a
limitation
on
our
ability
to
authorize
PALs
in
serious
and
severe
nonattainment
areas.
This
section
directs
that
when
there
is
an
increase
meeting
certain
criteria,
it
may
not
be
considered
de
minimis,
but
it
does
not
specify
the
methodology
by
which
an
emissions
increase
must
be
calculated.
Accordingly,
we
exercise
our
discretion
in
establishing
the
methodology,
and
we
are
doing
so
today
by
having
the
PAL
serve
as
the
actuals
emissions
baseline
against
which
future
emissions
increases
are
measured.
Chevron
U.
S.
A.,
Inc.
v.
NRDC,
Inc.,
467
U.
S.
837,
865
(
1984).
If
your
source's
emissions
equal
or
exceed
the
PAL,
it
will
trigger
NSR,
whereas
maintaining
plant
emissions
below
the
PAL
ensures
that
there
is
no
emissions
increase.
We
believe
that
our
interpretation
reasonably
implements
the
statutory
purpose
of
the
section,
given
that
PAL
sources
agree
to
be
subject
to
a
plantwide
cap
that
serves
as
the
reference
point
for
determining
whether
there
has
been
an
increase
and
given
that
the
appropriateness
of
the
PAL
level
is
reviewed
at
10­
year
intervals.
Actuals
PALs
effectively
prevent
the
uncontrolled,
unrelated,
small,
serial
emissions
increases
section
182(
c)(
6)
is
designed
to
address.
Because
CAA
section
182(
e)(
2)
clearly
requires
consideration
of
increases
at
individual
emissions
units
in
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
PALs
are
not
allowed
in
such
areas,
since
any
increase
in
emissions
from
any
unit
in
those
areas
constitutes
a
modification.

4.
Is
It
Appropriate
for
a
PAL
to
Be
Based
on
Actual
Emissions?
In
1996,
we
proposed
and
sought
comment
on
a
broad
range
of
alternative
approaches
for
setting
PAL
emission
limitations,
including
a
PAL
based
on
the
following:
(
1)
Actual
emissions
as
defined
under
the
current
and
then
proposed
regulations
at
§
51.166(
b)(
21)(
ii);
(
2)
actual
emissions
with
the
addition
of
an
operating
margin
greater
than
the
applicable
significance
rate;
(
3)
for
new
stationary
sources,
limits
established
pursuant
to
a
review
of
the
entire
facility
under
PSD;
and
(
4)
for
nonattainment
pollutants
(
in
nonattainment
areas),
any
emissions
level
completely
offset
and
relied
upon
in
an
EPA­
approved
State
attainment
demonstration
plan.
61
FR
38250,
38256
(
July
23,
1996).
We
received
general
support
for
the
PAL
concept
and
for
the
different
approaches
we
proposed.
Some
comments
express
support
for
a
PAL
approach
based
on
allowable
emissions,
and
others
indicate
support
for
a
PAL
approach
based
on
actual
emissions.
Some
commenters
generally
believe
that
an
allowables
approach
is
necessary
to
ensure
increased
operating
flexibility
and
capacity
utilization.
They
also
assert
that
an
allowables
approach
would
protect
air
quality
management
goals,
because
they
claim
that
air
quality
planning
historically
has
been
based
on
permitted
emissions
levels.
Other
commenters
believe
that
an
actuals
approach
is
preferable
because
it
facilitates
more
accurate
air
quality
planning
and
provides
a
more
reliable
basis
for
determining
the
availability
of
offsets.
We
have
concluded
that
a
major
stationary
source's
compliance
with
an
actuals­
based
PAL
system
is
a
permissible
means
of
assuring
that
a
major
stationary
source
does
not
have
a
significant
emissions
increase.
We
also
conclude
that
this
approach
can
be
implemented
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
Act.
Thus,
in
today's
action,
we
are
adopting
regulations
that
authorize
States
to
issue
actuals
PALs.
We
plan
to
address
allowables
PALs
in
an
upcoming
rulemaking.

5.
How
Should
Actual
Emissions
Be
Determined
in
Setting
the
PAL
Level?
In
the
1996
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
the
definition
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80218
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
actual
emissions
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
level
of
the
PAL
should
be
based
on
the
definition
of
actual
emissions
in
the
current
major
NSR
regulations,
or
whether
it
should
be
based
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
actual
emissions
definition
contained
in
that
1996
proposal.
The
fundamental
difference
between
these
two
approaches
is
that
the
current
NSR
regulations
would
only
allow
you
to
look
back
5
years
to
determine
the
actual
emissions
(
the
sum
of
actual
emissions
for
all
emissions
units
at
your
major
stationary
source).
The
1996
proposed
changes
to
this
definition
would
allow
you
to
look
back
10
years
to
determine
the
actual
emissions.
Several
commenters
prefer
a
10­
year
baseline
period
for
setting
PALs
based
on
actual
emissions.
A
few
commenters
prefer
a
5­
year
baseline
period.
One
commenter
advocates
use
of
an
actual
emissions
level
that
is
initially
based
on
the
previous
2
years
but
that
would
decline
over
time.
In
a
separate
section
of
today's
final
rules,
we
are
finalizing
changes
to
our
definition
of
baseline
actual
emissions.
Among
other
changes
to
the
definition,
you
will
be
allowed
to
look
back
for
a
period
of
10
years
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
except
for
EUSGUs).
For
program
consistency
and
ease
of
implementation,
we
believe
that
the
procedure
for
determining
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
establishing
your
PAL
should
be
the
same
as
the
baseline
actual
emissions
that
you
will
be
required
to
use
under
the
other
major
NSR
program
requirements.
Accordingly,
we
are
adopting
an
approach
for
establishing
your
actuals
PAL
that
is
consistent
with
how
the
baseline
actual
emissions
are
determined
for
an
emissions
unit
under
other
requirements
of
the
major
NSR
program.
We
are,
however,
including
a
special
allowance
for
emissions
units
that
have
operated
for
less
than
2
years.
Under
such
circumstances,
the
emissions
unit
has
not
operated
long
enough
to
establish
a
reliable
baseline
actual
emissions
calculation.
Therefore,
today's
rule
allows
your
reviewing
authority
to
consider
the
allowable
emissions
of
such
emissions
units
when
establishing
or
renewing
the
PAL.
The
baseline
actual
emissions
of
such
emissions
units
would
be
adjusted
to
reflect
a
more
representative
level
of
baseline
actual
emissions
at
the
time
of
the
next
PAL
renewal.

6.
Are
Emissions
From
Shut
Down
or
Dismantled
Units
Excluded
From
a
PAL?
We
proposed
several
options
to
adjust
PAL
levels
to
account
for
emissions
units
that
are
shut
down
or
dismantled
before
setting
a
PAL.
Several
commenters
support
adjusting
the
PAL
level
for
permanently
shut
down
or
dismantled
units.
A
few
commenters
maintain
that
PAL
adjustments
are
only
appropriate
for
long­
term
shutdowns.
Other
commenters
oppose
allowing
adjustments
for
shutdowns.
They
indicate
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
implement
and
that
it
could
penalize
sources
that
were
meeting
environmental
goals.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
baseline
actual
emissions
used
in
establishing
the
PAL
should
exclude
emissions
from
units
that
are
permanently
shut
down
or
dismantled
after
the
24­
month
period
selected
for
establishment
of
baseline
emissions.
We
believe
that
excluding
such
emissions
from
your
PAL
level
is
appropriate
for
air
quality
planning
purposes.
Moreover,
the
environment
has
already
seen
the
benefit
of
the
reduced
emissions.
We
also
do
not
agree
with
those
commenters
who
advocate
adjusting
the
PAL
only
for
long­
term
shutdowns,
because
it
is
too
difficult
to
define
and
enforce
``
long­
term.''
As
described
in
section
IV.
C.
2
of
this
preamble,
the
PAL
level
includes
baseline
actual
emissions
from
each
existing
emissions
unit
and
new
emissions
unit
at
the
source.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
permanently
shut
down
since
the
24­
month
period,
its
emissions
should
not
be
included
in
calculating
the
PAL
level.
Conversely,
for
an
emissions
unit
that
began
construction
after
the
24­
month
period,
the
emissions
(
equal
to
the
potential
emissions
of
that
emissions
unit)
must
be
included
in
setting
the
PAL
level.
One
shutdown
option
we
considered,
but
did
not
adopt,
is
to
exclude
emissions
from
PALs
only
for
units
that
did
not
operate
at
all
during
the
10­
year
life
of
the
PAL.
Under
this
option,
the
PAL
would
not
be
adjusted
downward
if
you
utilized
those
emissions
from
the
shut
down
or
dismantled
units
elsewhere
at
your
source
during
the
period
since
the
shutdown
(
for
example,
by
adding
new
emissions
units
or
capacity,
or
by
increasing
capacity
utilization
at
existing
emissions
units).
As
we
indicated
in
our
proposal,
we
believe
it
would
be
too
difficult
to
determine
whether
you
have
actually
relied
on
these
emissions
decreases
in
undertaking
other
activities
at
your
source.
We
did
not
receive
any
comments
suggesting
ways
to
overcome
this
identified
problem.
7.
Does
a
PAL
Include
a
Reasonable
Operating
Margin?

In
the
July
23,
1996
action,
we
proposed
that
a
PAL
for
existing
sources
be
based
on
source­
wide
actual
emissions,
including
a
reasonable
operating
margin
less
than
the
applicable
significant
emissions
rate.
We
also
requested
comment
on
several
other
options
for
establishing
a
PAL.
Several
commenters
support
the
option
of
basing
the
PAL
on
source­
wide
actual
emissions
plus
a
reasonable
operating
margin
less
than
the
applicable
significance
amount.
Other
commenters
believe
an
operating
margin
tied
to
significant
levels
would
be
too
restrictive.
Today
we
are
finalizing
an
option
that
allows
you
to
include,
when
setting
the
initial
PAL,
an
amount
that
corresponds
to
the
significant
level
for
modifications
of
the
PAL
pollutant
as
specified
in
the
major
NSR
rules
[
for
example,
in
the
PSD
regulations
at
§
52.21(
b)(
23)(
i)],
or
as
specified
in
the
CAA,
whichever
is
lower.
For
example,
for
SO2
PALs
you
may
add
to
the
PAL
baseline
level
the
40
tpy
significant
level;
for
CO
PALs
you
may
add
100
tpy
to
the
PAL
baseline
level.
Also,
for
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
the
VOC
significant
level
added
to
the
PAL
level
is
25
tpy.
For
major
sources
of
NOX
located
in
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
where
NOX
is
regulated
as
an
ozone
precursor,
you
may
add
to
the
NOX
PAL
baseline
the
NOX
significant
level
of
25
tpy,
and
not
the
40
tpy
NOX
significant
level
specified
under
PSD.
In
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
PALs
are
not
allowed
since
any
increase
in
emissions
in
these
areas
constitutes
a
modification.
While
other
approaches
to
providing
a
reasonable
operating
margin
may
be
consistent
with
the
CAA,
we
believe
that
the
approach
we
are
adopting
today
comports
most
closely
with
existing
regulatory
provisions
for
major
NSR
applicability.
That
is,
it
assures
that
the
environment
sees
no
significant
increases
in
emissions
compared
to
the
baseline
actual
emissions
existing
before
the
PAL
is
established.
In
our
1998
NOA,
we
also
requested
comment
on
whether
we
should
provide
for
an
operating
margin
when
renewing
a
PAL.
We
proposed
four
possible
approaches
for
maintaining
a
reasonable
operating
margin,
including
an
option
that
would
include
in
the
adjusted
PAL
level
an
operating
cushion
equal
to
20
percent
of
the
current
PAL.
In
a
separate
section
of
the
NOA,
we
also
requested
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80219
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
comment
on
how
PALs
should
be
adjusted
for
emissions
units
that
have
installed
good
emissions
controls.
Many
commenters
indicate
that
we
must
provide
for
a
reasonable
operating
margin.
However,
we
generally
received
unfavorable
comments
on
all
the
approaches
we
suggested.
Several
commenters
believe
that
our
suggested
approaches
do
not
provide
an
adequate
operating
margin.
In
responding
to
our
request
for
comment
on
how
to
adjust
PALs
for
emissions
units
that
have
installed
good
emissions
controls,
many
commenters
indicate
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
``
confiscate''
such
emissions
reductions.
Such
an
approach
would
encourage
sources
to
pollute
to
maintain
higher
baseline
emissions,
and
would
penalize
those
sources
who
would
voluntarily
reduce
emissions.
At
least
one
commenter
maintains
that
both
you
and
the
environment
should
benefit
from
these
reductions,
and
thus,
you
should
be
allowed
to
retain
a
portion
of
your
voluntary
emissions
reductions.
We
agree
with
some
commenters
that
mandating
an
adjustment
at
renewal,
based
solely
on
current
operations
and
emissions
levels,
would
discourage
the
voluntary
emissions
reductions
the
PAL
is
specifically
designed
to
encourage.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
both
you
and
the
environment
should
benefit
from
your
commitment
to
comply
with
a
PAL.
Should
you
engage
in
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
we
believe
you
should
be
able
to
retain
the
accompanying
flexibility
that
encouraged
you
to
make
these
reductions.
At
the
time
of
renewal,
it
may
be
very
difficult
for
a
reviewing
authority
to
distinguish
the
reason
for
a
decrease
in
your
baseline
actual
emissions
level.
It
could
be
because
you
have
aggressively
applied
emissions
controls,
or
because
of
a
decrease
in
utilization,
a
loss
of
capacity,
a
desire
to
maintain
a
compliance
margin,
or
any
of
a
number
of
other
reasons.
Accordingly,
we
believe
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
advise
a
reviewing
authority
to
only
retain
a
certain
percentage
of
your
emissions
reductions
that
resulted
from
applying
emissions
controls.
Therefore,
for
simplicity,
and
for
what
we
believe
to
be
a
reasonable
policy
position
to
encourage
you
to
voluntarily
reduce
emissions
without
a
fear
of
a
complete
loss
of
operational
flexibility,
we
are
allowing
your
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
renew
the
PAL
at
an
appropriate
level.
Hence,
your
reviewing
authority
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
without
consideration
of
other
factors,
if
the
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
the
significant
level
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level.
If
not,
today's
rules
also
allow
your
reviewing
authority
to
renew
the
PAL
at
a
different
level
if
it
determines
that
level
is
more
representative
of
baseline
actual
emissions.
See
section
II.
D.
9,
``
Should
we
require
PALs
to
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
PAL
renewal,''
for
more
information
on
our
rationale
for
allowing
this
discretion.

8.
Are
PALs
Required
to
Expire?
In
our
1998
NOA,
we
announced
that
we
were
considering,
and
requested
comment
on,
an
approach
that
would
require
PALs
to
expire
after
10
years
unless
you
choose
to
renew
the
PAL.
We
proposed
that
the
PAL
term
would
be
10
years.
Several
commenters
agree
with
our
suggested
time
frame
of
10
years
for
the
term
of
a
PAL.
Others
support
a
5­
year
period,
which
would
fit
with
the
title
V
permit
review
period.
Some
commenters
support
a
period
longer
than
10
years.
Today,
we
are
finalizing
rules
that
require
a
PAL
to
be
effective
for
a
period
of
10
years.
We
believe
that
a
fixed­
term
PAL
provides
you
with
an
appropriate
time
of
regulatory
certainty
and
allows
a
sufficient
period
of
time
for
planning
long­
term
capital
improvements.
We
also
agree
with
those
commenters
who
think
it
is
beneficial
to
align
the
PAL
renewal
process
with
the
title
V
permitting
process
for
your
major
stationary
source.
Similar
to
a
PAL
permit
process,
the
title
V
permit
process
provides
the
public
with
a
comprehensive
review
of
your
source.
We
believe
that
aligning
the
PAL
permit
with
the
title
V
process
will
allow
you
and
your
reviewing
authority
to
consolidate
the
administrative
process
for
the
two
permitting
actions.
It
also
provides
the
public
with
a
better
understanding
of
your
emissions
characteristics
relative
to
the
surrounding
community.
However,
we
do
not
believe
that
requiring
PALS
to
be
reviewed
every
5
years,
consistent
with
the
title
V
renewal
period,
provides
industry
with
a
sufficient
period
of
regulatory
certainty.
We
also
believe
that
while
the
overall
administrative
burden
for
you
and
the
reviewing
authority
is
reduced
if
you
are
complying
with
a
PAL,
the
establishment
of
a
PAL
requires
an
initial
commitment
of
substantial
resources.
Given
this
initial
resource
investment,
we
do
not
believe
that
a
5­
year
fixed
term
for
a
PAL
provides
you
or
your
reviewing
authority
with
an
adequate
incentive
to
participate
in
the
PAL
system.
Thus,
in
an
effort
to
balance
the
need
for
regulatory
certainty,
the
administrative
burden,
and
a
desire
to
align
the
PAL
renewal
with
the
title
V
permit
renewal,
we
believe
a
fixed
term
of
10
years,
the
equivalent
of
two
title
V
effective
periods
(
10
years),
is
most
appropriate.
You
may
elect
to
renew
your
PAL
after
10
years,
for
a
subsequent
10­
year
period,
rather
than
allow
the
PAL
to
expire.
In
order
to
align
the
PAL
renewal
process
with
the
title
V
permitting
process,
we
suggest
that
you
request
that
the
reviewing
authorities
renew
title
V
permits
concurrent
with
issuance
of
the
initial
PAL
permit,
regardless
of
how
many
years
are
actually
left
on
your
title
V
permit.

9.
Are
PALs
Required
To
Be
Adjusted
at
the
Time
of
PAL
Renewal?
In
1996,
we
requested
comment
on
``
why,
how,
and
when
a
PAL
should
be
lowered
or
increased
without
being
subject
to
major
NSR.''
In
1998,
we
announced
that
we
were
considering
an
option
that
required
PALs
to
be
renewed
to
reflect
new
current
baseline
actual
emissions.
We
were
also
considering
requiring
a
PAL
to
be
adjusted
for
unused
capacity.
Under
this
approach,
we
would
adjust
a
PAL
downward
when
an
emissions
unit
operates
below
the
capacity
level
that
was
used
to
establish
the
PAL.
In
our
1998
NOA,
we
expressed
three
reasons
why
it
might
be
appropriate
to
require
PALs
to
be
periodically
adjusted.
First,
we
expressed
concern
that
the
allowable­
toallowable
applicability
system
of
the
PAL
would
allow
you
to
indefinitely
retain
the
right
to
pollute
at
an
historical
level
of
actual
emissions.
Second,
we
were
concerned
that
a
PAL
may
allow
you
to
retain
unused
emissions
credits
that
would
otherwise
be
available
for
economic
growth
in
the
area.
And
third,
we
were
concerned
that
a
PAL
may
interfere
with
a
State's
ability
to
plan
for
attainment
if
your
actual
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
are
lower
during
a
SIP
planning
year
than
in
a
subsequent
year.
Some
commenters
generally
oppose
any
periodic
reviewing
or
adjustment
of
a
PAL.
They
believe
that
such
an
approach
would
limit
operational
flexibility,
discourage
efficiency
improvements,
and
create
disincentives
for
voluntary
reductions.
However,
other
commenters
generally
support
an
approach
that
would
require
a
periodic
adjustment
to
PALs.
We
continue
to
have
concerns
with
an
approach
that
would
allow
a
PAL
to
be
renewed
without
any
evaluation
of
the
appropriateness
of
the
current
PAL
level.
We
believe
such
an
approach
would
be
contrary
to
the
Act,
and
contrary
to
the
court's
decision
in
WEPCO
v.
Reilly,
893
F.
2d
901,
908
(
7th
Circ.
1990).
In
WEPCO,
the
court
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80220
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
determined
that
one
statutory
purpose
of
the
NSR
requirements
is
``
to
stimulate
the
advancement
of
pollution
control
technology,''
and
that
``
allowing
increased
production
(
and
pollution)
through
the
extensive
replacement
of
deteriorated
generating
system''
without
triggering
NSR
review
would
create
``
vistas
of
indefinite
immunity
from
the
provisions
of
*
*
*
PSD.''
We
believe
today's
rules
avoid
this
inappropriate
outcome,
by
requiring
the
reviewing
authority
to
evaluate
your
baseline
actual
emissions
at
the
time
of
PAL
permit
renewal.
Although
we
believe
that
a
periodic
review
of
the
level
of
the
PAL
may
be
necessary,
and
that
this
may
result
in
an
adjustment
in
your
PAL
to
a
level
that
is
representative
of
your
baseline
actual
emissions,
we
do
not
believe
that
we
should
mandate
an
adjustment
to
the
PAL
based
on
only
one
prescribed
methodology.
Such
an
approach
could
lead
to
inappropriate
results,
as
discussed
below.
Instead,
we
believe
that
our
concerns
can
be
appropriately
addressed
by
providing
the
States
the
authority
to
adjust
the
PAL
based
on
what
is
representative
of
your
baseline
actual
emissions.
We
believe
that
some
discretion
in
determining
what
is
representative
of
actual
emissions
is
appropriate,
based
in
part
on
our
experience
with
the
pilot
projects
previously
mentioned.
In
one
instance,
a
participant
voluntarily
agreed
to
reduce
its
actual
emissions
by
54
percent
in
exchange
for
obtaining
a
source­
wide
emissions
cap.
After
agreeing
to
this
emissions
reduction,
the
participant
further
reduced
emissions
by
increasing
capture
efficiency
and
incorporating
pollution
prevention
strategies
into
its
operations.
Unexpectedly,
the
participant
also
suffered
an
unusual
economic
downturn
that
caused
a
decrease
in
the
rate
of
production
and
a
corresponding
decrease
in
actual
emissions.
At
the
time
of
renewal
of
the
source­
wide
emissions
cap,
the
participant's
actual
emissions
were
10
percent
of
its
actual
emissions
before
committing
to
the
emissions
cap.
The
participant
chose
not
to
renew
its
emissions
caps,
because
renewal
required
an
automatic
adjustment
to
its
current
actual
emissions
level.
Clearly,
such
a
result
contravenes
the
mutual
benefits
operating
under
a
PAL
provides,
and
discourages
you
from
undertaking
voluntary
reductions.
Accordingly,
although
today's
final
rules
require
the
reviewing
authority
to
consider
the
need
for
adjusting
the
PAL
when
your
current
baseline
actual
emissions
plus
the
significant
level
are
less
than
80
percent
of
your
PAL
level,
it
also
provides
the
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
consider
a
variety
of
factors
in
determining
whether
the
PAL
should
be
adjusted.
We
are
also
providing
your
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
take
into
account
measures
necessary
to
prevent
a
violation
of
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment,
and
to
prevent
an
adverse
impact
on
an
AQRV
in
a
Federal
Class
I
area.
For
example,
although
we
remain
concerned
that
a
PAL
may
allow
you
to
retain
unused
emissions
credits
that
would
otherwise
be
available
for
economic
growth
in
your
area,
we
believe
that
managing
an
area's
economic
growth
is
the
primary
responsibility
of
the
State.
As
such,
the
State,
through
your
reviewing
authority,
should
have
discretion
to
manage
the
growth
increment
for
your
area.
If
your
State
wishes
to
encourage
economic
growth,
then
it
may,
at
its
discretion,
reduce
your
PAL
for
that
reason.
Conversely,
it
may
decide
that
encouraging
economic
growth
is
not
a
priority
for
the
area
and
concurrently
find
no
other
concerns
that
warrant
a
downward
adjustment
in
your
PAL.
After
further
reflection,
we
also
believe
that
it
is
inappropriate
for
us
to
mandate
in
all
cases
a
prescribed
methodology
for
adjusting
PALs
based
on
our
concern
that
a
PAL
system
may
interfere
with
a
State's
ability
to
plan
for
attainment.
We
believe
that
the
concern
regarding
planning
for
attainment
is
not
unique
to
a
PAL
system.
Most
importantly,
nothing
in
this
rule
reduces
the
State's
discretion
in
developing
plans
to
attain
and
maintain
NAAQS.
Under
our
major
NSR
applicability
system,
you
could
increase
your
emissions
over
your
historical
actual
emissions
by
increasing
utilization
or
hours
of
operation.
If
this
occurs,
there
may
be
a
discrepancy
between
the
amount
the
State
carries
in
the
emissions
inventory
and
the
amount
that
you
emit
to
the
atmosphere.
States
should
be
cognizant
of
these
issues
and
take
appropriate
measures
in
their
SIP
planning
procedures
to
assure
that
emissions
from
any
major
stationary
source,
including
a
PAL
participant,
are
properly
characterized
in
the
emissions
inventory.
And
finally,
we
agree
with
industry
commenters
that
if
we
were
to
mandate
an
adjustment
because
your
baseline
actual
emissions
did
not
equal
100
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
it
would
encourage
you
to
increase
production
and
emissions,
and
such
an
outcome
would
be
counterproductive.
We
have
accordingly
provided
your
reviewing
authority
the
ability
to
add
a
reasonable
operating
margin
to
your
baseline
actual
emissions
at
the
time
of
renewal.
This
operating
margin
was
discussed
previously
in
section
II.
D.
7
above
 
`
`
Should
a
PAL
include
a
reasonable
operating
margin?''

10.
Are
Certain
New
Emissions
Units
That
Are
Added
Under
a
PAL
Required
To
Meet
Some
Level
of
Emissions
Control?

We
solicited
comments
on
whether
we
should
require
you
to
control
emissions
from
new
emissions
units
that
are
added
under
an
established
PAL.
Several
commenters
believe
that
BACT
or
LAER
should
not
be
required
for
these
emissions
units.
A
few
commenters
favor
adding
a
requirement
that
BACT
or
LAER
be
required
on
new
emissions
units.
We
believe
that
it
is
unnecessary
to
mandate
a
specific
control
level
on
new
emissions
units
that
you
add
under
an
established
PAL.
After
reviewing
the
performance
of
a
limited
number
of
facilities
that
are
participating
in
PAL
pilot
projects,
we
have
concluded
that
these
facilities'
desire
to
maintain
a
large
degree
of
operational
flexibility
under
a
PAL
system
has
encouraged
them
to
voluntarily
install
state­
of­
theart
controls
on
new
emissions
units.
(
See
footnote
26
regarding
our
study,
``
Evaluation
of
the
Implementation
Experience
with
Innovative
Air
Permits.'')
We
anticipate
similar
results
as
we
extend
the
PAL
program
more
broadly.
Alternatively,
we
believe
that
you
will
add
emissions
controls
to
existing
emissions
units
if
this
is
a
more
cost
effective
approach
to
controlling
your
emissions.
This
is
precisely
the
type
of
flexibility
you
should
have
for
managing
your
total
source­
wide
emissions
under
a
PAL
system.
Furthermore,
this
cost
effective
approach
was
contemplated
and
supported
by
the
statements
of
the
court
in
Alabama
Power.
The
court
concluded
that
you
should
be
allowed
to
add
new
emissions
units
if
the
new
emissions
from
this
unit
could
be
``
set­
off
against
decreases''
from
other
emissions
units
at
the
major
stationary
source.
Accordingly,
we
do
not
believe
that
it
is
necessary
to
mandate
the
installation
of
emissions
controls
on
new
emissions
units
if
you
are
able
to
continue
to
comply
with
your
PAL
even
after
installing
the
new
emissions
unit.
If
our
projections
on
this
matter
prove
to
be
incorrect
in
practice,
we
will
consider
revising
our
regulations
in
the
future
to
require
a
specific
control
level
on
new
and/
or
existing
emissions
units.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80221
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
11.
Under
What
Circumstances
Are
You
Allowed
To
Increase
Your
PAL
and
How
Are
the
Major
NSR
Requirements
Applied
To
That
Increase?

We
proposed
that
whenever
a
PAL
is
increased
due
to
the
addition
of
a
new
unit,
or
due
to
a
physical
or
operational
change
to
an
existing
emissions
unit,
the
units
associated
with
the
increase
would
be
reviewed
for
current
BACT
or
current
LAER,
air
quality
impacts
modeling,
and
emissions
offsets,
if
applicable.
We
noted
that
it
may
be
difficult
for
a
reviewing
authority
to
determine
which
emissions
units
are
associated
with
a
physical
change
or
change
in
method
of
operation
when
the
emissions
increase
is
the
result
of
a
source­
wide
production
increase.
We
requested
comment
on
five
possible
ways
to
apply
the
major
NSR
requirements
when
emissions
increases
are
not
directly
associated
with
a
particular
change.
Commenters
offered
various
suggestions
for
addressing
emissions
increases
above
the
PAL.
Several
commenters
believe
that
major
NSR
should
only
be
applied
to
the
emissions
unit
primarily
responsible
for
the
increase.
Among
the
various
commenters,
there
are
a
few
supporters
for
each
one
of
the
options
we
proposed.
In
addition,
one
commenter
suggests
that
we
add
de
minimis
increase
levels;
another
suggests
that
we
require
offsets
for
each
increase.
Several
industry
commenters
believe
that
we
should
not
apply
major
NSR
when
an
increase
above
the
PAL
is
solely
due
to
a
production
increase.
One
commenter
believes
all
increases
should
be
subject
to
BACT.
After
considering
the
comments
received,
we
agree
with
the
commenters
who
believe
that
major
NSR
should
only
be
applied
to
the
emissions
units
(
either
new
or
modifications
of
existing
units)
primarily
causing
the
increase.
Accordingly,
in
the
final
regulations,
we
are
confirming
our
proposed
requirement
that
only
those
emissions
units
that
are
part
of
a
PAL
major
modification
would
be
subject
to
major
NSR.
As
discussed
earlier,
we
believe
that
a
PAL
provides
you
with
an
incentive
to
control
existing
and
new
emissions
units
to
maximize
your
operational
flexibility
under
your
PAL.
We
also
recognize
that
there
may
be
valid
economic
reasons
for
requesting
an
upward
adjustment
in
a
PAL.
We
are,
however,
concerned
that
if
there
were
no
restrictions
on
your
ability
to
request
a
PAL
increase,
you
would
not
have
an
incentive
to
control
emissions.
Therefore,
under
today's
final
rules,
before
the
reviewing
authority
may
approve
a
mid­
term
increase
in
your
PAL,
you
must
demonstrate
that
you
are
unable
to
maintain
emissions
below
your
current
PAL
even
with
a
good
faith
effort
to
control
emissions
from
existing
emissions
units.
To
make
this
demonstration,
you
must
show
that
even
if
BACT
equivalent
control
(
adjusted
for
a
current
BACT
level
of
control
unless
the
emissions
units
are
currently
subject
to
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
has
been
determined
within
the
preceding
10
years,
in
which
case
the
assumed
control
level
shall
be
equal
to
the
emissions
unit's
existing
BACT
or
LAER
control
level)
were
to
be
applied
to
all
of
your
significant
and
major
emissions
units,
the
resulting
emissions
level
will
exceed
your
current
PAL
when
combined
with
the
emissions
from
both
your
small
emissions
units
and
your
new
emissions
unit's
allowable
emissions.

12.
What
Compliance
Monitoring,
Reporting,
Recordkeeping,
and
Testing
(
MRRT)
Requirements
Are
Necessary
to
Ensure
the
Enforceability
of
PALs
as
a
Practical
Matter?
The
MRRT
requirements
for
PALs
are
addressed
below.
Numerous
commenters,
generally
State
agencies
and
environmental
groups,
state
that
adequate
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
would
be
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
PAL
limits
were
enforceable.
Some
commenters
hold
that
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
provisions
would
be
too
burdensome
and
restrictive.
Some
believe
that
PALs
would
not
be
viable
because
of
these
requirements.
Several
commenters
request
that
we
clarify
the
monitoring
that
is
necessary
to
show
compliance
with
a
PAL,
especially
in
relation
to
the
CAM
and
title
V
programs.
Several
commenters
prefer
that
the
monitoring
requirements
be
flexible
and
simple.
These
commenters
urge
us
not
to
use
CAM,
require
CEMS,
or
establish
stringent
protocols.
A
few
commenters
prefer
that
we
not
define
what
would
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
for
PAL
limits.
Others
insisted
that
the
PAL
limits
must
be
federally
enforceable.
We
believe
that
the
PAL
must
assure
that
the
source
maintains
emissions
below
the
PAL
level
to
assure
that
major
NSR
does
not
apply.
Therefore,
we
agree
with
the
commenters
who
stated
that
adequate
data
collection
requirements
through
means
such
as
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
PAL
limits
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
In
fact,
we
find
that
not
only
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements,
but
also
emissions
testing
requirements,
for
emissions
units
subject
to
a
PAL
differ
from
other
MRRT
in
one
important
aspect:
actual
unit
emissions
must
be
measured
to
provide
a
12­
month
rolling
total,
and
compared
against
a
limit.
Currently,
many
emissions
units
are
required
only
to
have
MRRT
suitable
for
initial
or
spot
checks
on
emissions
concentrations,
not
emissions
quantification.
Even
emissions
units
whose
MRRT
meets
the
title
V
requirements
in
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
or
70.6(
c)(
1),
including
those
imposed
by
part
64
(
the
CAM
rule),
may
need
to
be
upgraded
when
those
units
are
proposed
to
become
subject
to
a
PAL,
because
the
approved
title
V
MRRT
may
not
be
able
to
count
emissions
against
a
cap.
While
we
believe
you
can
obtain
data
for
emissions
quantification
best
through
the
use
of
CEMS
or
PEMS,
in
today's
final
rule
we
are
allowing
you
to
propose
other
types
of
emissions
monitoring
quantification
systems,
depending
upon
such
factors
as
the
size
category
of
the
emissions
unit
and
its
margin
of
compliance.

13.
Is
EPA
Adopting
an
Approach
That
Allows
Area­
Wide
PALs?
In
1996,
we
proposed
an
option
that
would
allow
a
State
to
adopt
an
areawide
PAL
approach.
Under
such
an
approach,
all
major
stationary
sources
within
a
given
geographic
area
would
have
a
PAL.
Our
1996
proposal
contained
little
detail
on
how
this
would
be
implemented.
While
a
few
commenters
support
area­
wide
PALs,
many
more
oppose
them.
State
agency
commenters
generally
believe
they
would
need
time
to
develop
PALs
consistent
with
the
approaches
provided
in
the
final
NSR
rule,
as
well
as
to
develop
data
management
and
compliance
assurance
approaches
that
would
accommodate
the
PAL
approach.
Thus,
adding
the
area­
wide
PAL
at
the
same
time
as
the
source­
specific
PAL
may
create
several
administrative
headaches.
Industry
commenters
maintain
that
area­
wide
PALs
would
ratchet
down
emissions
and
reduce
flexibility.
We
agree
with
the
many
commenters
who
opposed
an
area­
wide
PAL
system,
believing
that
the
approach
would
be
complex
and
resource
and
time
intensive.
We
also
perceived
little
interest
in
such
an
approach
from
the
various
stakeholders
with
whom
we
have
met.
Accordingly,
we
are
not
including
any
provisions
in
our
final
rules
to
implement
an
area­
wide
PAL
system.
However,
we
are
not
precluding
such
a
program
either.
If
a
State
currently
has
or
wants
to
pursue
an
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80222
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
area­
wide
PAL
program,
then
it
must
demonstrate
that
its
program
is
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
our
final
rules.

14.
When
Should
Modeling
or
Other
Types
of
Ambient
Impact
Assessments
Be
Required
for
Changes
Occurring
Under
a
PAL?
In
our
1996
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
when
modeling
or
other
air
quality
impacts
analysis
is
needed
for
changes
occurring
under
a
PAL
to
demonstrate
protection
of
NAAQS,
increments,
and
AQRVs.
One
environmental
commenter
recommends
modeling
or
other
types
of
ambient
impacts
assessment
whenever
a
change
in
emissions
occurred
under
the
PAL.
One
commenter
recommends
that
FLMs
be
consulted
whenever
changes
under
the
PAL
are
proposed,
to
determine
whether
an
impact
analysis
for
adverse
impact
on
AQRVs
would
be
necessary.
Several
commenters
recommend
modeling
whenever
a
significant
change
occurred,
but
also
recommend
that
EPA
define
significant
change
and
how
the
modeling
would
be
conducted.
A
facility
could
report
the
modeled
effects
of
a
minor
change
after
the
change
is
made
(
in
a
quarterly,
semiannual
or
perhaps
annual
modeling
summary),
while
more
significant
changes
should
be
modeled
prior
to
construction.
The
facility
could
be
given
a
lot
of
responsibility
in
these
cases
and
then
held
accountable
(
that
is,
required
to
mitigate)
should
an
air
quality
increment
or
NAAQS
be
exceeded.
These
commenters
also
recommend
that
the
impacts
evaluation
should
be
conducted
at
the
time
the
PAL
is
established
and
that
the
PAL
should
clearly
define
what
flexibility
the
source
is
allowed
without
further
review
and
the
types
of
changes
for
which
additional
review
will
be
required.
Some
commenters
generally
believe
that
the
proposed
regulatory
language
concerning
changes
to
PALs
for
air
quality
reasons
was
too
vague
and
broad,
but
only
a
few
of
these
commenters
directly
oppose
modeling
for
changes
under
the
PAL.
One
commenter
states
that
if
many
changes
were
to
require
ambient
air
quality
analysis,
the
PAL
approach
would
have
little
if
any
benefit.
The
commenter
believes
that
sources
ought
to
discuss
up
front
with
permit
authorities
which
emissions
shifts
might
have
consequences
that
would
later
require
additional
modeling/
monitoring.
If
questions
existed
about
certain
emissions
sources
under
a
PAL,
PALs
could
be
approved
with
conditions
assuring
that
certain
post­
approval
modeling
analysis
be
submitted.
In
today's
final
rules,
we
believe
we
can
rely
on
the
reviewing
authority's
existing
programs
for
addressing
air
quality
issues.
Certain
changes
in
effective
stack
parameters
under
the
PAL
would
generally
be
covered
by
the
reviewing
authority's
minor
NSR
construction
permit
program.
The
reviewing
authority
would
ordinarily
request
air
quality
modeling
for
any
changes
if
it
believes
that
the
changes
under
the
PAL
may
affect
the
NAAQS
and
PSD
increments.

V.
Clean
Units
A.
Introduction
In
today's
final
rulemaking,
we
are
promulgating
a
new
type
of
applicability
test
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units.
This
new
applicability
test
will
measure
whether
an
emissions
increase
occurs,
based
on
whether
the
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
affects
the
Clean
Unit
status
of
the
unit.
This
new
applicability
test
provides
that
when
you
meet
emission
limitations
based
on
installing
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
control
technologies
(
add­
on
control
technology,
pollution
prevention
techniques,
or
work
practices)
that
are
determined
to
be
BACT
or
LAER,
you
may
make
any
physical
or
operational
changes
to
the
Clean
Unit
without
triggering
major
NSR,
unless
the
change
causes
the
need
for
a
revision
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determinations,
or
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
for
a
particular
unit.
Emissions
units
that
have
not
been
through
major
NSR
may
also
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
if
you
demonstrate
that
their
emission
limitations
based
on
their
emissions
control
technology
(
that
is,
add­
on
control
technology,
pollution
prevention
technique,
or
work
practice)
is
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER
and
you
demonstrate
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
To
be
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER,
the
controls
must
meet
the
specific
comparability
test
that
we
describe
in
section
V.
C.
3
of
this
preamble.
That
is,
you
must
show
that
the
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
in
one
of
two
ways:
(
1)
By
comparing
your
emissions
unit's
control
level
to
BACT/
LAER
determinations
for
other
similar
sources
in
the
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
Clearinghouse
(
RBLC);
or
(
2)
by
making
a
case­
by­
case
demonstration
that
your
emissions
control
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT
or
LAER.
The
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
benefits
the
public
and
the
environment
by
providing
you
with
an
incentive
to
install
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
controls,
even
if
you
would
not
otherwise
be
required
to
control
emissions
to
this
level.
You
will
benefit
from
these
final
rules
because
they
provide
you
with
increased
operational
flexibility.
Once
you
have
installed
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
controls
on
an
emissions
unit
and
it
is
considered
a
Clean
Unit,
you
may
make
changes
to
respond
rapidly
to
market
demands
without
having
to
obtain
a
preconstruction
major
NSR
permit.
Moreover,
you
and
your
reviewing
authority
will
benefit
from
increased
administrative
efficiency.
We
believe
that
once
you
have
installed
state­
of­
theart
emissions
control,
an
additional
major
NSR
review
will
generally
not
result
in
any
additional
emissions
controls
for
a
period
of
years
after
the
original
control
technology
determination
is
made.
In
such
cases,
the
major
NSR
permitting
requirements
impose
a
paperwork
burden
with
little
to
no
additional
environmental
benefit.
The
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
eliminates
this
unnecessary
administrative
action.

B.
Summary
of
1996
Clean
Unit
Proposal
In
the
1996
NSR
Reform
package,
we
proposed
an
innovative
approach
to
NSR
applicability
called
the
Clean
Unit
Exclusion.
The
proposed
Clean
Unit
Exclusion
would
allow
you
to
modify
qualifying
emissions
units
without
being
subject
to
the
NSR
permitting
process
for
a
period
of
10
years,
as
long
as
your
maximum
hourly
emissions
rates
would
not
increase.
We
proposed
that
your
pre­
change
hourly
potential
emissions
rate
must
be
established
at
any
time
up
to
6
months
prior
to
the
proposed
activity
or
project.
We
proposed
three
methods
by
which
an
emissions
unit
could
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
Exclusion.
One
was
that
the
emissions
unit
went
through
a
major
NSR
action
within
the
last
10
years
and
had
an
enforceable
limit
based
on
BACT
or
LAER.
The
second
was
if
the
emissions
unit
was
permitted
under
a
State
or
local
agency
minor
NSR
program
within
the
last
10
years
and
the
minor
NSR
control
technology
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80223
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
requirements
were
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER.
As
part
of
this
second
method,
we
proposed
that
State
and
local
agencies
would
submit
their
minor
NSR
programs
for
certification
so
that
caseby
case
determinations
for
emissions
units
permitted
under
a
minor
NSR
program
would
not
be
necessary.
The
third
method
was
a
case­
by­
case
determination
that
an
emission
limitation
was
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER
for
that
emissions
unit.
For
these
units,
we
proposed
that
the
Clean
Unit
Exclusion
would
last
for
5
years.
We
proposed
that
a
determination
that
a
limit
was
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER
could
be
based
on
one
of
two
methods:
(
1)
the
average
of
the
BACT
or
LAER
for
equivalent
sources
over
a
recent
period
of
time
(
such
as
3
years);
or
(
2)
the
unit's
control
level
is
within
some
percentage
(
such
as
5
or
10)
of
the
most
recent,
or
average
of
the
most
recent,
BACT
or
LAER
levels
for
equivalent
or
similar
sources.
In
addition,
we
asked
for
public
comment
on
whether
Clean
Unit
status
should
apply
to
emissions
units
with
limits
based
on
MACT
or
RACT.
Although
we
did
not
propose
accompanying
regulatory
language,
we
suggested
that
reviewing
authorities
use
the
title
V
permitting
process
to
designate
Clean
Units.

C.
Final
Regulations
for
Clean
Units
1.
Summary
of
Final
Action
Today's
rule
provides
that
your
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit,
and
qualifies
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test,
if
it
has
gone
through
a
major
NSR
permitting
review
and
is
complying
with
BACT
or
LAER.
Conversely,
if
your
emissions
unit
has
not
gone
through
a
major
NSR
permitting
review,
you
do
not
automatically
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
These
emissions
units
must
first
go
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
that
includes
a
process
for
determining
whether
the
emissions
unit
meets
the
criteria
to
be
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit.
This
process
must
include
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
To
obtain
Clean
Unit
status
and
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
using
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process,
you
must
pass
a
two­
part
test:
(
1)
The
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
must
be
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER;
and
(
2)
you
must
demonstrate
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
You
may
make
a
showing
that
the
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
in
two
ways:
(
1)
By
comparing
your
emissions
unit's
control
level
to
BACT/
LAER
determinations
for
similar
sources
in
the
RBLC;
or
(
2)
by
making
a
case­
by­
case
demonstration
that
your
emissions
control
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT
or
LAER.
If
your
emissions
unit
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
because
it
has
been
through
major
NSR
permitting,
you
may
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
for
up
to
10
years.
Today's
rules
allow
you
to
apply
for
Clean
Unit
status
for
control
technologies
you
have
installed
in
the
past
if
you
go
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
program
that
authorizes
Clean
Units
and
you
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
Clean
Unit
effective
period
for
emissions
units
that
must
go
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
to
obtain
Clean
Unit
status
is
consistent
with
the
time
frame
for
emissions
units
that
automatically
qualify
as
Clean
Units.
That
is,
you
may
only
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
for
a
period
of
10
years.
If
you
meet
the
requirements
that
we
describe
in
section
V.
C.
9
of
this
preamble,
you
may
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
Upon
expiration
of
Clean
Unit
status,
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
no
longer
applies
to
changes
at
the
emissions
unit.
It
is
worth
noting
that
in
1996,
we
proposed
the
provisions
for
Clean
Units
as
a
``
Clean
Unit
Exclusion,''
although
we
discussed
the
provisions
as
a
new
applicability
test.
We
received
criticism
from
at
least
one
commenter
that
our
characterization
of
the
test
as
an
exclusion
was
inappropriate.
We
agree
with
this
commenter,
and
have
thus
renamed
the
test
as
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
We
believe
that
this
title
more
appropriately
reflects
that
the
test
is
not
whether
you
are
excluded
from
review
under
major
NSR,
but
whether
using
a
more
appropriate
emissions
test
you
trigger
major
NSR
review.

2.
Is
Clean
Unit
Status
Available
in
Both
Attainment
and
Nonattainment
Areas?
You
may
obtain
Clean
Unit
status
regardless
of
whether
you
are
located
in
an
attainment
area
or
in
a
nonattainment
area.
Our
proposed
Clean
Unit
provisions
were
unclear
on
how
emissions
offsets
and
other
nonattainment
area
requirements
are
affected
by
Clean
Unit
status.
We
want
to
clarify
this
issue.
For
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
which
went
through
major
NSR
permitting
while
the
area
was
nonattainment
or
which
have
qualified
for
Clean
Unit
status
showing
they
are
comparable
to
LAER,
the
permitted
emissions
level
for
the
Clean
Unit
must
have
been
offset.
The
emissions
reductions
resulting
from
installation
of
the
control
technology
that
is
the
basis
of
an
emissions
unit's
status
as
a
Clean
Unit
may
not
be
used
as
offsets;
however,
emissions
reductions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
may
be
used
as
offsets
if
they
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
permanent,
and
federally
enforceable.
Furthermore,
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units
and
that
are
located
in
nonattainment
areas,
RACT
and
any
other
requirements
for
nonattainment
area
sources
under
the
SIP
will
still
apply.
The
only
exception
to
this
is
that
the
specific
major
NSR
requirements
related
to
calculating
emissions
increases
from
a
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
for
all
other
existing
sources
that
we
describe
in
this
preamble
and
codify
in
today's
rules
are
not
applicable
to
Clean
Units,
because
the
Clean
Units
are
subject
to
an
alternative
major
NSR
applicability
requirement
for
calculating
emissions
increases
when
changes
are
made.
As
we
discuss
in
detail
in
section
V.
C.
3
of
this
preamble,
the
``
substantially
as
effective''
test
for
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
must
consider
only
LAER
determinations,
except
that
emissions
units
in
nonattainment
areas
that
went
through
major
NSR
permitting
while
the
area
was
designated
an
attainment
area
for
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
and
that
received
a
permit
based
on
a
qualifying
air
pollution
control
technology,
automatically
qualify
as
Clean
Units.
If
your
emissions
unit
received
Clean
Unit
status
while
the
unit
was
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area's
attainment
status
subsequently
changes
to
nonattainment,
your
emissions
unit
retains
Clean
Unit
status
until
expiration.
However,
to
re­
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
(
see
section
V.
C.
9),
the
unit
will
have
to
meet
the
requirements
that
apply
in
nonattainment
areas.

3.
How
Do
You
Qualify
As
A
Clean
Unit?
Any
emissions
unit
permitted
through
major
NSR
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit,
provided
the
BACT/
LAER
determination
results
in
some
degree
of
emissions
control.
(
We
discuss
the
specific
requirements
for
qualifying
controls
in
section
V.
C.
4
of
this
preamble.)
These
units
already
meet
both
the
control
technology
and
air
quality
criteria
of
the
CAA
and
the
NSR
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80224
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
regulations.
We
believe
that
the
emission
limitations
(
based
on
the
BACT/
LAER
determination)
and
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
(
such
as
any
limits
on
hours
of
operation,
raw
materials,
etc.,
that
were
used
to
determine
BACT/
LAER)
are
protective
of
air
quality.
Although
emissions
units
that
have
been
through
major
NSR
automatically
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status,
there
are
specific
procedures
for
establishing
and
maintaining
Clean
Unit
status.
We
discuss
these
procedures
in
detail
in
sections
V.
C.
6
through
9
of
this
preamble.
Your
emissions
units
that
have
not
gone
through
a
major
NSR
permitting
action
that
resulted
in
a
requirement
to
comply
with
BACT
or
LAER
may
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
if
they
are
permitted
under
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
program
that
provides
for
public
notice
of
the
proposed
determination
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
You
must
pass
a
twopart
test
to
obtain
Clean
Unit
status:
(
1)
The
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
must
be
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER;
and
(
2)
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
You
may
show
that
the
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
in
one
of
two
ways:
(
1)
By
comparing
your
emissions
unit's
control
level
to
BACT/
LAER
determinations
for
other
similar
sources
in
the
RBLC;
or
(
2)
by
making
a
case­
by­
case
demonstration
that
your
emissions
control
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT
or
LAER.
To
make
a
demonstration
using
the
first
methodology
in
a
nonattainment
area,
you
must
compare
your
control
technology
to
the
best­
performing
5
similar
sources
in
the
RBLC
for
which
LAER
has
been
determined
within
the
past
5
years.
If
the
emission
limitation
that
is
achieved
by
your
control
technology
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
any
one
of
the
5
best­
performing
units,
and
the
emissions
unit
also
passes
the
air
quality
test,
then
the
reviewing
authority
shall
presume
that
it
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
In
attainment
areas,
you
must
compare
your
control
technology
to
all
BACT
and
LAER
decisions
that
have
been
entered
into
the
RBLC
in
the
past
5
years,
and
for
which
it
is
technically
feasible
to
apply
the
BACT
or
LAER
control
to
your
emissions
unit
type.
If
your
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
control
that
is
equal
to
or
better
than
the
average
of
these
determinations,
and
the
emissions
unit
also
passes
the
air
quality
test,
then
the
reviewing
authority
shall
presume
that
your
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
After
you
have
submitted
your
demonstration,
the
reviewing
authority
will
also
consider
other
BACT/
LAER
determinations
that
are
not
included
in
the
RBLC
to
determine
whether
the
proposed
emissions
rate
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER,
and
incorporate
this
information
into
its
determination
as
appropriate.
In
addition,
the
public
will
have
an
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
the
reviewing
authority's
decision
to
designate
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
This
approach
ensures
that
you
are
meeting
an
emissions
level
comparable
to
that
of
BACT
or
LAER,
while
providing
you
flexibility
to
use
the
controls
that
are
best
suited
to
your
processes.
We
are
providing
this
first
methodology
as
a
streamlined
methodology
for
identifying
Clean
Units.
Any
unit
that
meets
these
qualifications
shall
be
presumed
to
be
a
Clean
Unit.
Conversely,
the
opposite
is
not
true.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
not
presume
that
a
unit
that
does
not
meet
the
test
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
The
quality
and
number
of
determinations
in
the
RBLC
vary
by
different
type
of
sources.
The
RBLC
may
not
always
identify
all
the
types
of
control
technology
strategies
that
should
qualify
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
or
it
may
not
provide
a
representative
sample
for
making
an
appropriate
determination.
Therefore,
even
if
you
are
unable
to
demonstrate
that
your
emissions
unit
is
a
Clean
Unit
using
this
methodology,
your
reviewing
authority
shall
not
allow
this
outcome
to
prejudice
its
decision­
making.
Accordingly,
we
are
providing
a
second
option
for
determining
whether
you
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit.
If
your
emissions
unit
does
not
meet
the
emission
limitation
determined
from
the
analysis
of
the
RBLC
described
above
(
as
appropriate
for
the
area
in
which
it
is
located),
or
if
there
is
insufficient
information
in
the
RBLC
to
conduct
the
analysis,
then
you
may
still
show,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
that
your
emissions
unit
will
achieve
a
level
of
control
that
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT
or
LAER,
depending
whether
your
emissions
unit
is
in
an
attainment
area
or
a
nonattainment
area.
In
an
attainment
area,
your
emissions
unit
must
achieve
a
level
of
control
that
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT.
In
a
nonattainment
area,
your
emissions
unit
must
achieve
a
level
of
control
that
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
LAER.
The
reviewing
authority
will
make
a
decision
on
whether
a
particular
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
the
BACT/
LAER
technology
for
a
specific
source
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
We
are
not
promulgating
specific
requirements
or
performance
criteria
for
satisfying
the
``
substantially
as
effective''
test,
because
we
believe
reviewing
authorities
are
in
the
best
position
to
determine
whether
in
fact
a
particular
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
the
BACT/
LAER
technology
for
a
specific
source.
The
case­
by­
case
determinations
must
meet
the
same
air
quality
test
as
those
units
going
through
a
BACT/
LAER
determination.
Moreover,
the
public
has
opportunity
for
public
review
and
comment
on
the
``
substantially
as
effective''
decision.
With
these
safeguards,
we
believe
the
``
substantially
as
effective''
test
will
ensure
determinations
that
meet
both
the
control
technology
and
air
quality
tests,
as
well
as
allow
sources
to
implement
the
controls
that
are
best
suited
to
their
individual
processes.
Under
the
second
part
of
the
test
to
determine
whether
your
unit
qualifies
for
Clean
Unit
status,
you
must
demonstrate
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
If
your
emissions
unit
has
already
been
permitted
under
minor
NSR
or
another
SIP­
approved
permitting
program,
you
may
have
already
satisfied
the
second
part
of
this
test.
If
not,
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
sections
165(
a)(
3)
and
173(
a)
of
the
CAA,
you
will
be
required
to
show
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
For
areas
that
do
not
already
attain
the
NAAQS,
the
source
would
be
required
to
show
that
the
emissions
for
the
unit
have
been
previously
offset.

4.
Can
an
Emissions
Unit
That
Applies
No
Emissions
Control
Technology
Qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit?
In
most
cases,
BACT/
LAER
will
result
in
significant
emissions
decreases
(
such
as
90
percent
control
for
many
VOC
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80225
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
32
It
is
possible
that
a
BACT/
LAER
analysis
will
not
always
result
in
the
requirement
of
add­
on
controls
at
a
source.
In
some
situations,
a
reviewing
authority
may
appropriately
determine
that
the
control
technology
that
best
represents
BACT/
LAER
is
a
work
practice,
or
a
combination
of
work
practices
and
add­
on
controls.
As
a
result,
a
requirement
to
use
work
practices,
or
a
combination
of
add­
on
controls
and
work
practices,
as
an
emissions
control
technology,
could
qualify
an
emissions
unit
for
Clean
Unit
status,
provided
it
meets
the
criteria
established.
coating
sources).
32
In
some
circumstances,
however,
the
outcome
of
a
reviewing
authority's
BACT
or
LAER
determination
may
result
in
an
emission
limitation
that
you
will
meet
without
using
a
control
technology
(
add­
on
control,
pollution
prevention
technique,
or
work
practice).
Under
today's
rules,
you
will
not
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
in
such
circumstances.
More
specifically,
today's
rules
also
require
you
to
make
an
investment
to
qualify
initially
as
a
Clean
Unit.
An
investment
includes
any
cost
which
would
ordinarily
qualify
as
a
capital
expense
under
the
Internal
Revenue
Service's
filing
guidelines
whether
or
not
you
actually
choose
to
capitalize
that
cost.
An
investment
also
includes
any
cost
you
incur
to
change
your
emissions
unit
or
process
to
implement
a
pollution
prevention
approach,
including
research
expenses,
or
costs
to
retool
or
reformulate
your
emissions
unit
or
process
to
accommodate
an
add­
on
control,
pollution
prevention
approach,
or
work
practice.

5.
When
Do
the
Major
NSR
Requirements
Apply
to
Clean
Units?
Once
an
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit,
it
is
subject
to
an
alternative
major
NSR
applicability
test
for
calculating
emissions
increases
for
subsequent
changes.
As
we
discussed
in
section
II
of
this
preamble,
we
have
codified
our
longstanding
policy
(
for
emissions
units
that
are
not
Clean
Units)
that
a
major
modification
occurs
if
both
of
the
following
result
from
the
modification:
(
1)
A
significant
emissions
increase
following
the
physical
or
operational
change;
and
(
2)
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
from
the
major
stationary
source.
The
major
NSR
applicability
test
for
Clean
Units
is
a
different
process.
For
Clean
Units,
you
must
first
determine
whether
a
project
causes
the
need
to
change
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
which
were
established
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determinations
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
for
a
particular
unit.
If
it
does,
you
lose
Clean
Unit
status,
and
the
project
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
as
if
the
emissions
unit
were
never
a
Clean
Unit.
If
the
project
does
not
cause
the
need
to
change
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
which
were
established
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determinations
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
for
a
particular
unit,
then
you
maintain
Clean
Unit
status,
and
no
emissions
increase
is
deemed
to
occur
from
the
project
for
the
purposes
of
major
NSR.
Once
you
have
lost
Clean
Unit
status,
you
can
only
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
by
going
through
the
process
that
we
describe
in
section
V.
C.
9
of
this
preamble.

6.
Can
You
Get
Clean
Unit
Status
for
Controls
That
Have
Already
Been
Installed?
As
discussed
in
section
V.
C.
3,
emissions
units
that
have
been
through
major
NSR
permitting
automatically
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
This
includes
those
emissions
units
that
went
through
major
NSR
before
promulgation
of
today's
final
rules.
If
an
emissions
unit
automatically
qualifies
for
Clean
Unit
status
because
it
went
through
major
NSR,
its
Clean
Unit
status
is
based
on
the
BACT/
LAER
controls
that
went
into
service
as
a
result
of
the
major
NSR
review.
That
is,
Clean
Unit
status
is
based
on
the
BACT/
LAER
controls
regardless
of
whether
the
actual
process
for
designating
Clean
Unit
status
through
title
V
occurs
at
some
time
after
the
controls
went
into
service.
However,
Clean
Unit
status,
and
the
ability
to
use
the
applicability
process
for
Clean
Units,
does
not
begin
until
the
Clean
Unit
effective
date.
We
discuss
the
specific
procedures
for
when
Clean
Unit
status
starts,
when
it
ends,
and
how
it
is
designated
in
sections
V.
C.
7
through
9.
For
emissions
units
that
have
not
been
through
major
NSR,
our
rules
allow
your
reviewing
authority
to
provide
you
with
Clean
Unit
status
for
emissions
control
that
you
have
already
installed
and
operated.
However,
our
final
rules
also
limit
the
time
frame
under
which
your
reviewing
authority
is
allowed
to
make
such
determinations
for
Clean
Unit
status
that
is
granted
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
other
than
major
NSR.
Your
reviewing
authority
will
only
be
able
to
grant
Clean
Unit
status
for
previously
installed
emissions
controls
if
they
were
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
the
program
in
your
area.
If
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
installed
on
or
after
the
date
that
provisions
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
are
effective
in
your
area,
you
must
apply
for
Clean
Unit
status
from
your
reviewing
authority
at
the
time
the
control
technology
is
installed.
As
for
emissions
units
that
went
through
major
NSR
review,
Clean
Unit
status
for
emissions
units
permitted
through
SIPapproved
programs
other
than
major
NSR
does
not
begin
until
the
Clean
Unit
effective
date.
If
you
are
applying
for
retroactive
Clean
Unit
status,
today's
final
rules
allow
your
reviewing
authority
to
compare
your
emissions
control
level
to
the
BACT
or
LAER
level
that
would
have
applied
at
the
time
you
began
construction
of
your
emissions
unit.
However,
in
some
cases,
such
a
comparability
analysis
may
be
difficult
for
you
to
demonstrate
because
of
lack
of
sufficient
information
from
which
your
reviewing
authority
can
make
a
reasoned
determination.
If
this
is
the
case,
then
you
will
have
to
demonstrate
that
your
emissions
controls
are
comparable
to
a
BACT
or
LAER
limit
from
a
subsequent
or
current
date.

7.
When
Can
I
Begin
To
Use
the
Clean
Unit
Test?
The
exact
effective
date
depends
on
the
circumstances
of
the
individual
emissions
unit,
as
explained
further
below.
As
a
general
principle,
however,
the
effective
date
for
Clean
Unit
status
can
never
be
before
the
Clean
Unit
provision
becomes
effective
in
the
relevant
jurisdiction.
For
emissions
units
that
automatically
qualify
for
their
original
Clean
Unit
status
because
they
have
been
through
major
NSR
review,
and
for
units
that
requalify
for
Clean
Unit
status
(
see
section
V.
C.
9)
by
going
through
major
NSR
review
and
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT/
LAER,
the
effective
date
is
the
date
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
or
3
years
after
the
issuance
date
of
the
major
NSR
permit,
whichever
is
earlier.
However,
the
effective
date
can
be
no
sooner
than
the
date
that
provisions
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
are
approved
by
the
Administrator
for
incorporation
into
the
SIP
and
become
effective
for
the
State
in
which
the
unit
is
located.
That
is,
if
the
source
had
a
major
NSR
permit
and
began
operating
before
the
Clean
Unit
provision
becomes
effective
in
the
relevant
jurisdiction,
the
effective
date
is
the
date
the
State
or
local
agency
begins
authorizing
Clean
Unit
status.
As
we
noted
earlier,
if
the
emissions
unit
previously
went
through
major
NSR,
it
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
original
Clean
Unit
status
would
be
based
on
the
controls
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80226
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
33
As
discussed
in
section
III.
E
of
today's
preamble,
we
believe
that
15
years
represents
a
reasonable
time
period
for
designating
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
we
proposed
and
took
comment
on
a
10­
year
period;
therefore,
we
are
finalizing
today's
rule
with
a
10­
year
duration.
In
a
separate
Federal
Register
notice
we
will
be
proposing
to
change
this
duration
to
15
years.
that
were
installed
to
meet
major
NSR.
An
additional
investment
at
the
time
the
original
Clean
Unit
status
becomes
effective
is
not
required.
For
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
(
see
section
V.
C.
9)
by
going
through
major
NSR
using
an
existing
control
technology
that
continues
to
meet
current­
day
BACT/
LAER,
the
effective
date
is
the
date
the
new
major
NSR
permit
is
issued.
If
you
obtain
Clean
Unit
status
from
your
State
or
local
reviewing
authority
using
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
other
than
major
NSR,
the
Clean
Unit
effective
date
is
the
later
of
the
following
dates:
(
1)
The
date
that
the
State
or
local
agency
permit
that
designates
the
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
issued;
and
(
2)
the
date
that
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
measures
went
into
service.
That
is,
if
the
controls
went
into
service
before
the
issuance
date
of
the
State
or
local
agency
permit
that
designates
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
the
Clean
Unit
effective
date
is
the
date
that
the
permit
is
issued.
As
with
units
that
have
been
through
major
NSR,
additional
investment
is
not
required
for
the
limited
cases
where
there
is
a
retroactive
designation.
If
the
issuance
date
of
the
State
or
local
agency
permit
that
designates
the
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
before
the
date
the
controls
went
into
service
(
as
would
likely
be
the
case
for
a
unit
that
is
new
or
modified
after
the
State
or
local
agency
begins
to
authorize
Clean
Unit
status),
then
the
effective
date
of
Clean
Unit
status
is
the
date
the
controls
went
into
service.

8.
How
Long
Does
Clean
Unit
Status
Last?

In
most
cases,
you
may
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
for
a
period
of
10
years.
33
As
a
general
principle,
the
Clean
Unit
expiration
date
can
never
be
later
than
the
date
that
is
10
years
after
the
controls
are
brought
into
service.
For
emissions
units
that
automatically
qualify
for
their
original
Clean
Unit
status
because
they
have
been
through
major
NSR
review,
and
for
units
that
requalify
for
Clean
Unit
status
(
see
section
V.
C.
9)
by
going
through
major
NSR
review
and
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT/
LAER,
Clean
Unit
status
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date,
or
the
date
the
equipment
went
into
service,
whichever
is
earlier.
However,
Clean
Unit
status
expires
sooner
if,
at
any
time,
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
Clean
Unit
status
that
are
included
in
the
final
rules.
For
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
(
see
section
V.
C.
9)
by
going
through
major
NSR
using
an
existing
control
technology
that
continues
to
meet
current­
day
BACT/
LAER,
Clean
Unit
status
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date.
However,
as
noted
above,
Clean
Unit
status
expires
sooner
if,
at
any
time,
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
Clean
Unit
status
that
are
included
in
the
final
rules.
The
expiration
date
for
Clean
Units
that
have
not
been
through
major
NSR
permitting
depends
on
whether
the
owner
or
operator
qualifies
for
Clean
Unit
status
based
on
current
BACT/
LAER,
or
on
BACT/
LAER
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed.
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
previously
installed
unit
demonstrates
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
BACT/
LAER
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
then
Clean
Unit
status
expires
10
years
from
the
date
that
the
control
technology
was
installed.
For
all
other
emissions
units
(
that
is,
previously
installed
units
that
are
demonstrated
to
be
comparable
to
current
BACT/
LAER,
new
units,
and
units
that
re­
qualify
as
Clean
Units),
Clean
Unit
status
expires
10
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
status.
In
addition,
for
all
emissions
units,
Clean
Unit
status
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
Clean
Unit
status
that
are
included
in
the
final
rules.
When
your
Clean
Unit
status
expires,
you
are
subject
to
the
major
NSR
applicability
test
as
if
your
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
The
permitted
emissions
levels
established
for
the
Clean
Unit
do
not
expire.

9.
Can
I
Re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
Status?
You
may
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
after
the
status
has
expired
or
you
have
otherwise
lost
Clean
Unit
status,
if
you
meet
the
conditions
in
our
final
regulations.
As
we
stated
before,
we
believe
that
once
you
have
installed
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
control,
an
additional
major
NSR
review
will
generally
not
result
in
any
additional
emissions
controls
for
a
period
of
years
after
the
original
control
technology
determination
is
made.
Also,
the
period
for
which
any
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
will
continue
to
achieve
the
same
level
of
control
depends
on
many
factors.
As
a
practical
matter,
we
have
established
a
single
time
frame
of
10
years
for
Clean
Unit
status,
to
provide
simplicity
in
our
final
rules.
However,
for
reasons
we
discuss
in
detail
in
section
V.
E.
1
of
this
preamble,
we
determined
that
a
reasonable
average
equipment
life
for
a
control
technology
is
generally
longer
than
10
years.
Certainly
we
want
to
encourage
source
owner/
operators
to
install
and
maintain
state­
of­
the­
art
control.
We
believe
this
is
more
likely
when
you
can
be
assured
that
you
can
retain
Clean
Unit
status
for
the
useful
life
of
the
equipment,
as
long
as
air
quality
continues
to
be
assured.
The
useful
life
of
the
equipment
may
extend
beyond
the
original
Clean
Unit
expiration
date.
Therefore,
we
are
promulgating
final
regulations
that
allow
you
to
apply
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
To
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status,
you
would
generally
follow
the
same
process
that
you
used
in
first
qualifying
for
Clean
Unit
status.
However,
we
will
not
necessarily
require
you
to
meet
an
additional
investment
test
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
for
the
same
controls.
That
is,
unless
the
controls
used
to
establish
Clean
Unit
status
are
no
longer
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable,
there
will
be
no
requirement
for
an
investment
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
You
may
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
either
by
going
through
major
NSR
or
by
going
through
the
alternative
Clean
Unit
Test
that
we
described
in
section
V.
C.
3
of
this
preamble:
(
1)
The
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
must
be
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER;
and
(
2)
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
Regardless
of
which
process
you
used
to
establish
Clean
Unit
status
initially,
you
may
choose
to
requalify
for
Clean
Unit
status
by
going
through
major
NSR
or
by
going
through
the
alternative
two­
part
test.
Once
you
have
submitted
an
application
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status,
the
reviewing
authority
will
make
a
determination
concerning
current
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable
control
technology.
For
example,
suppose
you
had
Clean
Unit
status
for
an
emissions
unit
for
which
the
controls
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80227
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
went
into
service
June
1,
1996,
the
permit
application
for
Clean
Unit
requalification
was
submitted
December
1,
2004,
and
the
Clean
Unit
status
expires
June
1,
2006.
In
cases
where
the
controls
you
installed
in
1996
are
still
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable
when
the
reviewing
authority
makes
the
determination
following
your
application
submittal
in
2004,
the
emissions
unit
can
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
based
on
the
controls
installed
in
1996
if
your
emissions
unit
still
meets
all
of
the
criteria
for
Clean
Unit
status.
That
is,
in
addition
to
the
control
technology
review,
the
emissions
unit
must
go
through
an
air
quality
review
and
public
participation.
A
safeguard
related
to
Clean
Unit
controls
is
that
for
re­
qualifying
for
Clean
Unit
status
when
the
emissions
unit
is
located
in
a
nonattainment
area,
the
control
determination
must
be
LAER
or
comparable
to
LAER.
If
you
previously
received
Clean
Unit
status
based
on
the
BACT
level
of
control
while
the
source
was
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
attainment
area
becomes
a
nonattainment
area
by
the
time
your
Clean
Unit
status
expires,
the
Clean
Unit
status
for
re­
qualification
must
be
based
on
controls
that
are
LAER
or
comparable
to
LAER.
The
air
quality
analysis
for
Clean
Unit
re­
qualifications
will
be
that
of
the
path
that
you
have
chosen'major
NSR,
or
comparable.
As
we
discuss
in
detail
in
section
V.
C.
3
of
this
preamble,
for
emissions
units
qualifying
for
Clean
Unit
status
through
the
comparable
test,
you
must
show
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
We
believe
that
the
control
technology
determination,
air
quality
review,
and
public
participation
requirements
of
the
Clean
Unit
requalification
process
will
ensure
that
Clean
Units
will
continue
to
protect
air
quality
throughout
the
10­
year
requalification
period.
Moreover,
any
offset
or
mitigation
requirements
as
a
result
of
a
previous
major
NSR
determination
will
remain
in
force.
We
expect
that
in
many
cases
the
controls
used
to
initially
establish
Clean
Unit
status
will
still
be
operating
efficiently
and
the
Clean
Unit
status
can
be
reestablished
for
an
additional
10
years
based
on
those
controls.
Suppose,
however,
you
submitted
an
application
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
and
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
your
existing
controls
do
not
meet
the
level
of
current
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable
controls.
In
this
case,
you
must
install
new
or
upgraded
controls
to
re­
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
You
must
go
through
the
control
technology
determination,
air
quality
review,
and
public
participation
requirements
of
the
Clean
Unit
re­
qualification
process
as
described
above.

10.
What
Terms
and
Conditions
Must
the
Permit
for
my
Clean
Unit
Contain?

Major
NSR
permits
contain
the
emission
limitations
based
on
BACT/
LAER,
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
that
the
reviewing
authority
identifies
as
representative
of
BACT/
LAER
(
such
as
limits
on
hours
of
operation),
and
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
the
emissions
unit.
If
you
are
qualifying
for
Clean
Unit
status
through
the
major
NSR
review,
your
major
NSR
permit
will
have
such
terms
and
conditions.
Likewise,
any
permit
under
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
other
than
major
NSR
that
designates
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
must
specify:
(
1)
The
sourcespecific
allowable
permit
emission
limitations,
the
exceedance
of
which,
in
combination
with
a
significant
net
emissions
increase,
will
trigger
major
NSR
review;
(
2)
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
that
the
reviewing
authority
identifies
as
representative
or
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
for
your
control
technology
(
such
as
limits
on
operating
parameters,
etc.);
(
3)
any
conditions
used
as
the
basis
for
the
control
technology
determinations
(
hours
of
operation,
limits
on
raw
materials,
etc.);
and
(
4)
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
a
``
clean''
level
of
emissions
control
is
being
achieved.
Additional
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
may
be
required
to
assure
compliance
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
or
70.6(
c)(
1)
(
that
is,
to
assure
compliance
under
title
V).
The
State
and
local
agency
permits
establishing
Clean
Unit
status
must
contain
a
statement
designating
the
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
State
or
local
agency
permit
must
also
include
general
terms
and
conditions
indicating
the
Clean
Unit
effective
date
and
expiration
date.
Suppose
the
State
or
local
agency
permit
has
an
effective
date
of
May
5,
2006,
and
the
controls
will
be
installed
after
this
date.
The
SIP
permit
would
state
that
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
status
is
the
date
the
controls
go
into
service.
The
permit
would
also
state
that
Clean
Unit
status
will
expire
no
later
than
May
5,
2016.
Your
title
V
permit
must
include
the
Clean
Unit
status,
as
well
as
the
effective
and
expiration
dates
of
the
Clean
Unit
status.
Your
title
V
permit
must
also
include:
the
emission
limitation(
s)
that
reflect
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable
control;
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
that
the
reviewing
authority
has
determined
represent
BACT/
LAER
or
comparable
control
(
such
as
limits
on
hours
of
operation)
and
that
ensure
that
air
quality
is
protected;
and
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
a
``
clean''
level
of
emissions
control
is
being
achieved.

11.
How
Will
my
Clean
Unit
Status
be
Incorporated
Into
my
Title
V
Permit?
Clean
Unit
status
and
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
must
be
incorporated
into
the
major
stationary
source's
title
V
permit
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed.
The
title
V
permit
must
also
contain
the
specific
dates
on
which
your
Clean
Unit
status
is
effective
and
on
which
it
expires.
We
are
aware
that
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
will
frequently
not
be
determined
at
the
time
that
Clean
Unit
status
is
established.
Therefore,
the
initial
title
V
permit
action
that
incorporates
Clean
Unit
status
and
other
permit
terms
and
conditions
may
need
to
state
the
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
in
general
terms.
For
example,
for
units
that
have
been
through
major
NSR,
the
initial
title
V
permit
might
state
that
the
expiration
date
is
the
earlier
of
the
following
dates:
the
date
10
years
after
(
1)
the
Clean
Unit's
effective
date,
or
(
2)
the
date
the
equipment
went
into
service.
The
permit
does
not
have
to
include
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
where
they
cannot
be
determined
at
the
time
of
initial
incorporation,
such
as
would
be
the
case
when
the
Clean
Unit
has
yet
to
be
constructed.
Furthermore,
in
these
instances,
we
are
not
requiring
that
the
title
V
permit
be
modified
to
incorporate
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
until
the
next
permit
renewal,
reopening,
or
modification
after
such
dates
are
known.
As
soon
as
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
are
known,
the
source
must
report
them
to
the
reviewing
authority.
The
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
must
then
be
incorporated
into
the
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80228
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
However,
it
is
not
necessary
to
amend
the
SIP­
approved
permit
to
incorporate
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates,
as
long
as
these
dates
are
incorporated
into
the
title
V
permit
at
the
next
renewal.
If
you
wish
to
incorporate
the
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates
into
the
SIP
permit,
a
title
V
modification
would
be
required.
While
the
title
V
permit
contains
the
Clean
Unit
permit
terms
and
conditions,
we
want
to
emphasize
that
any
changes
to
Clean
Unit
permit
terms
and
conditions
(
other
than
incorporating
the
specific
Clean
Unit
effective
and
expiration
dates)
must
first
be
made
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
that
provides
for
public
review
and
opportunity
for
comment.
Any
such
changes
would
be
incorporated
into
the
title
V
permit
in
the
manner
described
above.

12.
Can
a
Clean
Unit
Be
Used
in
a
Netting
Analysis?
Generally,
for
an
emissions
unit
that
has
Clean
Unit
status
because
it
has
gone
through
major
NSR
permitting,
you
must
not
include
emissions
changes
at
the
Clean
Unit
in
a
netting
analysis,
or
use
them
for
generating
offsets,
unless
the
emissions
changes
occur
and
you
use
them
for
these
purposes
before
the
effective
date
of
Clean
Unit
status
or
after
Clean
Unit
status
expires.
However,
if
you
reduce
emissions
from
the
Clean
Unit
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
you
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
new
emission
limitation,
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
permanent,
and
federally
enforceable
(
for
the
purposes
of
generating
offsets)
and
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
(
for
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases).
Such
credits
may
be
used
for
netting
or
as
offsets.
We
are
allowing
the
credit
to
be
computed
in
this
manner
because
the
owner
or
operator
has
already
obtained
an
actual
emissions­
based
offset
for
the
emissions
up
to
the
Clean
Unit
emission
limitations.
By
the
owner/
operator's
accepting
a
federally
enforceable
emission
limitation
below
this
level,
these
offsets
are
now
available
to
create
additional
actual
emissions
reductions.
The
final
rules
are
similar
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units
in
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
other
than
major
NSR.
You
must
not
include
emissions
changes
that
occur
at
such
units
in
a
netting
analysis,
or
use
them
for
generating
offsets,
unless
the
emissions
changes
occur
and
you
use
them
for
these
purposes
before
the
effective
date
of
the
SIP
requirements
adopted
to
implement
the
Clean
Units
or
after
Clean
Unit
status
expires.
However,
if
you
reduce
emissions
from
the
Clean
Unit
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
you
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
new
emission
limitation,
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
permanent,
and
federally
enforceable
(
for
purposes
of
generating
offsets)
and
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
(
for
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases).
Such
credits
may
be
used
for
netting
or
as
offsets.

13.
How
Does
Clean
Unit
Status
Apply
When
There
Are
Multiple
Pollutants?
Clean
Unit
status
is
pollutant­
specific
and
may
not
be
granted
for
more
than
one
pollutant,
except
in
cases
where
a
group
of
pollutants
is
characterized
as
a
single
pollutant,
such
as
VOCs.
You
may,
however,
qualify
for
simultaneous
Clean
Unit
status
for
other
pollutants
at
those
emissions
units
that
are
sufficiently
controlled
to
independently
qualify
as
``
clean''
for
each
pollutant.
For
units
applying
for
Clean
Unit
status
and
that
do
not
already
have
a
major
NSR
permit,
the
reviewing
authority
must
specify
the
pollutants
for
which
Clean
Unit
status
applies
as
part
of
the
permitting
process
establishing
Clean
Unit
status.

D.
Legal
Basis
for
the
Clean
Unit
Test
As
discussed
above,
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
would
provide
an
alternative
emissions
test
for
determining
if
a
significant
increase
in
emissions
has
occurred
after
a
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
units
that
are
designated
as
``
clean.''
We
believe
that
we
have
the
authority
to
allow
these
specific
types
of
units
to
use
a
different
applicability
test.
The
CAA
is
silent
on
whether
increases
in
emissions
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
physical
or
operational
change
constitutes
a
modification
must
be
measured
in
terms
of
actual
emissions,
potential
emissions,
or
some
other
currency.
We
believe
that
it
is
a
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
CAA
to
determine
applicability
of
the
major
NSR
program
for
units
qualifying
as
Clean
Units
in
terms
of
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit,
and
that
this
interpretation
is
consistent
with
the
statutory
purposes
of
NSR.
The
PSD
permitting
program
has
5
key
elements:
(
1)
Control
technology
review;
(
2)
air
quality
review;
(
3)
monitoring
requirements;
(
4)
information
on
the
source;
and
(
5)
procedures
for
processing
applications,
including
public
notice
and
the
opportunity
for
comment.
A
new
major
source
or
major
modification
in
an
attainment
area
must
go
through
PSD
permitting
to
become
a
Clean
Unit.
That
process
would
have
had
to
include
the
elements
listed
above.
CAA
section
165.
Similarly,
the
CAA
requires
new
major
sources
or
major
modifications
undertaken
in
nonattainment
areas
to
obtain
permits
that
require
them
to
meet
LAER
and
to
obtain
offsetting
emissions
reductions.
CAA
section
173.
In
order
to
be
designated
a
Clean
Unit,
a
major
source
or
modification
in
a
nonattainment
area
would
have
had
to
have
gone
through
major
NSR
permitting
review
in
the
last
10
years.
We
believe
that
units
that
have
undergone
minor
source
permitting
in
a
manner
that
fulfills
the
statutory
purposes
of
major
NSR
 
either
because
a
State's
minor
NSR
program
already
contains
equivalent
provisions
or
because
the
existing
program
is
enhanced
for
the
purpose
of
allowing
the
reviewing
authority
to
satisfy
Clean
Unit
criteria
 
also
will
have
satisfied
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
in
a
manner
sufficient
to
justify
Clean
Unit
status.
As
we
have
discussed
in
section
V.
C
of
this
preamble,
to
obtain
Clean
Unit
status
through
a
minor
NSR
program,
that
process
must
include
a
requirement
for
public
participation.
Furthermore,
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units
through
SIPapproved
minor
NSR
programs
must
satisfy
an
air
quality
test.
You
must
provide
information
demonstrating
that
you
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation
or
adverse
impact
on
an
AQRV
in
a
Federal
Class
I
area.
If
your
emissions
unit
has
already
been
permitted
under
minor
NSR
or
another
SIP­
approved
permitting
program,
you
may
have
already
satisfied
the
second
part
of
this
test.
If
not,
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
sections
165(
a)(
3)
and
173(
a)
of
the
CAA,
you
will
be
required
to
show
that
the
allowable
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
For
areas
that
do
not
already
attain
the
NAAQS,
the
source
would
be
required
to
show
that
the
emissions
for
the
unit
have
been
previously
offset,
or
the
reviewing
authority
will
have
to
show
that
these
emissions
will
not
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80229
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
34
Vatavuk,
William,
``
Part
II,
Factors
for
Estimating
Capital
and
Operating
Costs,''
Chemical
Engineering,
Nov.
3,
1980.
interfere
with
the
State's
ability
to
achieve
attainment.
For
Clean
Units
that
have
emission
limitations
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
established
through
programs
that
fulfill
relevant
major
NSR
statutory
requirements,
we
believe
that
the
alternative
way
to
estimate
emissions
increases
to
evaluate
applicability
set
forth
under
the
Clean
Unit
Test
is
appropriate
and
consistent
with
Congress's
intent.
A
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
that
would
require
a
revision
to
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
established
through
permitting
programs
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
or
that
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
permitting
action,
must
go
through
a
new
permitting
process.
The
reviewing
authority
must
have
already
required
state­
of­
the­
art
pollution
control
technology
(
or,
through
an
investment,
its
pollution
prevention
or
work
practice
equivalent),
conducted
the
required
air
quality
analyses
based
on
the
emissions
level
in
the
permit,
and
provided
the
public
with
an
appropriate
opportunity
to
comment
on
that
level
of
emissions
and
air
quality
impact.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
allowing
an
alternative
means
of
evaluating
applicability
based
on
a
revised
emissions
test
for
this
category
of
unit
is
consistent
with
the
CAA.

E.
Summary
of
Major
Comments
and
Responses
Although
a
few
commenters
categorically
oppose
the
Clean
Unit
Test,
most
commenters
support
the
concept.
Practically
all
commenters
oppose
some
aspect
of
the
test
or
request
that
the
test
be
clarified.
Below
are
the
major
comments
and
our
responses.

1.
How
Long
Should
You
Be
Eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
Applicability
Test?
We
received
numerous
comments
on
the
duration
of
Clean
Unit
status.
In
the
proposal,
we
suggested
a
10­
year
duration
and
asked
for
comments
regarding
this
period.
We
received
comments
supporting
various
lengths
of
time
from
2
to
20
years.
Although
some
commenters
support
a
10­
year
duration,
other
commenters
oppose
it.
Many
commenters
believe
that
10
years
is
too
short
for
Clean
Unit
status.
These
commenters
argue
that
BACT/
LAER
technologies
accomplish
substantial
pollutant
removals,
and
that
the
cost
of
a
slight
increase
in
pollutant
removal
is
usually
significant.
These
commenters
urge
us
to
establish
a
Clean
Unit
status
duration
that
comports
with
the
useful
life
of
the
control
equipment,
which
would
enable
you
to
recover
the
costs
of
installing
the
pollution
control
technology.
They
believe
that
you
should
be
able
to
recoup
the
investments
in
pollution
control
before
being
forced
to
abandon
that
technology
and
pay
again
for
newer
technology.
Some
commenters
request
that
a
presumptive
life
of
20
years
be
awarded
to
Clean
Units,
which
is
approximately
how
long
the
control
equipment
should
be
effective.
Some
commenters
believe
that
10
years
would
be
too
long,
because
they
believe
that
advances
in
control
technology
occur
more
rapidly.
A
10­
year
duration
would
allow
old,
less
effective
technologies
to
be
the
basis
of
immunity
from
the
NSR
program.
These
commenters
are
particularly
concerned
about
the
10­
year
duration
for
BACT/
LAER
determinations
that
were
based
on
no
controls.
We
believe
that
we
have
discretion
to
determine
the
appropriate
period
for
which
you
should
be
eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
As
a
policy
matter,
we
believe
that
this
time
period
should
reach
a
balance
between
the
unit's
useful
emissions
control
equipment
life
and
the
time
frame
in
which
additional
major
NSR
review
is
likely
to
result
in
no
added
environmental
benefit.
As
a
practical
matter,
we
realize
that
the
``
ideal''
time
frame
will
vary
by
emissions
control
technology
and
by
pollutant;
however,
we
believe
using
a
single
time
frame
will
provide
simplicity
in
our
final
rules.
To
determine
an
average
life
expectancy
for
a
variety
of
control
technologies,
we
relied
on
the
guidelines
for
equipment
life
for
9
commonly
used
emissions
control
technologies
published
in
``
Estimating
Costs
of
Air
Pollution
Control
Systems,
Part
II,
Factors
for
Estimating
Capital
and
Operating
Costs.''
34
Using
the
average
of
the
low,
average,
and
high
values,
we
determined
that
a
reasonable
average
equipment
life
for
a
control
technology
is
equal
to
15
years.
We
then
looked
at
the
incremental
improvement
in
control
technology
over
time.
We
found
that
the
evolution
of
pollution
control
equipment
over
time
is
dominated
by
innovation,
rather
than
invention.
In
other
words,
the
change
in
design
and
capacity
for
any
given
device
type
occurs
infrequently
as
a
series
of
marginal
improvements
over
the
preceding
design.
Consequently,
the
marginal
improvement
in
pollution
abatement
one
can
expect
between
generations
of
the
same
type
of
device
is
also
very
small
 
too
small
to
justify
the
cost
of
an
entirely
new
unit.
For
example,
flue
gas
desulfurization
(
FGD)
units
have
been
used
in
the
United
States
for
about
20
years,
and
were
used
in
Japan
and
Germany
for
10
years
before
that.
During
the
early
1980'
s,
a
typical
FGD
system
removed
about
90
percent
of
the
sulfur
from
a
flue
gas
stream.
Today,
modern
FGD
systems
typically
average
95
to
99
percent
removal
efficiency
 
less
than
a
10
percent
improvement
in
20
years.
We
also
evaluated,
from
a
cost­
per­
ton
basis,
whether
the
marginal
improvement
in
removal
efficiency
is
too
expensive.
Again,
we
considered
the
FGD
example.
From
an
actual
NSR
determination
for
a
coal­
fired
electrical
generating
unit
in
the
Midwest,
the
installation
of
an
FGD
system
in
1985
would
have
cost
$
189
million
and
had
a
removal
efficiency
of
90
percent
(
76,500
tons
of
sulfur
per
year).
The
identical
boiler
in
2001
would
use
an
FGD
system
with
a
95
percent
efficiency,
costing
$
285
million,
and
removing
80,750
tpy,
an
additional
4,250
tons.
The
additional
cost
for
the
improved
design
for
the
2001
installation
(
including
the
retrofit
and
upgrade
of
existing
components
and
the
new
cost
of
larger
pumps
and
other
auxiliary
equipment)
would
have
been
more
than
$
100
million,
or
greater
than
$
24,000
per
ton.
Consequently,
from
an
efficiency
standpoint,
requiring
an
upgrade
on
this
unit
to
BACT
or
LAER
levels
would
not
have
been
economical.
After
reviewing
all
of
this
information,
we
determined
that
a
15­
year
period
represents
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
time
frame
during
which
you
should
be
allowed
to
use
your
permitted
allowable
emissions
to
determine
whether
an
increase
triggers
major
NSR
review.
However,
we
proposed
and
took
comment
on
a
10­
year
duration.
Therefore,
today
we
are
finalizing
a
single
time
frame
of
10
years
that
applies
to
all
types
of
emissions
control
technologies
and
all
types
of
pollutants.
Because
we
believe
that
15
years
represents
a
reasonable
time
frame,
we
will
be
proposing
a
15­
year
duration
for
Clean
Unit
status.
After
considering
any
public
comments
on
a
15­
year
duration
for
Clean
Unit
status,
we
may
amend
today's
final
regulations.
We
believe
it
is
beneficial
to
allow
emissions
units
using
pollution
prevention
techniques
or
work
practices
to
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
where
those
units
meet
certain
criteria.
In
some
cases
(
coating
operations,
for
example),
pollution
prevention
techniques
or
work
practices
are
stateof
the­
art
pollution
control,
and
either
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80230
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
there
would
not
be
an
improvement
in
pollution
control
if
the
unit
were
required
to
install
add­
on
controls
or
the
incremental
cost
effectiveness
of
the
add­
on
control
installation
would
be
too
high
for
it
to
qualify
as
BACT.
In
other
cases,
the
most
stringent
control
is
based
on
add­
on
control
and
pollution
prevention.
Therefore,
under
many
circumstances,
we
believe
that
pollution
prevention
techniques
and
work
practices
can
be
implemented
to
achieve
a
level
of
emissions
reductions
comparable
to
that
achieved
by
BACT/
LAER
add­
on
controls.
Also,
initiation
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
or
a
work
practice
can
require
a
substantial
investment
in
research
to
retool
or
reformulate
your
operations.
Thus,
we
do
not
believe
that
a
blanket
exclusion
from
Clean
Unit
status
is
appropriate
for
emissions
units
that
are
controlled
with
pollution
control
techniques.
Implementation
of
pollution
prevention
approaches
and
work
practices
usually
requires
research,
followed
by
some
retooling
or
reformulation
of
a
process
line
or
unit
operation.
As
part
of
this
retooling
or
reformulation,
some
equipment
has
to
be
purchased
up
front
(
for
example,
sniffers
for
leak
detection
and
repair
operations,
improved
process
control
consoles
and/
or
software
for
recycle
streams,
initial
modeling
for
combustion
optimization
systems).
This
equipment
purchase
or
initial
modeling
involves
a
one­
time
investment;
hence,
there
is
an
investment
associated
with
pollution
prevention
or
work
practice
implementation.
Researching
the
application
of
an
approach
also
qualifies
as
an
investment
for
these
purposes.
We
received
comment
from
a
number
of
commenters
who
are
concerned
about
Clean
Unit
status
when
BACT/
LAER
determinations
are
based
on
no
control.
As
these
commenters
note,
``
no
controls''
does
not
equate
to
a
wellcontrolled
emissions
unit.
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
today's
final
rules
clarify
that
Clean
Unit
status
can
be
based
on
add­
on
control,
pollution
prevention
techniques,
work
practices,
or
a
combination
of
them.
We
recognize
that
there
are
some
circumstances
when
the
outcome
of
a
reviewing
authority's
BACT
or
LAER
determination
may
result
in
an
emission
limitation
that
you
will
meet
without
using
an
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices).
We
believe
that
such
emissions
units
should
not
qualify
as
Clean
Units,
because
they
fail
the
very
premise
under
which
we
established
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
That
is,
there
is
no
period
of
time
in
which
we
can
reach
a
balance
between
the
unit's
useful
emissions
control
equipment
life
and
the
time
frame
in
which
additional
major
NSR
review
is
likely
to
result
in
no
added
environmental
benefit.
Source
categories
that
currently
have
few
or
no
control
technology
options
are
likely
to
be
the
categories
that
will
experience
a
rapid
advancement
in
emissions
control
technology
over
a
short
period
of
time.
Accordingly,
today's
final
rules
contain
two
limitations
on
use
of
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
You
may
not
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
for
any
emissions
unit
that
is
not
using
an
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
and
for
which
you
have
not
made
an
investment
to
control
emissions.

2.
Does
the
Clean
Unit
Applicability
Test
Measure
the
Increase
in
Maximum
Hourly
Potential
Emissions?
We
proposed
that
the
Clean
Unit
Test
would
continue
to
apply
as
long
as
the
emissions
unit's
maximum
hourly
potential
emissions
did
not
increase.
The
baseline
for
the
maximum
hourly
potential
emissions
rate
could
be
established
at
any
time
in
the
6
months
before
the
activity
or
project
that
increases
emissions.
Almost
all
commenters
oppose
basing
the
Clean
Unit
Test
on
the
hourly
PTE,
as
well
as
the
6­
month
period
for
setting
the
emissions
rate.
Some
commenters
argue
that
an
hourly
PTE
test
is
not
environmentally
protective
enough.
One
commenter
notes
that
we
were
inappropriately
using
the
applicability
test
under
the
NSPS
as
the
applicability
test
for
major
NSR,
which
should
be
based
on
tpy.
Many
commenters
view
the
hourly
PTE
test
as
so
restrictive
that
few
sources
would
take
advantage
of
the
Clean
Unit
Test.
These
commenters
believe
that
the
hourly
emissions
rate
obscures
the
real
basis
for
Clean
Unit
status,
which
is
the
add­
on
control
efficiency.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
maintain
that
Clean
Unit
status
should
be
based
on
the
emissions
level
achievable
through
the
use
of
control
technologies.
As
these
commenters
note,
once
an
emissions
level
has
been
determined
based
on
BACT/
LAER,
it
is
unlikely
that
additional
review
would
result
in
a
more
stringent
level
of
control.
As
a
result,
we
are
not
finalizing
the
Clean
Unit
Test
as
proposed
with
the
hourly
PTE
test.
Instead,
today's
final
rules
for
Clean
Units
are
based
on
reduction
of
air
pollution
through
the
use
of
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
that
meet
both
the
following
requirements.
First,
the
control
technology
achieves
a
BACT/
LAER
level
of
emissions
reduction
as
determined
through
issuance
of
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
Clean
Unit
status
if
the
BACT/
LAER
determination
resulted
in
no
requirement
to
reduce
emissions
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled,
new
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type.
Second,
the
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
expenses
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
an
emissions
unit.
By
adopting
this
approach,
we
are
allowing
the
reviewing
authority
to
decide
the
appropriate
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
that
will
be
used
to
obtain
and
maintain
Clean
Unit
status.
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
that
form
the
basis
for
Clean
Unit
status,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
project
causes
the
need
for
such
change
to
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements,
the
emissions
unit
loses
Clean
Unit
status
and
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
major
NSR.

3.
What
Kind
of
Changes
Are
Allowed
Under
Clean
Unit
Status?
It
is
not
our
intention
to
limit
increases
in
emissions
unit
capacity
as
long
as
emissions
are
under
the
sourcespecific
allowable
levels
and
the
increase
is
within
the
capacity
for
which
you
obtained
approval
when
applying
for
Clean
Unit
status.
Incremental
improvements
to
existing
units
are
acceptable.
However,
complete
changes
to
emissions
units
making
them
into
completely
different
units
than
were
originally
permitted
are
not
acceptable.
For
example,
switching
to
a
smaller
but
more
polluting
process
than
originally
permitted
may
trigger
stricter
BACT/
LAER
requirements,
even
at
the
same
annual
emissions
rate,
since
higher
percentage
removal
rates
and
lower
costs
would
be
possible
at
higher
concentrations.
We
expect
that
changes
such
as,
but
not
limited
to,
increasing
production
to
permitted
levels,
reconfiguring
the
process,
changing
process
chemicals
if
consistent
with
the
original
Clean
Unit
application,
replacing
components,
replacing
catalysts,
or
adding
other
controls,
or
other
changes
would
be
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80231
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
allowable
for
Clean
Units.
In
no
instances
are
we
authorizing
violations
of
any
existing
permit
conditions
or
other
applicable
requirements
that
may
apply
to
the
Clean
Unit.
You
may
not
reconstruct
a
Clean
Unit
under
an
existing
Clean
Unit
status.

4.
Does
the
Clean
Unit
Applicability
Test
Apply
to
Units
That
Have
Not
Gone
Through
a
Major
NSR
Permitting
Review?
In
1996,
we
proposed
that
reviewing
authorities
submit
their
minor
source
permit
decisions
for
us
to
determine
whether
the
emission
limitations
were
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER.
Commenters
generally
support
allowing
units
permitted
through
minor
NSR
programs
to
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status.
These
commenters
believe
State
and
local
agencies
are
well­
equipped
to
make
control
technology
determinations.
A
few
commenters
are
concerned
that
control
technology
determinations
made
under
minor
NSR
programs
do
not
always
require
adequate
air
quality
review
or
opportunity
for
public
comment
and
review.
They
maintain
that
these
program
elements
are
essential
for
making
control
technology
determinations
that
are
equivalent
to
BACT/
LAER.
We
also
received
comments
on
allowing
Clean
Unit
status
for
emissions
units
that
have
not
gone
through
either
major
or
minor
NSR,
such
as
those
that
decrease
emissions
to
meet
other
requirements
under
the
Act.
These
comments
are
mixed.
A
few
commenters
support
this
option.
Others
believe
it
makes
no
sense
to
extend
the
status
to
units
that
had
not
had
a
recent
control
technology
determination,
particularly
considering
the
burden
the
review
would
place
on
reviewing
authorities.
We
agree
that
control
technology
determinations
made
by
State
and
local
agencies
can
be
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER,
regardless
of
the
purpose
for
which
the
control
technology
decision
is
made.
However,
we
also
agree
with
those
commenters
who
believe
a
thorough
analysis
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
air
quality
is
protected.
Moreover,
we
agree
that
a
control
technology
determination
is
incomplete
unless
it
has
been
through
public
review.
Therefore,
today
we
are
promulgating
regulations
that
allow
emissions
units
that
have
not
had
a
BACT/
LAER
determination
to
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status,
if
they
are
permitted
under
a
SIPapproved
permitting
program
that
provides
for
public
notice
of
the
proposed
determination
and
opportunity
for
public
comment
to
determine
whether
you
should
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit.

5.
Does
Clean
Unit
Status
Apply
to
Units
That
Have
RACT
or
MACT
Limits?
A
number
of
commenters
maintain
that
emission
limitations
based
on
RACT
and
MACT
achieve
control
comparable
to
those
based
on
BACT
and
LAER.
These
commenters
therefore
believe
Clean
Unit
status
should
be
available
for
emissions
units
with
RACT
or
MACT
limits.
However,
other
commenters
agree
with
us
that
RACT
and
MACT
limits
should
not
automatically
be
considered
equivalent
to
BACT/
LAER
limits.
We
are
maintaining
our
position
in
the
proposal
rule
that
Clean
Unit
status
does
not
presumptively
apply
to
units
with
limits
based
on
RACT
or
MACT.
However,
when
you
believe
a
specific
RACT
or
MACT
limit
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER,
you
may
choose
to
use
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
to
try
to
obtain
Clean
Unit
status.

6.
How
Should
We
Determine
Whether
a
Control
Technology
Is
Comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER?
We
proposed
two
methods
for
determining
that
control
technology
was
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
 
average
of
the
level
of
control
for
the
last
3
years,
and
percent
control.
None
of
the
commenters
support
using
the
average
emissions
rates
to
determine
comparability.
The
commenters
believe
that
in
some
cases
this
approach
could
lead
to
skewed
results,
or
that
the
average
control
determination
can
differ
substantially
from
the
most
recent
determination.
The
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
consider
all
technologies
required
to
be
considered
in
a
BACT/
LAER
determination,
not
just
those
listed
in
the
RBLC.
The
commenters
also
say
that
it
is
not
acceptable
to
call
an
uncontrolled
unit
a
``
clean''
unit,
when
the
Clean
Unit
Test
is
meant
for
companies
that
have
taken
the
effort
and
expense
to
install
controls
or
low
emitting
equipment.
Although
a
few
commenters
support
using
percent
control,
several
commenters
oppose
it.
They
maintain
that
defining
control
levels
based
on
a
certain
percentage
derived
from
BACT
or
LAER
for
equivalent
sources
is
not
simple
and
would
require
the
frequent
collection
and
maintenance
of
large
quantities
of
information.
Based
on
the
public
comments
on
our
two
proposed
methods,
we
have
decided
to
develop
a
modified
version
of
the
proposed
averaging
method
for
determining
when
an
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER.
You
can
make
a
showing
that
the
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
is
comparable
to
BACT/
LAER
in
one
of
two
ways:
(
1)
by
comparing
your
emissions
unit's
control
level
to
BACT/
LAER
determinations
for
other
similar
sources
in
the
RBLC;
or
(
2)
by
making
a
case­
by­
case
demonstration
that
your
emissions
control
is
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
BACT
or
LAER.
Under
the
first
approach,
we
have
developed
slightly
different
approaches
for
sources
located
in
attainment
and
nonattainment
areas.
For
those
emissions
units
located
in
attainment
areas,
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
presumed
to
be
comparable
to
BACT
if
it
achieves
an
emission
limitation
that
is
equal
to
or
better
than
the
average
of
the
emission
limitations
achieved
by
all
the
sources
for
which
a
BACT
or
LAER
determination
has
been
made
within
the
preceding
5
years
and
entered
into
the
RBLC,
and
for
which
it
is
technically
feasible
to
apply
the
BACT
or
LAER
control
technology
to
the
emissions
unit.
To
address
the
commenters'
concerns
regarding
other
BACT/
LAER
determinations
that
might
not
be
in
the
RBLC,
we
have
included
a
provision
that
allows
the
reviewing
authority
to
also
compare
this
presumption
to
any
additional
BACT
or
LAER
determinations
of
which
it
is
aware,
and
to
consider
any
information
on
achieved­
in­
practice
pollution
control
technologies
provided
during
the
public
comment
period,
to
determine
whether
any
presumptive
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
is
correct.
For
sources
in
nonattainment
areas,
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
presumed
to
be
comparable
to
LAER
if
it
achieves
an
emission
limitation
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
any
one
of
the
5
best­
performing
similar
sources
for
which
a
LAER
determination
has
been
made
within
the
preceding
5
years,
and
for
which
information
has
been
entered
into
the
RBLC.
As
is
the
case
for
units
in
attainment
areas,
the
reviewing
authority
shall
also
compare
this
presumption
to
any
additional
LAER
determinations
of
which
it
is
aware,
and
shall
consider
any
information
on
achieved­
in­
practice
pollution
control
technologies
provided
during
the
public
comment
period,
to
determine
whether
any
presumptive
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
comparable
to
LAER
is
correct.
The
second
approach,
the
``
substantially
as
effective''
test,
avoids
a
``
one­
size­
fits­
all''
approach
that
could
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80232
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
35
July
1,
1994
memorandum
from
John
S.
Seitz,
Director,
OAQPS,
``
Pollution
Control
Projects
and
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Applicability''
and
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
``
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance.''
preclude
some
well­
controlled
sources
from
benefitting
from
the
Clean
Unit
Test
simply
because
there
is
insufficient
information
in
the
RBLC
or
because
they
are
using
an
innovative
approach
to
emissions
control.
This
provision
will
allow
you
to
use
alternative
controls
as
long
as
they
achieve
comparable
control
and
air
quality
results.
We
believe
that
the
reviewing
authority
is
in
the
best
position
to
judge
whether
a
particular
control
technology
achieves
an
emissions
control
level
that
is
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER
for
a
specific
application,
as
well
as
to
assure
that
air
quality
impacts
have
been
accounted
for.
Thus,
rather
than
requiring
the
reviewing
authority
to
submit
its
permit
decisions
to
us
for
approval
as
a
comparable
technology,
our
final
rules
allow
the
reviewing
authority
the
ability
to
make
this
determination
after
the
public
comment
process.

7.
Can
Clean
Unit
Status
Be
Made
Using
the
Title
V
Permitting
Process?

We
proposed
that
for
sources
that
had
not
undergone
major
NSR,
Clean
Unit
status
would
occur
as
part
of
the
title
V
permitting
process.
Although
a
few
commenters
support
this
concept,
several
State
and
local
agency
commenters
strongly
disagree.
These
commenters
believe
that
title
V
is
an
appropriate
mechanism
for
documenting
Clean
Units,
but
that
the
process
for
certifying
sources
should
be
separate
from
title
V
to
avoid
delays
in
title
V
permitting.
We
agree
with
these
commenters,
and
today
are
promulgating
provisions
that
an
emissions
unit
may
be
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit
once
it
has
gone
through
major
NSR
or
another
SIP­
approved
permitting
program
that
provides
for
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
comment.
This
allows
the
reviewing
authority
the
flexibility
to
use
the
permitting
process
that
it
believes
is
most
appropriate
to
make
a
Clean
Unit
status
determination.
However,
once
Clean
Unit
status
has
been
established
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
program,
it
must
be
incorporated
into
the
title
V
permit.
See
section
V.
C.
7
for
a
discussion
of
this
process.

VI.
Pollution
Control
Projects
A.
Description
and
Purpose
of
This
Action
Our
policy
is
to
promote
pollution
control
and
prevention
projects
whenever
possible.
Today
we
are
finalizing
a
rule
provision
that
would
exclude
from
major
NSR
permitting
requirements
certain
work
practices
and
the
installation
of
qualifying
pollution
control
and
pollution
prevention
projects.
With
these
provisions,
we
are
removing
a
regulatory
disincentive
that
might
otherwise
prevent
industry
from
undertaking
pollution
control
and
prevention
measures
that
result
in
a
net
environmental
benefit.
The
``
Pollution
Control
Project
Exclusion''
(
or
``
PCP
Exclusion'')
will
allow
the
installation
of
certain
projects
that
result
in
net
overall
environmental
benefits
to
avoid
the
permitting
requirements
of
major
NSR
for
their
collateral
emissions
increases
that
exceed
the
significant
level.
This
action
was
proposed
on
July
23,
1996,
and
closely
paralleled
our
existing
policy
memorandum
35
which,
in
effect,
enabled
a
control
project
exclusion
for
EUSGUs
which
was
implemented
under
the
electric
utilityspecific
NSR
rule
(
see
57
FR
32314,
hereinafter
``
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion'')
to
apply
to
all
types
of
sources,
and
enabled
qualifying
pollution
prevention
projects
to
apply
for
an
exclusion
as
well.
This
action
will
replace
both
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
and
the
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance
with
a
single,
comprehensive
NSR
exclusion
for
all
types
of
qualifying
PCPs
 
including
add­
on
controls,
switches
to
less
polluting
fuels,
work
practices,
and
pollution
prevention
projects.
Morever,
this
final
rule
will
minimize
procedural
delays
in
getting
a
PCP
approved,
while
ensuring
appropriate
environmental
protection.
We
define
a
PCP
as
an
activity,
set
of
work
practices,
or
project
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
that
reduces
emissions
of
air
pollution
from
the
unit.
The
PCP
Exclusion
may
be
sought
when
a
project
is
installed
at
an
existing
source
where
it
reduces
the
emissions
rate
of
one
air
pollutant
while
causing
an
increase
in
emissions
of
a
different,
``
collateral''
pollutant.
A
common
example
of
such
a
project
is
installation
of
a
thermal
incinerator,
which
forms
NOX
as
a
collateral
pollutant
while
reducing
VOC
emissions.
For
evaluating
the
environmental
impact
of
a
collateral
emissions
increase,
the
source
and
reviewing
authority
will
assess
the
difference
between
the
emissions
unit's
post­
change
actual
emissions
and
its
pre­
change
baseline
actual
emissions.
This
test
is
discussed
in
section
II
of
today's
preamble.
That
increase
is
then
weighed
against
the
emissions
decrease
of
the
primary
pollutant
to
determine
whether
the
PCP,
as
a
whole,
provides
an
environmental
benefit.
The
source
and
reviewing
authority
also
must
ensure
that
the
change
does
not
cause
or
contribute
to
an
air
quality
violation,
that
no
ERCs
are
generated
(
through
initial
application
of
the
PCP),
and
that
any
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
nonattainment
pollutant
is
accounted
for
with
acceptable
offsets
or
SIP
measures.
In
performing
the
air
quality
analysis
under
this
provision,
the
procedures
established
for
conducting
air
quality
analysis
in
conjunction
with
NSR
permitting
will
be
used.
This
rule
excludes
the
installation
of
qualifying
PCPs
 
including
add­
on
control
devices,
raw
material
substitutions,
work
practices,
process
changes
and
other
pollution
prevention
strategies
 
from
the
definition
of
``
physical
or
operational
change''
within
the
definition
of
major
modification
in
our
Federal
regulations
(
e.
g.,
§
52.21).
We
are
also
requiring
that
States
adopt
the
same
exclusion
in
their
NSR
programs.
The
decision
to
make
codifying
changes
to
the
existing
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
and
the
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance
draws
largely
from
recommendations
of
the
CAAAC
Subcommittee
on
NSR
Reform.
The
members
of
the
Subcommittee
included
representatives
of
State
and
Federal
regulatory
agencies,
Federal
natural
resource
managers,
industry,
and
environmental
and
public
health
interest
groups.
The
Subcommittee's
recommendations
reflected
the
consensus
of
this
balanced
group
of
stakeholders.

B.
What
We
Proposed
and
How
Today's
Action
Compares
To
It
Our
proposed
PCP
Exclusion
provisions
essentially
restated
the
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance,
and
incorporated
a
``
primary
purpose''
test
as
an
initial
hurdle
for
candidate
PCPs.
The
``
primary
purpose''
test
would
have
limited
the
exclusion
to
those
projects
whose
primary
function
is
to
reduce
air
pollution.
The
proposal,
like
the
previous
PCP
Exclusion
rule
and
policy
guidance,
maintained
that
the
exclusion
was
not
applicable
to
air
pollution
controls
and
emissions
associated
with
the
construction
of
a
new
emissions
unit,
nor
to
the
replacement
or
reconstruction
of
an
entire
existing
emissions
unit
with
a
newer
or
different
one.
In
addition,
the
fabrication,
manufacture,
or
production
of
pollution
control/
prevention
equipment
and
inherently
less
polluting
fuels
or
raw
materials
would
not,
in
and
of
themselves,
qualify
as
a
PCP.
We
also
incorporated
two
safeguards
that
were
taken
directly
from
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
and
the
July
1,
1994
policy
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80233
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
guidance.
First,
the
reviewing
authority
would
be
required
to
determine
that
the
PCP
is
``
environmentally
beneficial.''
A
second
safeguard
from
our
proposal
would
direct
reviewing
authorities
to
evaluate
the
air
quality
impacts
of
a
proposed
PCP
and
ensure
that
it
does
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
We
proposed
specific
add­
on
control
technologies
that
would
be
considered
presumptively
``
environmentally
beneficial''
based
on
their
proven
history
of
positive
environmental
impact.
The
proposal
also
allowed
for
fuel
switches
to
less
polluting
fuels
and
substitutions
to
less
potent
ozone
depleting
substances
(
ODS)
to
be
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
projects.
For
other
pollution
prevention
projects
and
new
add­
on
control
technologies
to
qualify
as
a
PCP,
the
proposal
required
the
reviewing
authority
to
determine
that
the
project
was
environmentally
beneficial
and,
additionally
for
new
add­
on
control
devices,
that
they
be
``
demonstrated
in
practice.''
We
received
comments
on
every
key
aspect
of
the
proposed
PCP
Exclusion.
Although
most
parties
support
the
PCP
Exclusion,
their
suggestions
regarding
implementation
of
the
exclusion
vary
considerably.
Industry
commenters
generally
desire
maximum
flexibility,
and
suggest
extending
the
exclusion
to
cross­
media
control
projects,
limiting
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
and
``
primary
purpose''
requirements,
allowing
for
the
generation
of
ERCs
from
PCPs,
and
broadening
which
pollution
prevention
projects
qualified.
Other
commenters,
including
State
agencies
and
environmental
organizations,
generally
favor
a
more
restrictive
approach
that
involves
more
agency
oversight
and
creates
more
enforceable
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
the
exclusion
would
not
be
abused.
All
comments
are
specifically
addressed
in
the
Technical
Support
Document.
Today's
rule
revises
the
proposed
PCP
Exclusion
in
several
ways,
including
the
following.
 
Eliminating
the
``
primary
purpose''
requirement.
 
Expanding
the
list
of
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
projects
to
include
additional
control
technologies
and
strategies.
 
Enabling
projects
that
otherwise
are
PCPs
and
result
in
utilization
increases
to
qualify
for
the
exclusion.
 
Using
an
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
format
for
determining
emissions
changes
for
all
source
categories
to
demonstrate
net
environmental
benefit
supplemented
by
air
quality
analysis
under
certain
circumstances,
regardless
of
their
projected
emissions
increases
resulting
from
utilization.
 
Clarifying
that
the
replacement,
reconstruction,
or
modification
of
an
existing
emissions
control
technology
could
qualify
for
the
exclusion.
 
Detailing
the
calculations
for
determining
whether
a
switch
to
a
different
ODS
is
environmentally
beneficial.
 
Changing
the
visibility
component
of
the
air
quality
analysis
to
``
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
FLM,
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public''.
 
Identifying
which
fuel
switches
are
presumed
``
inherently
less
polluting''.
 
Enabling
work
practice
standards
to
qualify
for
the
exclusion.
 
Clarifying
that
modeling
for
air
quality
impacts
analyses
may
use
projected
actual
emissions.
 
Detailing
proper
noticing
requirements
for
listed
projects
to
use
this
exclusion.
 
Describing
in
detail
the
process
for
granting
the
PCP
Exclusion
for
nonlisted
control
technologies
and
pollution
prevention
strategies.
 
Disqualifying
projects
that
cannot
secure
acceptable
offsetting
emissions
reductions
or
SIP
measures
for
PCPs
resulting
in
a
significant
net
increase
of
a
nonattainment
pollutant.
 
Disallowing
generation
of
netting
and
offset
credits
from
the
initial
application
of
PCPs
that
qualify
for
this
exclusion.
 
Clarifying
that
non­
air
pollution
impacts
will
not
be
considered
in
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
determination.
By
today's
action
we
are
superseding
the
PCP
regulatory
exclusion
that
applied
only
to
EUSGUs.
Today's
action
covers
all
types
of
sources,
including
EUSGUs.
The
new,
broader
PCP
Exclusion
will
ensure
equitable
treatment
of
all
source
categories
and
remove
any
disincentive
for
companies
that
wish
to
install
pollution
control
and
pollution
prevention
projects,
to
the
extent
allowed
by
the
CAA.
Thus,
owners
or
operators
of
EUSGUs
who
want
a
PCP
Exclusion
may,
like
any
other
source
category,
use
the
expanded
definition
of
``
pollution
control
project,''
which
includes
the
lengthened
list
of
environmentally
acceptable
control
devices.
Despite
today's
rule
revisions
addressing
a
broader
array
of
pollution
control
and
pollution
prevention
projects
at
a
larger
variety
of
sources,
we
feel
that
the
rule's
procedures
are
less
complex
than
and
are
clearer
than
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
and
the
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance.
We
are
satisfied
that
the
final
PCP
Exclusion
best
achieves
the
goals
of
minimizing
regulatory
burden
and
reducing
procedural
delays
for
projects
that
ensure
net
overall
environmental
protection.

1.
Applicability
a.
What
types
of
projects
may
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion?
In
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion,
we
found
that
installation
of
add­
on
emissions
control
projects,
switches
to
less
polluting
fuels,
and
certain
clean
coal
demonstration
projects
could
be
PCPs,
``
unless
the
project
renders
the
unit
less
environmentally
beneficial.''
57
FR
32319.
Today's
rule
affirms
that
these
types
of
projects
are
appropriate
candidates
for
the
exclusion,
and
it
expands
the
types
of
projects
that
can
qualify
to
include
installation
of
other
control
devices
that
were
not
previously
listed
in
the
regulations,
as
well
as
work
practice
standards
and
switches
to
less
potent
quantities
of
ODS.
Some
of
the
control
technologies
(
for
example,
oxidation/
absorption
catalyst
and
biofiltration)
listed
in
today's
revisions
were
either
not
well
known
or
not
demonstrated
in
practice
as
of
the
release
of
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
and
the
July
1,
1994
policy
guidance
exclusion;
consequently,
today's
rule
brings
the
list
of
approved
PCPs
up
to
date.
We
believe
that
the
overall
net
impact
of
installing
and
operating
the
listed
add­
on
control
systems
is
environmentally
beneficial
and
that
such
projects
are
desirable
from
an
environmental
perspective.
The
add­
on
controls
in
the
approved
list
historically
have
been
applied
to
many
different
kinds
of
sources
to
reduce
emissions.
They
have
been
consistently
used
because
it
is
generally
understood
that,
from
an
overall
environmental
perspective,
these
controls
are
effective
in
reducing
emissions
when
they
are
applied
to
existing
plants
in
a
manner
consistent
with
standard
and
reasonable
practices.
Certain
pollution
prevention
projects
 
for
example,
fuel
switches
and
low­
NOX
burners
 
are
also
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
when
properly
applied.
Consequently,
as
part
of
the
exclusion
for
PCPs,
we
do
not
require
a
case­
by­
case
``
environmentally
beneficial''
demonstration
for
the
``
listed''
PCPs,
as
long
as
they
are
properly
applied
and
site­
specific
factors
do
not
indicate
that
their
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80234
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
application
would
be
environmentally
harmful.
Thus,
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
presumption
created
by
the
list
may
be
rebutted.
For
companies
wishing
to
install
and
operate
non­
listed
PCPs,
however,
the
process
is
more
rigorous.
In
these
cases,
the
reviewing
authority
first
must
consider
casespecific
factors
to
determine
whether
the
non­
listed
project
results
in
a
net
environmental
benefit
and
then
must
provide
an
opportunity
for,
and
respond
to,
public
notice
and
comment
before
approving
the
project
as
a
PCP.
b.
Why
does
the
PCP
Exclusion
not
apply
to
greenfield
sources?
Today's
rule
restricts
applicability
of
the
PCP
Exclusion
to
physical
changes
being
made
at
existing
sources.
Installing
or
implementing
a
project
on
an
existing
source
is
more
likely
to
improve
the
environment
than
is
the
construction
of
a
new
source,
since
one
can
reasonably
expect
a
PCP
to
reduce
overall
emissions,
barring
a
considerable
utilization
increase.
New
sources,
however,
introduce
new
emissions
to
the
air
without
reducing
existing
emissions,
and
consequently
should
be
as
clean
as
possible.
Furthermore,
new
emissions
units
are
among
the
major
capital
investments
in
industrial
equipment,
which
are
the
very
types
of
projects
that
Congress
intended
to
address
in
the
NSR
provisions
when
such
projects
result
in
an
overall
emissions
increase
from
the
major
stationary
source.
Thus,
when
emissions
from
a
new
source
exceed
the
significant
level,
they
are
subject
to
NSR,
and
all
emissions
that
are
generated
from
the
new
project
should
be
addressed
in
the
major
NSR
permit
evaluation
for
the
major
stationary
source.
c.
Does
the
PCP
Exclusion
apply
to
rebuilt
or
upgraded
control
devices?
We
are
clarifying
in
today's
rule
that
upgrading
or
replacing
existing
emissions
control
equipment
with
a
more
effective
emissions
control
project
can
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion.
However,
the
new
PCP
would
have
to
result
in
a
level
of
control
more
stringent
than
the
original
control
equipment,
in
terms
of
emissions
rate
or
output­
based
emissions
rate,
such
as
upgrading
a
scrubber
to
increase
removal
efficiency.
Another
example
that
would
qualify
is
a
control
device
that
achieves
an
emissions
reduction
equivalent
to
that
of
the
original
device,
but
is
more
energy
efficient.
An
example
of
this
is
the
conversion
of
a
thermal
oxidizer
to
a
catalytic
oxidizer.
As
long
as
the
catalytic
oxidizer
achieved
emissions
control
equivalent
to
that
of
the
thermal
oxidizer,
it
would
qualify
for
a
PCP
Exclusion
since
it
reduces
energy
use.

2.
Environmental
Benefits
a.
What
projects
do
we
presume
to
be
environmentally
beneficial?
Commenters
recommend
that
we
expand
the
list
of
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
projects
to
include
other
add­
on
control
technologies
that
are
commonly
used
to
reduce
emissions
at
major
stationary
sources.
We
agree
with
this
recommendation
and
have
expanded
the
list
of
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs
accordingly
in
today's
rule.
We
presume
the
projects
listed
in
Table
2
are
environmentally
beneficial.
We
based
our
decision
to
add
certain
projects
to
the
list
on
two
criteria:
(
1)
The
PCP
is
``
demonstrated
in
practice'';
and
(
2)
its
overall
effectiveness
in
reducing
emissions
of
the
primary
pollutant(
s)
when
balanced
against
its
potential
for
emissions
increases
of
collateral
pollutant(
s).

TABLE
2.
 
ENVIRONMENTALLY
BENEFICIAL
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PROJECTS
Control
device/
PCP
Pollutant
controlled
Conventional
&
advanced
flue
gas
desulfurization.
SO2
Sorbent
injection
Electrostatic
precipitators
............
Particulates
and
other
pollutants
Baghouses
High
efficiency
multiclones
Scrubbers
Flue
gas
recirculation
.................
NOX
Low­
NOX
burners
or
combustors
Selective
non­
catalytic
reduction
Selective
catalytic
reduction
Low
emission
combustion
(
for
internal
combustion
engines)
oxidation/
absorption
catalyst
(
e.
g.,
SCONOX
TM)
Regenerative
thermal
oxidizers
..
VOC
and
HAP.
Catalytic
oxidizers
Thermal
incinerators
Hydrocarbon
combustion
flares
36
Condensers
Absorbers
&
adsorbers
Biofiltration
TABLE
2.
 
ENVIRONMENTALLY
BENEFICIAL
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PROJECTS
 
Continued
Control
device/
PCP
Pollutant
controlled
Floating
roofs
(
for
storage
vessels

36
For
the
purposes
of
these
rules,
``
Hydrocarbon
combustion
flare''
means
either
a
flare
used
to
comply
with
an
applicable
NSPS
or
MACT
standard
(
including
use
of
flares
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
permitted
under
such
a
standard),
or
a
flare
that
serves
to
control
emissions
from
waste
streams
comprised
predominantly
of
hydrocarbons
and
containing
no
more
than
230
mg/
dscm
hydrogen
sulfide.

Other
presumed
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs
include
activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate:
(
1)
switching
to
different
ODS
with
a
less
damaging
ozone­
depleting
effect
(
factoring
in
its
ozone
depletion
potential
and
projected
usage);
and
(
2)
switching
to
an
inherently
less
polluting
fuel,
to
be
limited
to
the
following.
 
Switching
from
a
heavier
grade
of
fuel
oil
to
a
lighter
fuel
oil,
or
any
grade
of
oil
to
0.05
percent
sulfur
diesel.
(
that
is,
from
a
higher
sulfur
content
#
2
fuel,
or
from
#
6
fuel,
to
CA
0.05
percent
sulfur
#
2
diesel)
 
Switching
from
coal,
oil,
or
any
solid
fuel
to
natural
gas,
propane,
or
gasified
coal.
 
Switching
from
coal
to
wood,
excluding
construction
or
demolition
waste,
chemical
or
pesticide
treated
wood,
and
other
forms
of
``
unclean''
wood
 
Switching
from
coal
to
#
2
fuel
oil
(
0.5
percent
maximum
sulfur
content)
 
Switching
from
high
sulfur
coal
to
low
sulfur
coal
(
maximum
1.2
percent
sulfur
content)
We
are
presuming
that
the
application
of
a
PCP
listed
above
is
environmentally
beneficial
and
would
be
eligible
for
a
PCP
Exclusion.
This
presumption
is
premised
on
an
understanding
that
you
will
design
and
operate
the
controls
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
proper
industry,
engineering,
and
reasonable
practices,
and
that
you
minimize
increases
in
collateral
pollutants
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy.
You
will
be
required
to
certify
that
this
is
true
in
the
notification
you
send
your
reviewing
authority.
As
stated
before,
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
determination
is
a
presumption,
so
it
can
be
rebutted
in
cases
in
which
a
reviewing
authority
determines
that
a
particular
proposed
PCP
project
would
not
be
environmentally
beneficial.
Also,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80235
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
this
presumption
does
not
apply
when:
(
1)
The
PCP
is
not
designed,
operated,
or
maintained
in
a
manner
consistent
with
standard
and
reasonable
practices;
(
2)
the
collateral
pollutant
emissions
increases
are
not
minimized
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy;
or
(
3)
the
unit
will
be
less
environmentally
beneficial.
Also,
when
a
reviewing
authority
determines
that
an
otherwise
listed
project
would
not
be
constructed
and
operated
consistent
with
standard
practices,
it
may
rebut
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
presumption
for
that
application
of
the
technology.
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
commenters
on
the
proposed
rule
list
several
examples
of
specific
projects
they
believe
we
should
add
to
the
list
of
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
projects.
However,
some
of
these
suggested
PCP
scenarios
would
never
trigger
NSR
because
there
would
not
be
a
significant
increase
in
emissions,
from
either
the
collateral
or
primary
pollutant.
For
example,
one
commenter
says
we
should
consider
the
termination
or
decommissioning
of
an
emissions
unit
an
environmentally
beneficial
technology.
We
have
never
required
a
unit
to
undergo
NSR
before
terminating
operation;
consequently,
there
is
no
need
for
a
PCP
Exclusion.
Commenters
raised
other
scenarios
but
provided
few
examples
and
insufficient
detail
from
which
we
could
draw
any
conclusions.
We
believe
that
the
PCP
Exclusion
will
benefit
only
a
subset
of
all
PCPs
undertaken
at
existing
sources,
in
part
because
most
control
projects
will
not
cause
an
emissions
increase
of
any
criteria
pollutant
and,
thus,
will
not
trigger
NSR.
As
always,
major
NSR
only
applies
to
your
physical
or
operational
changes
that
result
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
your
source.

b.
What
is
Meant
by
``
Environmentally
Beneficial''?
The
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
defines
a
PCP
as
``
any
activity
or
project
undertaken
.
.
.
for
purposes
of
reducing
emissions.''
§
52.21(
b)(
32).
We
have
explained
that
``
EPA
expects
that
most,
if
not
all,
pollution
control
projects
will
reduce
net
actual
emissions.''
57
FR
32319
(
1992).
The
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion
therefore
``
avoids
the
need
to
undertake
a
quantitative
emissions
increase
calculation
in
every
case''
that
a
facility
prepares
to
undertake
a
PCP.
Rather,
in
recognition
that
while
a
PCP
``
could
theoretically
cause
a
small
collateral
increase
in
some
emissions,
it
will
substantially
reduce
emissions
of
other
pollutants,''
the
rule
contemplates
that
sources
proposing
PCPs
that
are
not
listed
will
determine
in
the
first
instance
whether
they
are
entitled
to
the
PCP
Exclusion
based
on
the
``
project's
net
emissions
and
overall
impact
on
the
environment.''
Id.
at
32321.
Nevertheless,
``
the
reviewing
authority
can
require
additional
modeling
under
certain
circumstances
to
evaluate
the
air
quality
impact
of
a
[
PCP].''
Id.
As
for
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion,
``
reducing
emissions''
is
the
bedrock
of
the
PCP
Exclusion.
For
the
list
of
PCPs
in
today's
regulation,
we
are
satisfied
that
the
net
impact
on
the
environment
from
these
projects
is
beneficial
because
of
our
broad
experience
with
these
technologies.
Consequently,
such
projects
are
desirable
from
an
environmental
protection
perspective,
and
we
have
no
reason
to
doubt
the
validity
of
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
presumption
when
such
controls
are
applied
to
existing
sources
consistent
with
standard
and
reasonable
practices.
For
those
projects
not
listed
in
Table
2,
there
is
no
presumption
as
to
whether
or
not
the
projects
are
environmentally
beneficial,
and
therefore
the
PCP
Exclusion
is
not
self­
executing.
On
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
your
reviewing
authority
must
consider
the
net
environmental
benefit
of
a
non­
listed
project
and
approve
requests
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
for
a
specific
application
of
the
project
upon
a
showing
that
it
is
environmentally
beneficial.
You
must
receive
this
approval
from
your
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction
of
the
PCP.
This
approval
must
be
conducted
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
process
that
conforms
to
the
requirements
of
§
§
51.160
and
51.161,
including
a
requirement
for
a
public
hearing
and
30­
day
public
comment
period
on
all
aspects
of
the
project.
This
includes
an
opportunity
for
the
public
and
EPA
to
review
and
comment
on
the
environmental
benefits
analysis
and
the
air
quality
impacts
assessment.
The
reviewing
authority's
evaluation
of
the
project's
net
environmental
benefits
is
limited
to
air
quality
considerations;
specifically,
the
air
quality
benefits
of
emissions
reductions
of
the
primary
pollutant
must
outweigh
any
detrimental
effects
from
emissions
increases
in
the
collateral
pollutant,
when
comparing
the
unit's
post­
change
emissions
to
its
pre­
change
baseline
actual
emissions.
Also,
the
reviewing
authority's
decision
on
a
case­
specific
approval
of
a
PCP
Exclusion
does
not
serve
to
proclaim
that
a
given
technology
is
environmentally
beneficial
for
purposes
of
subsequent
PCP
Exclusion
applications
for
the
same
technology.
We
may
add
non­
listed
control
devices,
work
practices,
and
pollution
prevention
projects
to
the
approved
list,
such
that
a
previously
non­
listed
project
can
be
considered
for
a
self­
executing
PCP
Exclusion.
The
technology
must
be
reviewed
by
us
to
ensure
that
the
project's
overall
net
impact
on
the
environment
is
indeed
beneficial.
Our
evaluation
would
hinge
on
the
same
factors
mentioned
above
for
the
reviewing
authority's
case­
by­
case
reviews.
Once
``
listed,''
a
subsequent
project
could
be
presumed
environmentally
beneficial
unless
casespecific
factors
or
impacts
would
indicate
otherwise.
Today's
rule
also
provides
more
guidance
in
this
rule
on
what
constitutes
an
environmentally
beneficial
fuel
switch.
In
general,
we
lack
sufficient
information
from
which
to
categorically
determine
that
a
switch
to
solid
fuel
will
be
``
inherently
less
polluting.''
For
instance,
switching
from
oil
to
woodwaste
may
decrease
sulfur
emissions
while
increasing
particulate
emissions.
Switching
between
solid
fuels,
such
as
coal,
woodwaste,
or
tirederived
fuels,
must
therefore
be
evaluated
more
closely
before
we
can
determine
whether
such
a
switch
could
qualify
as
an
environmentally
beneficial
PCP.
Accordingly,
we
specify
which
fuel
switches
are
presumptively
available
for
the
PCP
Exclusion.

c.
Why
are
not
More
Pollution
Prevention
Projects
Presumed
Environmentally
Beneficial?
Switching
to
a
less
polluting
fuel
or
to
a
less
potent
quantity
of
ODS
are
prime
examples
of
pollution
prevention
projects,
and
both
are
already
listed
as
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial.
However,
some
commenters
point
out
that
there
are
far
more
end­
ofpipe
add­
on
technologies
that
are
listed
as
environmentally
beneficial
and
recommend
that
we
include
more
pollution
prevention
technologies.
Although
we
fully
support
and
encourage
pollution
prevention
projects
and
strategies,
special
care
must
be
taken
in
evaluating
a
pollution
prevention
project
for
the
PCP
Exclusion.
Pollution
prevention
projects
tend
to
be
dependent
on
site­
specific
factors
and
lack
an
historical
record
of
performance,
which
proves
problematic
in
deciding
whether
they
are
environmentally
beneficial
when
applied
universally.
We
believe
that
both
add­
on
control
devices
and
pollution
prevention
projects
have
equal
chances
of
being
presumed
environmentally
beneficial,
but
we
have
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80236
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
more
data
and
history
with
the
add­
on
control
equipment,
and
this
is
why
the
list
includes
more
of
those
types
of
pollution
strategies.
Pollution
prevention
projects
can
still
qualify
as
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs,
but
they
must
be
evaluated
by
the
reviewing
authority
to
confirm
their
environmental
benefits.

d.
How
are
Control
Technologies
and
Pollution
Prevention
Strategies
Added
to
the
Presumptively
``
Environmentally
Beneficial''
List?

The
proposal
would
have
allowed
the
reviewing
authority
to
add
to
the
list
of
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial
technologies,
as
long
as
it
determined
that
a
project
had
been
``
demonstrated
in
practice''
and
was
comparable
in
effectiveness
to
the
listed
technologies
on
a
pollutant­
specific
basis.
We
will
continue
to
allow
new
control
technologies
that
are
demonstrated
in
practice
to
be
added
to
the
list
of
presumed
environmentally
beneficial
technologies.
However,
unlike
the
proposed
PCP
Exclusion,
we
will
not
require
that
non­
listed
technologies
be
comparable
in
effectiveness
on
a
pollutant­
specific
basis
with
the
emissions
reduction
efficiency
of
currently
listed
technologies
in
order
to
qualify
as
environmentally
beneficial,
since
this
is
difficult
to
compare
when
different
pollutants
must
be
considered.
Also,
today's
rule
vests
the
EPA
Administrator
with
the
sole
authority
to
approve
non­
listed
pollution
strategies
as
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial.
The
reviewing
authority
may
perform
a
case­
specific
approval
of
a
PCP
Exclusion
in
which
it
would
determine
that
a
non­
listed
technology
is
environmentally
beneficial,
but
that
determination
only
pertains
to
the
particular
case
under
evaluation
and
would
not
serve
to
presume
that
the
technology
is
environmentally
beneficial
for
subsequent
applications.
Through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
we
will
maintain
and
update
the
list
as
we
deem
additional
technologies
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
or
to
remove
from
the
list
any
PCP
that
we
erroneously
listed.
Several
commenters
on
the
proposal
suggest
that
we
create
a
clearinghouse
for
newly
added
environmentally
beneficial
PCPs.
We
agree
that
additions
to
the
approved
PCP
list
need
to
be
readily
available
to
the
public;
however,
since
rulemaking
will
be
used
to
add
new
PCPs
to
the
approved
list,
no
additional
public
notice
will
be
necessary.
e.
How
do
I
Calculate
Emissions
Increases?
In
order
to
calculate
emissions
increases
for
primary
and
collateral
pollutants
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
environmental
impact
of
the
PCP,
you
must
use
the
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test
method
for
calculating
the
emissions
increase.
This
test
is
discussed
in
section
II
of
today's
preamble,
and
is
consistent
with
the
remainder
of
today's
rule
revisions.

f.
How
do
you
Perform
the
Emissions
Calculation
for
Switches
to
a
Less
Potent
Amount
of
ODS?
We
have
determined
that
activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
to
an
ODS
with
less
potential
for
stratospheric
ozone
damage
are
presumptively
environmentally
beneficial,
as
long
as
the
productive
capacity
of
the
equipment
does
not
increase
as
a
result
of
the
activity
or
project.
For
determining
your
emissions
before
and
after
the
change,
you
must
perform
a
weighted
comparison
of
the
switch
based
on
ozone
depleting
potential
(
ODP),
taken
from
40
CFR
part
82,
and
the
past
and
projected
future
usage
of
each
ODS.
In
cases
where
we
have
expressed
a
chemical's
ODP
in
40
CFR
part
82
as
a
range,
the
most
conservative
value
(
that
is,
the
upper
bound
value)
should
be
used.
The
replaced
ODP­
weighted
amount
is
then
calculated
by
multiplying
the
baseline
actual
usage
(
using
the
annualized
average
of
any
24
consecutive
months
of
usage
within
the
past
10
years)
by
the
ODP
of
the
replaced
ODS.
The
projected
ODP­
weighted
amount
is
computed
by
multiplying
the
projected
future
annual
usage
of
the
new
substance
by
its
ODP.
The
following
example
illustrates
how
to
make
these
calculations
in
determining
whether
a
switch
to
a
different
ODS
is
environmentally
beneficial.

Example:
Source
plans
to
replace
solvents
in
its
batch
process
line.
Its
current
solvent,
CFC
 
12,
a
chlorofluorocarbon
(
CFC)
with
an
ODP
of
1.0,
is
emitted
at
200
tpy.
It
will
be
substituted
with
a
less
potent
solvent,
a
hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(
HCFC)
with
an
ODP
of
0.02.
As
a
result
of
this
change,
the
straight
mass
emissions
coming
from
the
solvent
will
increase
twofold
due
to
the
new
process
solvent
having
a
higher
vapor
pressure
than
the
old
solvent.
However,
this
substitution
most
likely
would
be
viewed
as
environmentally
beneficial,
since
the
ODPweighted
emissions
would
reveal
a
decreased
risk
in
environmental
harm.
Specifically,
the
CFC
 
12
would
be
multiplied
by
its
ODP
of
1.0,
resulting
in
200
tpy
for
pre­
change
ODPweighted
emissions.
In
contrast,
the
400
tpy
of
HCFC
emissions
would
be
multiplied
by
0.02,
giving
it
a
post­
change,
ODP­
weighted
emission
level
of
8
tpy.
The
net
effect
is
an
emissions
decrease
of
192
tpy
on
an
ODPweighted
basis.
g.
Should
Cross­
Media
Impacts
be
Considered
in
the
``
Environmentally
Beneficial''
Demonstration?

By
definition,
a
PCP
reduces
emissions
of
air
pollutants
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act.
Therefore,
while
the
primary
environmental
benefit
of
the
PCP
would
be
to
reduce
air
emissions,
a
secondary
benefit
could
be
reducing
pollution
in
other
media.
However,
these
cross­
media
tradeoffs
are
difficult
to
compare,
so
it
is
difficult
to
weigh
their
importance
in
appraising
the
overall
environmental
benefit
of
a
PCP.
We
solicited
comments
in
the
proposal
on
how
to
compare
crossmedia
pollution,
but
we
received
no
suggestions
on
how
to
design
such
a
system.
As
a
result,
we
have
determined
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
consider
nonair
impacts
when
considering
whether
projects,
activities,
or
work
practices
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion.

3.
Air
Quality
Impacts
a.
What
is
the
``
Cause­
or­
Contribute
Test''?

Another
criterion
for
qualification
for
all
PCPs
is
that
the
emissions
from
the
PCP
cannot
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM,
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
This
has
been
called
the
``
cause­
or­
contribute
test.''
We
continue
to
believe
that
the
PCP
Exclusion
must
include
such
safeguards
to
ensure
protection
of
the
environment
and
public
health.
In
the
WEPCO
PCP
Exclusion,
we
said
that
the
reviewing
authority
``
under
certain
circumstances''
may
evaluate
the
air
quality
impact
of
a
PCP.
57
FR
32321.
Generally,
these
circumstances
would
include
large
secondary
emissions
increases
in
areas
that
are
nonattainment,
or
marginally
in
attainment,
for
the
pollutant
in
question.
We
anticipate,
however,
that
such
analyses
would
not
normally
be
required,
since
collateral
emissions
increases
from
most
relevant
projects
will
be
so
small
that
additional
modeling
should
not
be
required.
Commenters
from
industry
complain
that
determining
whether
there
would
be
an
adverse
impact
on
an
AQRV
is
too
difficult
and
believe
that
the
proposal
is
ambiguous
in
defining
roles
of
FLMs
and
reviewing
authorities.
The
intention
of
the
statutory
structure
for
preconstruction
permit
review
in
section
165(
d)
of
the
Act
unambiguously
is
to
protect
against
any
adverse
impact
on
AQRVs
in
Class
I
lands.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
believe
that
any
air
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80237
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
quality
assessment
for
a
PCP
should
consider
all
relevant
AQRVs
in
any
Class
I
area
that
are
identified
by
the
FLM
at
the
time
you
submit
your
notice
or
permit
application
for
the
project.
For
purposes
of
those
projects
on
the
list
of
projects
presumptively
qualifying
for
the
PCP
Exclusion,
we
are
limiting
the
consideration
of
AQRVs
to
those
that
have
already
been
identified
by
an
FLM
for
the
Federal
Class
I
area.
You
should
check
with
the
National
Park
Service
website
and
other
public
information
to
determine
if
the
FLM
has
already
identified
an
AQRV
for
a
nearby
Class
I
area.
If
you
are
required
to
obtain
both
approval
from
your
reviewing
authority
and
a
permit
before
beginning
actual
construction
of
your
project,
then
additional
AQRVs
may
be
identified
by
an
FLM
consistent
with
the
procedures
provided
for
in
that
permitting
process.

b.
What
is
Necessary
for
the
Air
Quality
Impacts
Analysis?
Reviewing
authorities
can
require
you
to
analyze
your
air
quality
impacts
whenever
they
have
reason
to
believe
that:
(
1)
the
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
of
any
criteria
pollutant
over
levels
in
the
most
recent
analysis;
and
(
2)
such
an
increase
would
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
The
analysis
must
contain
sufficient
data
to
satisfy
the
reviewing
authority
that
the
new
levels
of
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
the
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
AQRV
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
an
FLM
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
If
the
air
quality
analysis
shows
that
a
resulting
violation
is
foreseeable,
your
project
cannot
receive
the
PCP
Exclusion.
Many
industry
commenters
complain
that
the
proposed
air
quality
analysis
and
Class
I
provisions
for
the
exclusion
were
overly
burdensome
and
needed
to
be
either
eliminated
or
streamlined.
We
agree
in
part
with
this
point,
even
though
we
strongly
contend
that
there
need
to
be
safeguards
to
protect
against
misuse
of
the
exclusion
with
projects
that
will
not
provide
positive
environmental
results.
Although
today's
final
rule
contains
the
core
safeguard
to
prevent
an
adverse
air
quality
impact,
a
modeling
exercise
is
not
necessarily
warranted
in
all
cases.
While
you
are
not
required
to
notify
the
FLM
of
any
Federal
Class
I
area
located
near
your
facility
as
a
prerequisite
for
proceeding
with
a
PCP,
you
must
determine
whether
any
AQRVs
have
been
identified
in
these
areas.
FLMs
have
identified
AQRVs
for
many
of
the
Federal
Class
I
areas
and
made
this
information
available
on
a
dedicated
web
site
(
http://
www2.
nature.
nps.
gov).
If
no
AQRVs
have
been
identified
for
a
particular
Class
I
area,
your
demonstration
is
simply
a
statement
that
no
AQRVs
exist
in
Class
I
areas
that
your
source
has
the
potential
to
affect.
Similarly,
if
there
are
AQRVs
in
nearby
Federal
Class
I
areas,
but
the
pollutants
associated
with
these
AQRVS
either
will
not
be
emitted
by
your
facility
or
will
not
increase
by
a
significant
amount
as
a
result
of
the
PCP,
then
your
demonstration
should
simply
indicate
the
lack
of
any
association
between
your
PCP
project
and
the
known
AQRVs.
On
the
other
hand,
you
should
be
prepared
to
conduct
modeling
with
respect
to
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
that
your
PCP
will
cause
to
increase
by
a
significant
amount
when
that
pollutant
is
associated
with
a
known
AQRV
in
a
nearby
Federal
Class
I
area.
Oftentimes,
a
screening
model
may
be
used
to
estimate
the
ambient
impacts
of
the
increase
from
your
facility.
Special
concern
should
be
given
in
cases
where
an
FLM
has
already
identified
adverse
impacts
for
such
AQRV.
In
such
cases,
you
are
expected
to
record
and
consider
any
information
that
the
FLM
has
made
available
concerning
the
adverse
effects,
to
help
determine
whether
the
pollutant
impacts
from
your
facility
have
the
potential
to
cause
further
adverse
impacts.
If
a
reviewing
authority,
upon
receiving
your
notification
of
using
the
PCP
Exclusion,
believes
that
an
air
quality
impacts
analysis
is
reasonably
necessary,
it
is
entitled
to
request
more
information
from
you,
including
additional
local
or
regional
modeling.

c.
How
does
the
PCP
Exclusion
Apply
to
Projects
With
Collateral
Pollutant
Increases
of
Nonattainment
Pollutants?
The
PCP
Exclusion
is
available,
regardless
of
an
area's
attainment
status
or
its
severity
of
nonattainment.
Nonetheless,
because
increases
in
a
nonattainment
pollutant
contribute
to
the
existing
nonattainment
problem,
you
or
the
reviewing
authority
must
offset
with
acceptable
emissions
reductions
any
significant
emissions
increase
in
a
nonattainment
pollutant
resulting
from
a
PCP.
We
are
promulgating
the
PCP
Exclusion
consistent
with
our
proposal's
approach
of
requiring
mitigation
of
any
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
nonattainment
pollutant
resulting
from
a
PCP.
Since
less
than
significant
collateral
emissions
increases
(
for
example,
less
than
40
tpy
of
VOC
in
a
moderate
ozone
nonattainment
area)
do
not
trigger
major
NSR,
such
mitigation
requirements
are
not
necessary
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
when
the
increase
of
the
nonattainment
pollutant
will
be
below
the
applicable
significant
level.
Be
aware,
however,
that
a
less
than
significant
emissions
increase
may
be
subject
to
a
State's
minor
NSR
requirements.

4.
Miscellaneous
a.
Can
you
Generate
ERCs
From
Your
PCP­
Excluded
Project?

The
proposal
would
have
allowed
certain
projects
approved
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
to
use
their
primary
pollutant(
s)
emissions
reductions
as
NSR
offsets
or
netting
credits.
We
included
in
the
proposed
rule
a
specialized
``
environmentally
beneficial''
test
that
would
apply
to
PCPs
that
generate
ERCs.
Some
commenters
support
allowing
ERCs
and
creating
more
flexibility
to
use
them.
However,
other
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
avoid
complicating
the
PCP
Exclusion
by
factoring
emissions
trading
credits
with
the
exclusion.
These
commenters
claim
that
the
parceling
out
of
the
appropriate
reductions
for
emissions
credits
and
for
the
newly
installed
PCP
would
take
an
enormous
amount
of
time,
and
cause
problems
with
tracking
emissions
reductions
and
using
the
credits.
We
no
longer
believe
it
would
be
prudent
to
allow
PCPs
to
generate
netting
credits
or
offsets
for
the
emissions
reductions
used
to
initially
qualify
the
project
for
the
PCP
Exclusion,
in
light
of
the
issues
of
increased
complexity
that
the
commenters
raise.
But
perhaps
more
importantly,
we
feel
that
the
emissions
reductions
initially
achieved
by
the
PCP
are
integral
to
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
demonstration
required
in
order
for
the
PCP
to
qualify
for
the
exclusion.
The
emissions
reductions
are
traded,
in
effect,
for
the
significant
emissions
increase
of
the
collateral
pollutants
and
for
the
benefits
of
being
excluded
from
the
major
NSR
permitting
requirements.
To
then
re­
use
the
reductions
would
weaken
the
PCP
Exclusion
and
would
not
ensure
appropriate
environmental
protection.
Consequently,
you
cannot
use
emissions
reductions
that
initially
qualified
a
project
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
as
netting
credits
or
offsets.
However,
you
are
allowed
to
continue
to
use
these
reductions
to
generate
allowances
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
title
IV
Acid
Rain
program.
In
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80238
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1992,
the
PCP
Exclusion
was
originally
designed
for
use
by
EUSGUs
because
we
did
not
envision
that
Congress
intended
for
the
NSR
program
to
apply
to
projects
undertaken
to
comply
with
title
IV.
Nothing
in
today's
proposal
is
intended
to
change
that
design.
Moreover,
once
you
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion,
you
can
apply
for
ERCs
if
you
change
your
process
conditions
in
such
a
way
that
further
reduces
emissions.
For
example,
consider
that
you
have
an
add­
on
control
technology
which
receives
a
PCP
Exclusion
that,
at
full
operation,
allows
the
source
to
increase
its
emissions
of
a
specific
collateral
pollutant
and
emit
100
tpy
of
a
pollutant
(
either
a
targeted
pollutant
or
a
collateral
pollutant).
If
you
later
decide
to
take
an
hours­
of­
operation
limit
for
your
process
line
and/
or
control
technology
that
reduces
your
emissions
of
that
pollutant
to
75
tpy,
then
this
25
tpy
reduction
in
emissions
can
be
used
as
ERCs
if
deemed
acceptable
in
all
other
respects
by
your
reviewing
authority.

b.
Why
Are
We
Deleting
the
``
Primary
Purpose''
test?
The
``
primary
purpose''
test
was
proposed
as
an
initial
screening
mechanism
for
reviewing
authorities
to
screen
out
inappropriate
projects
and
to
streamline
the
approval
process.
This
was
designed
to
help
reviewing
authorities
avoid
dedicating
unnecessary
resources
to
non­
qualifying
projects.
Furthermore,
we
recognized
that
all
of
the
listed
PCPs
have
a
primary
purpose
of
reducing
air
pollution,
so
it
followed
logically
that
any
other
PCP
should
have
the
same
primary
purpose.
However,
we
received
comments
from
both
industry
and
a
State
trade
association
stating
that
many
activities
and
projects
have
multiple
purposes
in
addition
to
reducing
emissions,
and
they
encourage
EPA
not
to
focus
on
the
primary
purpose
of
a
project,
but
rather
on
the
project's
net
environmental
benefit,
in
considering
it
for
a
PCP
Exclusion.
A
``
primary
purpose''
requirement
would
disqualify
projects
that
may
be
environmentally
beneficial
but
happen
to
not
have
pollution
control
as
their
primary
purpose.
Further,
one
commenter
stated
that
by
focusing
on
the
intent
of
the
project
rather
than
its
end
result,
administrative
agencies
will
unnecessarily
be
forced
to
devote
scarce
resources
to
making
these
determinations.
We
concur
with
these
comments
and
have
determined
that
this
test
is
potentially
unnecessarily
restrictive.
Our
primary
objective
in
allowing
for
a
PCP
Exclusion
is
to
offer
NSR
relief
for
those
projects
that
create
a
net
environmental
benefit,
and
thus
we
should
not
concern
ourselves
with
a
source's
motivation
for
undertaking
its
project.
Therefore,
by
today's
rule
revisions,
even
if
a
project's
primary
purpose
is
not
to
reduce
emissions,
it
can
still
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
if
it
meets
the
``
environmentally
beneficial''
and
air
quality
tests
set
forth
in
today's
regulations.

c.
How
Do
the
Listed
PCP
Technologies
Compare
to
BACT
or
LAER
Determinations?
The
list
of
presumed
environmentally
beneficial
technologies
contains
several
control
strategies
that
do
not
qualify
as
BACT
or
LAER.
For
example,
installing
low­
NOX
burners
on
large­
sized
turbines
would
rarely
constitute
an
acceptable
BACT
level.
However,
these
projects
are
presumed
environmentally
beneficial
and
are
eligible
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
from
major
NSR
because
these
controls
are
cleaner
than
the
existing
equipment
is
without
the
controls.
In
addition,
the
PCP
Exclusion
only
applies
to
sources
that
are
installing
PCPs,
and
not
to
the
installation
of
new
emissions
units
or
changes
that
increase
the
capacity
of
the
unit,
both
of
which
would
be
potentially
subject
to
BACT
or
LAER.
We
reiterate,
however,
that
merely
because
a
control
technology
is
listed
as
environmentally
beneficial
does
not
also
imply
that
the
technology
is
equivalent
to
BACT
or
LAER,
and
you
should
not
rely
on
any
such
implication
as
a
presumptive
BACT
or
LAER
determination.

d.
Is
the
Intent
of
the
PCP
Exclusion
to
Allow
Collateral
Pollutant
Emissions
to
go
Uncontrolled?
To
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion,
you
must
minimize
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy.
This
typically
occurs
by
inherent
design
of
the
control
device
that
causes
them.
In
most
cases,
no
additional
control
requirements
will
be
necessary.

e.
What
Does
``
Demonstrated
in
Practice''
Mean?
Representatives
from
industry
comment
that
we
should
ease
restrictions
that
require
new
add­
on
technologies
to
be
demonstrated
in
practice.
We
are
continuing
to
require
that
new
technologies
be
demonstrated
in
practice
before
being
added
to
the
list,
in
part
because
this
is
an
important
element
in
a
showing
that
the
candidate
technology
is
environmentally
sound.
However,
we
have
expanded
the
meaning
of
``
demonstrated
in
practice''
to
include
technologies
demonstrated
outside
of
the
United
States.

f.
How
Can
the
Public
Participate
in
the
PCP
Exclusion
Decision
for
Your
Project?

By
these
rule
revisions,
we
are
not
requiring
any
review
of
your
PCP
by
the
public
or
your
reviewing
authority
prior
to
enabling
the
use
of
the
exclusion.
Nonetheless,
existing
State
regulations
for
minor
NSR
will
continue
to
apply
to
projects
that
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
and
are
not
otherwise
excluded
under
the
State
program.
Minor
NSR
programs
are
designed
to
consider
the
impact
these
increases
could
have
on
air
quality,
including
whether
local
conditions
justify
rebutting
the
presumption
that
a
listed
project
is
environmentally
beneficial.
Nothing
in
this
rule
voids
or
otherwise
creates
an
exclusion
from
any
otherwise
applicable
minor
NSR
preconstruction
review
requirement
in
any
SIP
that
has
been
approved
pursuant
to
section
110(
a)(
2)(
C)
of
the
Act
and
40
CFR
51.160
through
51.164.
The
minor
NSR
permits
may
afford
the
public
an
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
the
use
of
the
PCP
Exclusion
for
a
specific
project.
See
§
§
51.160
and
51.161.
Furthermore,
to
undertake
a
PCP
Exclusion,
you
could
use
the
title
V
permit
revision
process
to
officially
effect
the
PCP
Exclusion.
This
would
enable
the
public
to
review
the
PCP
determination
at
that
time.
Thus,
the
process
for
implementing
a
PCP
Exclusion
would
be
similar
to
the
other
exemptions
within
NSR
(
routine
maintenance,
change
in
ownership,
etc.)
whereby
you
are
empowered
to
make
the
proper
decision
based
on
the
facts
of
the
case
and
the
rule
requirements.

C.
Legal
Basis
for
PCP
In
1992,
we
revised
the
NSR
regulations
to
exclude
PCPs
at
existing
EUSGUs.
See
57
FR
32314
(
July
21,
1992),
amending
§
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
v)(
C)(
8),
51.166(
b)(
2)(
iii)(
h),
and
52.21(
b)(
2)(
iii)(
h).
There,
we
stated
that
we
believed
``
that
Congress
did
not
intend
that
PCPs
be
considered
the
type
of
activity
that
should
trigger
NSR.''
57
FR
32319.
Although
the
1992
rulemaking
applied
only
to
EUSGUs,
we
believe
that
Congress's
intention
holds
true
for
other
industry
sectors
as
well.
Congress
could
not
have
intended
to
require
that,
and
the
Act
should
not
be
construed
such
that,
physical
or
operational
changes
undertaken
to
reduce
emissions
undergo
NSR.
Therefore,
in
today's
action,
we
are
revising
the
PCP
Exclusion
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80239
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
removing
the
conditions
limiting
it
to
EUSGUs.
In
the
event
that
a
PCP
results
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
different
pollutant,
the
reviewing
authority
may
require
an
analysis
of
air
quality
impacts
which
would
serve
the
same
function
as
an
air
quality
impacts
analysis
conducted
as
part
of
NSR
permitting.
Providing
an
exclusion
for
PCPs
enables
facilities
to
reduce
emissions
without
having
to
wait
for
a
major
NSR
permit
to
be
issued.
We
believe
that
this
result
is
consistent
with
the
objectives
of
the
NSR
provisions
in
the
CAA.
Thus,
we
are
revising
our
rules
to
remove
disincentives
to
pollution
control
and
pollution
prevention
projects
to
the
extent
allowed
under
the
CAA.

D.
Implementation
1.
How
Do
You
Apply
For
and
Receive
a
PCP
Exclusion?

The
process
for
obtaining
a
PCP
Exclusion
basically
breaks
down
into
two
separate
scenarios,
depending
on
whether
your
proposed
project
is
``
listed''
or
``
non­
listed''
as
environmentally
beneficial.
Both
processes
are
presented
below.

a.
What
Is
the
Process
You
Must
Follow
for
Projects
Involving
Listed
PCPs?

Before
you
begin
actual
construction
on
your
PCP,
you
must
submit
a
notice
to
your
reviewing
authority
that
includes
the
following
information
(
and
depending
on
your
reviewing
authority's
requirements,
this
information
may
be
submitted
with
a
part
70,
part
71
or
other
SIP­
approved
permit
application
such
as
a
minor
NSR
permit
application):
(
1)
A
description
of
project;
(
2)
an
analysis
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
nature
of
the
PCP,
including
a
projection
of
emissions
increases
and
decreases
(
speciated,
using
an
appropriate
emissions
test
for
the
emissions
unit);
and
(
3)
a
demonstration
that
the
project
will
not
have
an
adverse
air
quality
impact.
You
may
begin
construction
on
the
PCP
immediately
upon
submitting
your
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority.
However,
if
your
reviewing
authority
determines
that
the
source
does
not
qualify
for
a
PCP
Exclusion,
you
may
be
subject
to
a
delay
in
the
project
or
an
order
to
not
undertake
the
project.

b.
What
Is
the
Process
You
Must
Follow
for
Projects
Involving
Non­
Listed
PCPs?

For
projects
not
listed
in
Table
2,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
your
reviewing
authority
must
consider
the
net
environmental
benefit
of
a
non­
listed
project
and,
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time,
act
upon
your
request
for
the
exclusion
for
a
specific
application.
You
must
receive
this
approval
from
your
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction
of
the
PCP.
Your
reviewing
authority
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
review
and
comment
prior
to
granting
its
approval
for
the
PCP.
Your
application
for
case­
specific
approval
of
a
PCP
Exclusion
should
have
the
same
information
as
required
above
for
a
notice
to
use
a
listed
technology.
The
only
difference
between
the
two
processes
is
that
the
use
of
a
listed
technology
allows
you
to
commence
construction
on
your
PCP
immediately
after
submitting
your
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority,
whereas
the
use
of
a
non­
listed
technology
requires
you
to
first
submit
an
application
to
your
reviewing
authority
and
obtain
its
approval
prior
to
construction
of
your
PCP.

2.
What
Process
Will
We
Follow
To
Add
New
Projects
to
the
List
of
Environmentally
Beneficial
PCPs?
We
will
use
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
procedures
to
add
new
projects
to
the
list
of
PCPs
that
are
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial.
We
may
take
this
action
on
our
own
initiative
or
you
may
petition
us,
if
you
believe
there
is
a
project
that
should
be
added
to
the
list.
If
you
submit
a
petition
to
us
requesting
that
a
non­
listed
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
or
work
practices)
be
determined
environmentally
beneficial
and
presumptively
qualified
for
the
PCP
Exclusion,
you
should
describe
the
anticipated
emissions
consequence
of
installing
the
PCP,
both
for
primary
and
collateral
pollutants.
We
will
review
your
submittal
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
If
we
believe
that
the
project
should
be
added
to
the
list,
we
will
amend
the
list
of
approved
PCPs
through
rulemaking.
Once
the
rule
has
been
amended,
you
may
use
a
newly
listed
PCP
if
you
proceed
in
accordance
with
the
process
for
implementing
the
PCP
Exclusion
for
listed
PCPs.
(
See
section
VI.
D.
1.
a.)

3.
What
Are
Our
Operational
Expectations
for
an
Excluded
PCP?
By
this
rule,
we
are
creating
a
general
duty
for
all
sources
approved
to
use
a
PCP
Exclusion.
This
general
duty
clause
requires
you
to
operate
the
PCP
in
a
manner
consistent
with
reasonable
engineering
practices
and
with
the
basic
applicability
requirements
for
the
exclusion
(
i.
e.,
being
environmentally
beneficial
and
having
no
adverse
air
quality
impacts).
This
means
that
you
have
a
legal
responsibility
to
operate
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
your
analysis
of
the
environmental
benefits
and
air
quality
impacts
analysis,
and
that
you
will
minimize
collateral
pollutant
increases
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy.

4.
What
Are
the
Implications
of
Not
Complying
With
the
PCP
Exclusion
Process?
The
PCP
Exclusion
is
a
mechanism
for
bypassing
the
major
NSR
permitting
requirements.
If
you
do
not
comply
with
the
steps
necessary
to
qualify
for
the
PCP
Exclusion
under
the
terms
of
the
PCP
provisions,
you
can
become
subject
to
major
NSR.

VII.
Listed
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
The
1990
Amendments
to
the
CAA
at
section
112(
b)(
6)
exempted
HAP
listed
under
section
112(
b)(
1)
from
the
PSD
requirements
in
part
C.
In
our
1996
Federal
Register
Notice,
we
proposed
changes
to
the
regulations
at
§
§
51.166
and
52.21
to
implement
this
exemption.
Specifically,
we
proposed
the
following.
 
The
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)(
1),
as
well
as
any
pollutant
that
may
be
added
to
the
list,
are
excluded
from
the
PSD
provisions
of
part
C.
These
HAP
include
arsenic,
asbestos,
benzene,
beryllium,
mercury,
radionuclides,
and
vinyl
chloride,
all
of
which
were
previously
regulated
under
the
PSD
rules.
This
exemption
applies
to
the
provisions
for
major
stationary
sources
in
§
§
51.166(
b)(
2)
and
52.21(
b)(
2),
the
significant
levels
in
§
§
51.166(
b)(
23)(
i)
and
52.21(
b)(
23)(
i),
and
the
significant
monitoring
concentrations
in
§
§
51.166(
i)(
8)
and
52.21(
i)(
8).
 
Pollutants
listed
in
regulations
pursuant
to
section
112(
r)(
1),
Accidental
Release,
are
not
excluded
from
the
PSD
provisions
of
part
C.
 
Any
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)(
1)
that
are
regulated
as
constituents
or
precursors
of
a
more
general
pollutant
listed
under
section
108
are
still
subject
to
PSD,
despite
the
exemption
in
section
112(
b)(
6).
 
If
a
pollutant
is
removed
from
the
list
under
the
provisions
of
section
112(
b)(
3)
of
the
Act,
that
pollutant
would
be
subject
to
the
applicable
PSD
requirements
of
part
C
if
it
is
otherwise
regulated
under
the
Act.
 
Pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
and
not
on
the
list
of
HAP,
such
as
fluorides,
TRS
compounds,
and
sulfuric
acid
mist,
continue
to
be
regulated
under
PSD.
Public
commenters
generally
agree
that
our
proposal
reflects
the
statutory
requirements.
Therefore,
today
we
are
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80240
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
taking
final
action
to
promulgate
these
proposed
provisions
at
§
§
51.166(
b)(
23)(
i),
51.166(
i)(
8),
52.21(
b)(
23)(
i),
and
52.21(
i)(
8).
As
today's
regulations
provide,
the
following
pollutants
currently
regulated
under
the
Act
are
subject
to
Federal
PSD
review
and
permitting
requirements.
 
CO
 
NOX
 
SO2
 
PM
and
particulate
matter
less
than
10
microns
in
diameter
(
PM
 
10)
 
Ozone
(
VOC)
 
Lead
(
Pb)
(
elemental)
 
Fluorides
(
excluding
hydrogen
fluoride)
 
Sulfuric
acid
mist
 
H2S
 
TRS
compounds
(
including
H2S)
 
CFCs
11,
12,
112,
114,
115
 
Halons
1211,
1301,
2402
 
Municipal
Waste
Combustor
(
MWC)
acid
gases,
MWC
metals,
and
MWC
organics
 
ODS
regulated
under
title
VI
The
PSD
program
applies
automatically
to
newly
regulated
NSR
pollutants,
which
would
include
final
promulgation
of
an
NSPS
applicable
to
a
previously
unregulated
pollutant.
As
we
indicated
in
our
proposal
package,
CAA
section
112(
b)(
7)
states
that
elemental
Pb
(
the
named
chemical)
may
not
be
listed
by
the
Administrator
as
a
HAP
under
section
112(
b)(
1).
Therefore,
because
section
112(
b)(
6)
exempts
only
the
pollutants
listed
in
section
112,
elemental
Pb
emissions
are
not
exempt
from
the
Federal
PSD
requirements.
Elemental
Pb
continues
to
be
a
criteria
pollutant
subject
to
the
Pb
NAAQS
and
other
requirements
of
the
Act.
As
proposed,
we
are
also
continuing
to
maintain
that
the
reference
to
Pb
in
the
regulations
regarding
the
significant
levels
and
significant
monitoring
concentrations
covers
the
Pb
portion
of
Pb
compounds.
See
§
§
51.166(
b)(
23),
51.166(
i)(
8),
52.21(
b)(
23),
and
52.21(
i)(
8).
Otherwise,
the
word
elemental
might
imply
that
only
Pb
that
is
not
part
of
a
Pb
compound
is
covered.
One
commenter
requests
that
we
amend
the
regulations
to
include
a
definition
of
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
such
a
provision
would
clarify
which
pollutants
are
covered
under
the
PSD
program.
Moreover,
the
nonattainment
NSR
rules
at
§
51.165
would
also
benefit
from
this
clarity.
Therefore,
today's
final
regulations
include
a
definition
for
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
This
new
definition
replaces
the
terminology
``
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.''
The
term
``
Regulated
NSR
pollutant''
includes
the
following
pollutants.
 
NOX
or
any
VOC
 
Any
pollutant
for
which
a
NAAQS
has
been
promulgated
 
Any
pollutant
that
is
subject
to
any
standard
promulgated
under
section
111
of
the
Act
 
Any
Class
I
or
II
substance
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
title
VI
of
the
Act.
The
new
definition
excludes
HAPs
listed
in
section
112
of
the
Act
(
including
any
pollutants
that
may
be
added
to
the
list
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act).
However,
when
any
pollutant
listed
under
section
112
of
the
Act
is
also
a
constituent
or
precursor
of
a
more
general
pollutant
that
is
regulated
under
section
108
of
the
Act,
that
listed
pollutant
may
be
regulated
under
NSR
but
only
as
part
of
regulation
of
the
general
pollutant.
As
we
indicated
in
our
proposal,
State
and
local
agencies
with
an
approved
PSD
program
may
continue
to
regulate
the
HAP
now
exempted
from
Federal
PSD
by
section
112(
b)(
6)
if
their
PSD
regulations
provide
an
independent
basis
to
do
so.
These
State
and
local
rules
remain
in
effect
unless
they
are
revised
to
provide
similar
exemptions.
Such
provisions
that
are
part
of
the
SIP
are
federally
enforceable.
Section
112(
q)
retains
existing
NESHAP
regulations
by
specifying
that
any
standard
under
section
112
in
effect
before
the
enactment
of
the
1990
Amendments
remains
in
force.
Therefore,
the
requirements
of
§
§
61.05
to
61.08,
including
preconstruction
permitting
requirements
for
new
and
modified
sources
subject
to
existing
NESHAP
regulations,
are
still
applicable.
Pollutants
listed
under
section
112(
r)
are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
As
we
proposed,
substances
regulated
under
section
112(
r)
may
still
be
subject
to
PSD
if
they
are
regulated
under
other
provisions
of
the
Act.
For
example,
even
though
H2S
is
listed
under
section
112(
r),
it
is
still
regulated
under
the
Federal
PSD
provisions
because
it
is
regulated
under
the
NSPS
program
in
section
111.
This
means
that
the
listing
of
a
substance
under
section
112(
r)
does
not
exclude
the
substance
from
the
Federal
PSD
provisions;
the
PSD
provisions
apply
if
the
substance
is
otherwise
regulated
under
the
Act.
We
are
not
taking
final
action
on
ambient
impact
concentrations
or
maximum
allowable
increases
in
pollutant
concentrations
as
proposed
in
§
51.166(
b)(
23)(
iv)
and
(
v)
and
§
52.21(
b)(
23)(
iv)
and
(
v).
Although
these
provisions
are
included
in
the
definition
of
significant,
they
do
not
relate
to
the
new
provisions
for
HAP.
Instead,
they
concern
Class
I
issues,
which
we
have
not
taken
final
action
on.

VIII.
Effective
Date
for
Today's
Requirements
As
discussed
above,
today
we
are
changing
the
existing
NSR
requirements
in
five
ways.
 
Providing
a
new
method
for
determining
baseline
actual
emissions
 
Adopting
the
actual­
to­
projectedactual
methodology
for
determining
whether
a
major
modification
has
occurred
 
Allowing
major
stationary
sources
to
comply
with
PALs
to
avoid
having
a
significant
emissions
increase
that
triggers
the
requirements
of
the
major
NSR
program
 
Providing
new
applicability
provisions
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
Clean
Units
 
Excluding
PCPs
from
the
definition
of
``
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation''
Today's
rules
codify
our
longstanding
policy
for
calculating
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
EUSGUs,
which
is
any
consecutive
2
years
in
the
past
5
years,
or
another
more
representative
period.
In
today's
final
rules
we
are
also
including
a
new
section
that
outlines
how
a
major
modification
is
determined
under
the
various
major
NSR
applicability
options
and
clarifies
where
you
will
find
the
provisions
in
our
revised
rules.
All
of
these
changes
will
take
effect
in
the
Federal
PSD
program
(
codified
at
§
52.21)
on
March
3,
2003.
This
means
that
these
rules
will
apply
on
March
3,
2003,
in
any
area
without
an
approved
PSD
program,
for
which
we
are
the
reviewing
authority,
or
for
which
we
have
delegated
our
authority
to
issue
permits
to
a
State
or
local
reviewing
authority.
To
be
approvable
under
the
SIP,
State
and
local
agency
programs
implementing
part
C
(
PSD
permit
program
in
§
51.166)
or
part
D
(
nonattainment
NSR
permit
program
in
§
51.165)
must
include
today's
changes
as
minimum
program
elements.
State
and
local
agencies
should
assure
that
any
program
changes
under
§
§
51.165
and
51.166
are
consistently
accounted
for
in
other
SIP
planning
measures.
State
and
local
agencies
must
adopt
and
submit
revisions
to
their
part
51
permitting
programs
implementing
these
minimum
program
elements
no
later
than
January
2,
2006.
That
is,
for
both
nonattainment
and
attainment
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80241
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
areas,
the
SIP
revisions
must
be
adopted
and
submitted
within
3
years
from
today.
The
Act
does
not
specify
a
date
for
submission
of
SIPs
when
we
revise
the
PSD
and
NSR
rules.
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
a
date
analogous
to
the
date
for
submission
of
new
SIPs
when
a
NAAQS
is
promulgated
or
revised.
Under
section
110(
a)(
1)
of
the
Act,
as
amended
in
1990,
that
date
is
3
years
from
promulgation
or
revision
of
the
NAAQS.
Accordingly,
we
have
established
3
years
from
today's
revisions
as
the
required
date
for
submission
of
conforming
SIP
revisions.
We
have
made
conforming
changes
to
the
PSD
regulations
at
§
51.166(
a)(
6)(
i)
to
indicate
that
State
and
local
agencies
must
adopt
and
submit
plan
revisions
within
3
years
after
new
amendments
are
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
In
our
1996
proposed
rule,
we
solicited
comment
on
a
new
approach
for
implementing
the
applicabilityrelated
NSR
improvements
(
i.
e.,
PALs,
the
Clean
Unit
provision,
the
PCP
Exclusion,
and
provisions
related
to
measuring
emissions
increases).
We
noted
that
the
Agency
in
the
past
``
has
essentially
required
States
to
follow
a
single
applicability
methodology,''
but
that
``
States
could,
of
course,
have
a
more
stringent
approach.''
61
FR
38253.
Instead
of
following
this
normal
course,
we
proposed
to
establish
the
new
applicability
provisions
as
a
``
menu''
of
options.
Under
this
approach,
we
would
have
allowed
States
to
adopt
into
their
NSR
programs
all,
some,
or
none
of
the
new
provisions.
In
today's
final
rule,
we
have
decided
not
to
implement
the
menu
approach.
We
have
opted
instead
to
retain
our
longstanding
approach
of
incorporating
all
of
the
new
provisions
into
our
``
base''
NSR
program
requirements,
which
are
set
forth
in
§
§
51.165,
51.166,
and
52.24.
The
same
provisions
will
be
included
in
§
52.21,
our
own
PSD
permitting
program.
Our
decision
is
based
primarily
on
our
belief
that
the
NSR
program
will
work
better
as
a
practical
matter
and
will
produce
better
environmental
results
if
all
five
of
the
new
applicability
provisions
are
adopted
and
implemented.
We
and
our
stakeholders
invested
unprecedented
amounts
of
time,
energy,
and
resources
in
deciding
how
best
to
improve
the
NSR
program.
After
well
over
a
decade
of
sustained
effort,
we
believe
that
we
have
found
effective
solutions
to
many
of
the
program's
most
intractable
problems.
We
hope
that
making
the
new
provisions
part
of
our
base
programs
will
provide
incentive
for
these
provisions
to
be
adopted
on
a
widespread
basis.
Notably,
even
without
the
menu
approach,
State
and
local
jurisdictions
have
significant
freedom
to
customize
their
NSR
programs.
Ever
since
our
current
NSR
regulations
were
adopted
in
1980,
we
have
taken
the
position
that
States
may
meet
the
requirements
of
part
51
``
with
different
but
equivalent
regulations.''
45
FR
52676.
Several
States
have,
indeed,
implemented
programs
that
work
every
bit
as
well
as
our
own
base
programs,
yet
depart
substantially
from
the
basic
framework
established
in
our
rules.
A
good
example
is
Oregon,
where
the
SIPapproved
program
requires
all
major
sources
to
obtain
plantwide
permits
not
unlike
the
PALs
that
we
are
finalizing
today.
Oregon's
program
plainly
illustrates
that
we
have
not
implemented
our
base
programs
with
a
one­
size­
fits­
all
mentality
and
certainly
do
not
have
the
goal
of
``
preempting''
State
creativity
or
innovation.
Perhaps
the
biggest
potential
disadvantages
to
implementing
the
new
applicability
provisions
as
part
of
our
base
programs
are
the
time
and
effort
required
to
revise
existing
State
programs
and
to
have
the
revised
programs
approved
as
part
of
the
SIP.
For
States
that
choose
to
adopt
all
of
the
new
applicability
provisions,
we
expect
that
the
SIP
approval
process
will
be
expeditious.
Of
course,
the
review
and
approval
process
will
be
more
complicated
for
States
that
choose
to
adopt
a
program
that
differs
from
our
base
programs.
For
example,
if
a
State
decides
it
does
not
want
to
implement
any
of
the
new
applicability
provisions,
that
State
will
need
to
show
that
its
existing
program
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
our
revised
base
program.
It
would
be
impossible
for
us
to
plan
ahead
for
all
of
the
possible
variations
that
States
might
ultimately
elect
to
pursue.
We
will,
however,
reach
out
to
relevant
stakeholders
immediately
after
publication
of
these
rules
and
try
to
develop
streamlined
methods
for
addressing
common
questions
that
may
arise
during
the
SIP
approval
process.

IX.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866
 
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
notified
us
that
it
considers
this
rule
a
``
significant
regulatory
action.''
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Executive
Order
13132
 
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
While
this
final
rule
will
result
in
some
expenditures
by
the
States,
we
expect
those
expenditures
to
be
limited
to
$
331,250
per
year.
This
figure
includes
the
small
increase
in
the
burden
imposed
upon
reviewing
authorities
in
order
for
them
to
revise
the
State's
SIP.
However,
these
revisions
provide
greater
operational
flexibility
to
sources
permitted
by
the
States,
which
will
in
turn
reduce
the
overall
burden
of
the
program
on
State
and
local
authorities
by
reducing
the
number
of
required
permit
modifications.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Nevertheless,
in
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
we
specifically
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80242
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
solicited
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175
 
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
We
believe
that
this
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
EPA
began
considering
potential
revisions
to
the
NSR
rules
in
the
early
1990'
s
and
proposed
changes
in
1996.
The
purpose
of
today's
final
rule
is
to
add
greater
flexibility
to
the
existing
major
NSR
regulations.
These
changes
will
benefit
both
reviewing
authorities
and
the
regulated
community
by
providing
increased
certainty
as
to
when
the
requirements
apply,
and
by
providing
alternative
ways
to
comply
with
the
requirements.
Taken
as
a
whole,
today's
final
rule
should
result
in
no
added
burden
or
compliance
costs
and
should
not
substantially
change
the
level
of
environmental
performance
achieved
under
the
previous
rules.
We
anticipate
that
initially
these
changes
will
result
in
a
small
increase
in
the
burden
imposed
upon
reviewing
authorities
in
order
for
them
to
be
included
in
the
State's
SIP,
as
well
as
other
small
increases
in
burden
discussed
under
``
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.''
Nevertheless,
these
revisions
will
ultimately
provide
greater
operational
flexibility
to
sources
permitted
by
the
States,
which
will
in
turn
reduce
the
overall
burden
of
the
program
on
State
and
local
authorities
by
reducing
the
number
of
required
permit
modifications.
In
comparison,
no
tribal
government
currently
has
an
approved
tribal
implementation
plan
(
TIP)
under
the
CAA
to
implement
the
NSR
program.
The
Federal
government
is
currently
the
NSR
reviewing
authority
in
Indian
country,
thus
tribal
governments
should
not
experience
added
burden,
nor
should
their
laws
be
affected
with
respect
to
implementation
of
this
rule.
Additionally,
although
major
stationary
sources
affected
by
today's
final
rule
could
be
located
in
or
near
Indian
country
and/
or
be
owned
or
operated
by
tribal
governments,
such
sources
would
not
incur
additional
costs
or
compliance
burdens
as
a
result
of
this
rule.
Instead,
the
only
effect
on
such
sources
should
be
the
benefit
of
the
added
certainty
and
flexibility
provided
by
the
rule.
We
recognize
the
importance
of
including
tribal
consultation
as
part
of
the
rulemaking
process.
Although
we
did
not
include
specific
consultation
with
tribal
officials
as
part
of
our
outreach
process
on
this
final
rule,
which
was
developed
largely
prior
to
issuance
of
Executive
Order
13175
and
which
does
not
have
tribal
implications
under
Executive
Order
13175,
we
will
continue
to
consult
with
tribes
on
future
rulemakings
to
assess
and
address
tribal
implications,
and
will
work
with
tribes
interested
in
seeking
TIP
approval
to
implement
the
NSR
program
to
ensure
consistency
of
tribal
plans
with
this
rule.

D.
Executive
Order
13045
 
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866;
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children
because
we
believe
that
this
package
as
a
whole
will
result
in
equal
or
better
environmental
protection
than
currently
provided
by
the
existing
regulations,
and
do
so
in
a
more
streamlined
and
effective
manner.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
as
to
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Although
initially
these
changes
are
expected
to
result
in
a
small
increase
in
the
burden
imposed
upon
reviewing
authorities
in
order
for
them
to
be
included
in
the
State's
SIP,
as
well
as
other
small
increases
in
burden
discussed
under
``
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,''
these
revisions
will
ultimately
provide
greater
operational
flexibility
to
sources
permitted
by
the
States,
which
will
in
turn
reduce
the
overall
burden
of
the
program
on
State
and
local
authorities
by
reducing
the
number
of
required
permit
modifications.
In
addition,
we
believe
the
rule
changes
will
actually
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
associated
with
the
major
NSR
program
by
improving
the
operational
flexibility
of
owners
and
operators,
improving
the
clarity
of
requirements,
and
providing
alternatives
that
sources
may
take
advantage
of
to
further
improve
their
operational
flexibility.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80243
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
For
the
same
reasons
stated
above,
we
have
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
this
final
rule.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
Any
small
business
employing
fewer
than
500
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
or
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
we
have
concluded
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
``
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities.''
5
U.
S.
C.
603
and
604.
Thus,
an
agency
may
conclude
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
economic
effect,
on
all
of
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
A
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Screening
Analysis
(
RFASA),
developed
as
part
of
a
1994
draft
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA)
and
incorporated
into
the
September
1995
ICR
renewal
analysis,
showed
that
the
changes
to
the
NSR
program
due
to
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
would
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
small
entities.
This
analysis
encompassed
the
entire
universe
of
applicable
major
sources
that
were
likely
to
also
be
small
businesses
(
approximately
50
``
small
business''
major
sources).
Because
the
administrative
burden
of
the
NSR
program
is
the
primary
source
of
the
NSR
program's
regulatory
costs,
the
analysis
estimated
a
negligible
``
cost
to
sales''
(
regulatory
cost
divided
by
the
business
category
mean
revenue)
ratio
for
this
source
group.
Currently,
and
as
reported
in
the
current
ICR,
there
is
no
economic
basis
for
a
different
conclusion.
We
believe
these
rule
changes
will
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
associated
with
the
major
NSR
program
for
all
sources,
including
all
small
businesses,
by
improving
the
operational
flexibility
of
owners
and
operators,
improving
the
clarity
of
requirements,
and
providing
alternatives
that
sources
may
take
advantage
of
to
further
improve
their
operational
flexibility.
As
a
result,
the
program
changes
provided
in
the
final
rule
are
not
expected
to
result
in
any
increases
in
expenditure
by
any
small
entity.
We
have
therefore
concluded
that
today's
final
rule
will
relieve
regulatory
burden
for
all
small
entities.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
rule
will
be
contained
in
two
different
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICRs).
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
and
has
assigned
OMB
control
number
2060
 
0003
(
ICR
1230.10).
The
EPA
prepared
an
ICR
document
(
ICR
No.
1230.10)
extending
the
approval
of
the
ICR
for
the
promulgated
NSR
regulations
on
March
30,
2001.
On
October
29,
2001,
OMB
approved
EPA's
request
for
extension
for
3
years
until
October
31,
2004.
The
OMB
number
for
this
approval
is
2060
 
0003.
In
addition
to
the
existing
ICR,
the
information
collection
requirements
in
this
final
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
ICR
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
2074.01),
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
included
in
ICR
No.
2074.01
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
that
ICR
No.
2074.01
covers
is
required
for
the
submittal
of
a
complete
permit
application
for
the
construction
or
modification
of
all
major
new
stationary
sources
of
pollutants
in
attainment
and
nonattainment
areas,
as
well
as
for
applicable
minor
stationary
sources
of
pollutants.
This
information
collection
is
necessary
for
the
proper
performance
of
EPA's
functions,
has
practical
utility,
and
is
not
unnecessarily
duplicative
of
information
we
otherwise
can
reasonably
access.
We
have
reduced,
to
the
extent
practicable
and
appropriate,
the
burden
on
persons
providing
the
information
to
or
for
EPA.
According
to
ICR
No.
2074.01,
as
a
result
of
the
rule
changes,
the
total
3­
year
burden
change
of
the
revised
collection
is
estimated
at
about
219,741
hours
at
a
total
cost
of
$
7.7
million.
The
annual
burden
change
to
industry
is
about
64,287
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
2.2
million.
The
annual
burden
change
to
reviewing
agencies
is
about
8,960
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
331,520.
The
total
annual
respondent
change
is
73,247
hours
for
a
total
respondent
change
in
cost
of
$
2.6
million.
These
costs
changes
are
based
upon
62
PSD
and
123
NSR
non­
utility
sources
(
185
total);
and
85
PSD
and
169
NSR
(
254
total)
sources,
including
utilities.
For
the
number
of
respondent
reviewing
authorities,
the
analysis
uses
the
112
reviewing
authorities
count
used
by
other
permitting
ICRs
for
the
one­
time
tasks
(
for
example,
SIP
revisions)
and
the
appropriate
source
count
for
individual
permit­
related
items
(
for
example,
attending
preapplication
meetings
with
the
source).
There
is
only
one
Federal
source
listed
in
the
ICR.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
responding
to
the
information
collection;
adjust
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
We
will
continue
to
present
OMB
control
numbers
in
a
consolidated
table
format
to
be
codified
in
40
CFR
part
9
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80244
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
of
the
Agency's
regulations,
and
in
each
CFR
volume
containing
EPA
regulations.
The
table
lists
the
section
numbers
with
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
the
current
OMB
control
numbers.
This
listing
of
the
OMB
control
numbers
and
their
subsequent
codification
in
the
CFR
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.)
and
OMB's
implementing
regulations
at
5
CFR
part
1320.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Pub.
L.
104
 
113,
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
for
example,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
action
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
This
final
rule
does
not
create
new
requirements
but,
rather,
revises
an
existing
permitting
program
by
providing
a
series
of
program
options
that
affected
facilities
may
choose
to
adopt.
These
options
will
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
associated
with
the
major
NSR
program
by
improving
the
operational
flexibility
of
owners
and
operators,
improving
the
clarity
of
requirements,
and
providing
alternatives
that
sources
may
take
advantage
of
to
further
improve
their
operational
flexibility.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

I.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
submitted
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
Nonetheless,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
provide
an
effective
date
that
is
60
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
rule
will
be
effective
March
3,
2003.

J.
Executive
Order
13211
 
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Today's
rule
improves
the
ability
of
sources
to
undertake
pollution
prevention
or
energy
efficiency
projects,
switch
to
less
polluting
fuels
or
raw
materials,
maintain
the
reliability
of
production
facilities,
and
effectively
utilize
and
improve
existing
capacity.
The
rule
also
includes
a
number
of
provisions
to
streamline
administrative
and
permitting
processes
so
that
facilities
can
quickly
accommodate
changes
in
supply
and
demand.
The
regulations
provide
several
alternatives
that
are
specifically
designed
to
reduce
administrative
burden
for
sources
that
use
pollution
prevention
or
energy
efficient
projects.

X.
Statutory
Authority
The
statutory
authority
for
this
action
is
provided
by
sections
101,
112,
114,
116,
and
301
of
the
Act
as
amended
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
7412,
7414,
7416,
and
7601).
This
rulemaking
is
also
subject
to
section
307(
d)
of
the
Act
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7407(
d)).

XI.
Judicial
Review
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act,
judicial
review
of
this
final
rule
is
available
only
by
the
filing
of
a
petition
for
review
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
by
March
3,
2003.
Any
such
judicial
review
is
limited
to
only
those
objections
that
are
raised
with
reasonable
specificity
in
timely
comments.
Under
section
307(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act,
the
requirements
that
are
the
subject
of
this
final
rule
may
not
be
challenged
later
in
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
us
to
enforce
these
requirements.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
51
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practices
and
procedures,
Air
pollution
control,
BACT,
Baseline
emissions,
Carbon
monoxide,
Clean
Units,
Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental
relations,
LAER,
Lead,
Major
modifications,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ozone,
Particular
matter,
Plantwide
applicability
limitations,
Pollution
control
projects,
Sulfur
oxides.

40
CFR
Part
52
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practices
and
procedures,
Air
pollution
control,
BACT,
Baseline
emissions,
Carbon
monoxide,
Clean
Units,
Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental
relations,
LAER,
Lead,
Major
modifications,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ozone,
Particulate
matter,
Plantwide
applicability
limitations,
Pollution
control
projects,
Sulfur
oxides.

Dated:
November
22,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
51
 
[
Amended]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
51
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
23
U.
S.
C.
101;
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
 
7671
q.

Subpart
I
 
[
Amended]

2.
In
40
CFR
51.165(
a)(
1)(
i),
remove
the
words
``
any
air
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act,''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant.''
3.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
in
40
CFR
51.165
(
a)(
1)(
iv)(
A)(
1),
remove
the
words
``
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
regulated
NSR
pollutant.''
4.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
§
51.165
is
amended:
a.
By
revising
the
introductory
text
in
paragraph
(
a).
b.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
v)(
A)
and
(
B).
c.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
v)(
C)(
8).
d.
By
adding
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
v)(
D).
e.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
A).
f.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
C).
g.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
E)(
2).
h.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
E)(
4).
i.
By
adding
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
E)(
5).
j.
By
adding
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
G).
k.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vii).

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80245
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
l.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xii).
m.
By
revising
the
introductory
text
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xiii).
n.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xviii).
o.
By
reserving
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxi).
p.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxv).
q.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxvi)
through
(
xlii).
r.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
s.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
H)
through
(
J).
t.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
a)(
6)
through
(
7).
u.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
c)
through
(
g).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
51.165
Permit
requirements.

(
a)
State
Implementation
Plan
and
Tribal
Implementation
Plan
provisions
satisfying
sections
172(
c)(
5)
and
173
of
the
Act
shall
meet
the
following
conditions:
(
1)
*
*
*
(
v)
*
*
*
(
A)
Major
modification
means
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
would
result
in:
(
1)
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxvii)
of
this
section);
and
(
2)
A
significant
net
emissions
increase
of
that
pollutant
from
the
major
stationary
source.
(
B)
Any
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxvii)
of
this
section)
from
any
emissions
units
or
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)
of
this
section)
at
a
major
stationary
source
that
is
significant
for
volatile
organic
compounds
shall
be
considered
significant
for
ozone.
(
C)
*
*
*
(
8)
The
addition,
replacement,
or
use
of
a
PCP,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)
of
this
section,
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section.
A
replacement
control
technology
must
provide
more
effective
emissions
control
than
that
of
the
replaced
control
technology
to
qualify
for
this
exclusion.
*
*
*
*
*
(
D)
This
definition
shall
not
apply
with
respect
to
a
particular
regulated
NSR
pollutant
when
the
major
stationary
source
is
complying
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section
for
a
PAL
for
that
pollutant.
Instead,
the
definition
at
paragraph
(
f)(
2)(
viii)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
vi)(
A)
Net
emissions
increase
means,
with
respect
to
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
emitted
by
a
major
stationary
source,
the
amount
by
which
the
sum
of
the
following
exceeds
zero:
(
1)
The
increase
in
emissions
from
a
particular
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
a
stationary
source
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section;
and
(
2)
Any
other
increases
and
decreases
in
actual
emissions
at
the
major
stationary
source
that
are
contemporaneous
with
the
particular
change
and
are
otherwise
creditable.
Baseline
actual
emissions
for
calculating
increases
and
decreases
under
this
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)(
A)(
2)
shall
be
determined
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)
of
this
section,
except
that
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
A)(
3)
and
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
B)(
4)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply.
*
*
*
*
*
(
C)
An
increase
or
decrease
in
actual
emissions
is
creditable
only
if:
(
1)
It
occurs
within
a
reasonable
period
to
be
specified
by
the
reviewing
authority;
and
(
2)
The
reviewing
authority
has
not
relied
on
it
in
issuing
a
permit
for
the
source
under
regulations
approved
pursuant
to
this
section,
which
permit
is
in
effect
when
the
increase
in
actual
emissions
from
the
particular
change
occurs;
and
(
3)
The
increase
or
decrease
in
emissions
did
not
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit,
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
8)
and
(
d)(
10)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
E)
*
*
*
(
2)
It
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
at
and
after
the
time
that
actual
construction
on
the
particular
change
begins;
and
*
*
*
*
*
(
4)
It
has
approximately
the
same
qualitative
significance
for
public
health
and
welfare
as
that
attributed
to
the
increase
from
the
particular
change;
and
(
5)
The
decrease
in
actual
emissions
did
not
result
from
the
installation
of
add­
on
control
technology
or
application
of
pollution
prevention
practices
that
were
relied
on
in
designating
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
40
CFR
52.21(
y)
or
under
regulations
approved
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section
or
§
51.166(
u).
That
is,
once
an
emissions
unit
has
been
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit,
the
owner
or
operator
cannot
later
use
the
emissions
reduction
from
the
air
pollution
control
measures
that
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
based
on
in
calculating
the
net
emissions
increase
for
another
emissions
unit
(
i.
e.,
must
not
use
that
reduction
in
a
``
netting
analysis''
for
another
emissions
unit).
However,
any
new
emissions
reductions
that
were
not
relied
upon
in
a
PCP
excluded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section
or
for
a
Clean
Unit
designation
are
creditable
to
the
extent
they
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section
for
the
PCP
and
paragraphs
(
c)(
8)
or
(
d)(
10)
of
this
section
for
a
Clean
Unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(
G)
Paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xii)(
B)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply
for
determining
creditable
increases
and
decreases
or
after
a
change.
*
*
*
*
*
(
vii)
Emissions
unit
means
any
part
of
a
stationary
source
that
emits
or
would
have
the
potential
to
emit
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
includes
an
electric
steam
generating
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xx)
of
this
section.
For
purposes
of
this
section,
there
are
two
types
of
emissions
units
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
vii)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
A
new
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
which
is
(
or
will
be)
newly
constructed
and
which
has
existed
for
less
than
2
years
from
the
date
such
emissions
unit
first
operated.
(
B)
An
existing
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
that
does
not
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vii)(
A)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
xii)(
A)
Actual
emissions
means
the
actual
rate
of
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
from
an
emissions
unit,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xii)(
B)
through
(
D)
of
this
section,
except
that
this
definition
shall
not
apply
for
calculating
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
has
occurred,
or
for
establishing
a
PAL
under
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section.
Instead,
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)
and
(
xxxv)
of
this
section
shall
apply
for
those
purposes.
(
B)
In
general,
actual
emissions
as
of
a
particular
date
shall
equal
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
a
consecutive
24­
month
period
which
precedes
the
particular
date
and
which
is
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
Actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
using
the
unit's
actual
operating
hours,
production
rates,
and
types
of
materials
processed,
stored,
or
combusted
during
the
selected
time
period.
(
C)
The
reviewing
authority
may
presume
that
source­
specific
allowable
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80246
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
emissions
for
the
unit
are
equivalent
to
the
actual
emissions
of
the
unit.
(
D)
For
any
emissions
unit
that
has
not
begun
normal
operations
on
the
particular
date,
actual
emissions
shall
equal
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
unit
on
that
date.
(
xiii)
Lowest
achievable
emission
rate
(
LAER)
means,
for
any
source,
the
more
stringent
rate
of
emissions
based
on
the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
xviii)
Construction
means
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
(
including
fabrication,
erection,
installation,
demolition,
or
modification
of
an
emissions
unit)
that
would
result
in
a
change
in
emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
(
xxi)
[
Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(
xxv)
Pollution
control
project
(
PCP)
means
any
activity,
set
of
work
practices
or
project
(
including
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxvi)
of
this
section)
undertaken
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
that
reduces
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
such
unit.
Such
qualifying
activities
or
projects
can
include
the
replacement
or
upgrade
of
an
existing
emissions
control
technology
with
a
more
effective
unit.
Other
changes
that
may
occur
at
the
source
are
not
considered
part
of
the
PCP
if
they
are
not
necessary
to
reduce
emissions
through
the
PCP.
Projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section
are
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
e)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
Projects
not
listed
in
these
paragraphs
may
qualify
for
a
casespecific
PCP
exclusion
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)
and
(
e)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
A)
Conventional
or
advanced
flue
gas
desulfurization
or
sorbent
injection
for
control
of
SO2.
(
B)
Electrostatic
precipitators,
baghouses,
high
efficiency
multiclones,
or
scrubbers
for
control
of
particulate
matter
or
other
pollutants.
(
C)
Flue
gas
recirculation,
low­
NOX
burners
or
combustors,
selective
noncatalytic
reduction,
selective
catalytic
reduction,
low
emission
combustion
(
for
IC
engines),
and
oxidation/
absorption
catalyst
for
control
of
NOX.
(
D)
Regenerative
thermal
oxidizers,
catalytic
oxidizers,
condensers,
thermal
incinerators,
hydrocarbon
combustion
flares,
biofiltration,
absorbers
and
adsorbers,
and
floating
roofs
for
storage
vessels
for
control
of
volatile
organic
compounds
or
hazardous
air
pollutants.
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
``
hydrocarbon
combustion
flare''
means
either
a
flare
used
to
comply
with
an
applicable
NSPS
or
MACT
standard
(
including
uses
of
flares
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
permitted
under
such
a
standard),
or
a
flare
that
serves
to
control
emissions
of
waste
streams
comprised
predominately
of
hydrocarbons
and
containing
no
more
than
230
mg/
dscm
hydrogen
sulfide.
(
E)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
(
or
partially
switching)
to
an
inherently
less
polluting
fuel,
to
be
limited
to
the
following
fuel
switches:
(
1)
Switching
from
a
heavier
grade
of
fuel
oil
to
a
lighter
fuel
oil,
or
any
grade
of
oil
to
0.05
percent
sulfur
diesel
(
i.
e.,
from
a
higher
sulfur
content
#
2
fuel
or
from
#
6
fuel,
to
CA
0.05
percent
sulfur
#
2
diesel);
(
2)
Switching
from
coal,
oil,
or
any
solid
fuel
to
natural
gas,
propane,
or
gasified
coal;
(
3)
Switching
from
coal
to
wood,
excluding
construction
or
demolition
waste,
chemical
or
pesticide
treated
wood,
and
other
forms
of
``
unclean''
wood;
(
4)
Switching
from
coal
to
#
2
fuel
oil
(
0.5
percent
maximum
sulfur
content);
and
(
5)
Switching
from
high
sulfur
coal
to
low
sulfur
coal
(
maximum
1.2
percent
sulfur
content).
(
F)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
from
the
use
of
one
ozone
depleting
substance
(
ODS)
to
the
use
of
a
substance
with
a
lower
or
zero
ozone
depletion
potential
(
ODP),
including
changes
to
equipment
needed
to
accommodate
the
activity
or
project,
that
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
F)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
productive
capacity
of
the
equipment
is
not
increased
as
a
result
of
the
activity
or
project.
(
2)
The
projected
usage
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODP­
weighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
To
make
this
determination,
follow
the
procedure
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
F)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Determine
the
ODP
of
the
substances
by
consulting
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A,
appendices
A
and
B.
(
ii)
Calculate
the
replaced
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
baseline
actual
usage
(
using
the
annualized
average
of
any
24
consecutive
months
of
usage
within
the
past
10
years)
by
the
ODP
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
iii)
Calculate
the
projected
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
projected
future
annual
usage
of
the
new
substance
by
its
ODP.
(
iv)
If
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
F)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section
is
more
than
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
F)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
then
the
projected
use
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODP­
weighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
xxvi)
Pollution
prevention
means
any
activity
that
through
process
changes,
product
reformulation
or
redesign,
or
substitution
of
less
polluting
raw
materials,
eliminates
or
reduces
the
release
of
air
pollutants
(
including
fugitive
emissions)
and
other
pollutants
to
the
environment
prior
to
recycling,
treatment,
or
disposal;
it
does
not
mean
recycling
(
other
than
certain
``
in­
process
recycling''
practices),
energy
recovery,
treatment,
or
disposal.
(
xxvii)
Significant
emissions
increase
means,
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
an
increase
in
emissions
that
is
significant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section)
for
that
pollutant.
(
xxviii)(
A)
Projected
actual
emissions
means,
the
maximum
annual
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
an
existing
emissions
unit
is
projected
to
emit
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
in
any
one
of
the
5
years
(
12­
month
period)
following
the
date
the
unit
resumes
regular
operation
after
the
project,
or
in
any
one
of
the
10
years
following
that
date,
if
the
project
involves
increasing
the
emissions
unit's
design
capacity
or
its
potential
to
emit
of
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
full
utilization
of
the
unit
would
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
or
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
B)
In
determining
the
projected
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)(
A)
of
this
section
before
beginning
actual
construction,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source:
(
1)
Shall
consider
all
relevant
information,
including
but
not
limited
to,
historical
operational
data,
the
company's
own
representations,
the
company's
expected
business
activity
and
the
company's
highest
projections
of
business
activity,
the
company's
filings
with
the
State
or
Federal
regulatory
authorities,
and
compliance
plans
under
the
approved
plan;
and
(
2)
Shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions;
and
(
3)
Shall
exclude,
in
calculating
any
increase
in
emissions
that
results
from
the
particular
project,
that
portion
of
the
unit's
emissions
following
the
project
that
an
existing
unit
could
have
accommodated
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
used
to
establish
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80247
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
baseline
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)
of
this
section
and
that
are
also
unrelated
to
the
particular
project,
including
any
increased
utilization
due
to
product
demand
growth;
or,
(
4)
In
lieu
of
using
the
method
set
out
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)(
B)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section,
may
elect
to
use
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit,
in
tons
per
year,
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
xxix)
Clean
Unit
means
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
BACT
or
LAER,
that
is
complying
with
such
BACT/
LAER
requirements,
and
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
regulations
approved
by
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
by
a
reviewing
authority
as
a
Clean
Unit,
based
on
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section,
using
a
plan­
approved
permitting
process;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit
by
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
§
52.21(
y)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
chapter.
(
xxx)
Nonattainment
major
new
source
review
(
NSR)
program
means
a
major
source
preconstruction
permit
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
incorporated
into
the
plan
to
implement
the
requirements
of
this
section,
or
a
program
that
implements
part
51,
appendix
S,
Sections
I
through
VI
of
this
chapter.
Any
permit
issued
under
such
a
program
is
a
major
NSR
permit.
(
xxxi)
Continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
that
may
be
required
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
sample,
condition
(
if
applicable),
analyze,
and
provide
a
record
of
emissions
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
xxxii)
Predictive
emissions
monitoring
system
(
PEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
calculate
and
record
the
mass
emissions
rate
(
for
example,
lb/
hr)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
xxxiii)
Continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
to
record
average
operational
parameter
value(
s)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
xxxiv)
Continuous
emissions
rate
monitoring
system
(
CERMS)
means
the
total
equipment
required
for
the
determination
and
recording
of
the
pollutant
mass
emissions
rate
(
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time).
(
xxxv)
Baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
rate
of
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section.
(
A)
For
any
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
5­
year
period
immediately
preceding
when
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
(
1)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
2)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
any
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
3)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
for
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
4)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
A)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
B)
For
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit),
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
emissions
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
either
the
date
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project,
or
the
date
a
complete
permit
application
is
received
by
the
reviewing
authority
for
a
permit
required
either
under
this
section
or
under
a
plan
approved
by
the
Administrator,
whichever
is
earlier,
except
that
the
10­
year
period
shall
not
include
any
period
earlier
than
November
15,
1990.
(
1)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
2)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
an
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
3)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
emissions
that
would
have
exceeded
an
emission
limitation
with
which
the
major
stationary
source
must
currently
comply,
had
such
major
stationary
source
been
required
to
comply
with
such
limitations
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
However,
if
an
emission
limitation
is
part
of
a
maximum
achievable
control
technology
standard
that
the
Administrator
proposed
or
promulgated
under
part
63
of
this
chapter,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
need
only
be
adjusted
if
the
State
has
taken
credit
for
such
emissions
reductions
in
an
attainment
demonstration
or
maintenance
plan
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
G)
of
this
section.
(
4)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
For
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
5)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
B)(
2)
and
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
C)
For
a
new
emissions
unit,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
purposes
of
determining
the
emissions
increase
that
will
result
from
the
initial
construction
and
operation
of
such
unit
shall
equal
zero;
and
thereafter,
for
all
other
purposes,
shall
equal
the
unit's
potential
to
emit.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80248
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
D)
For
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
for
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
units
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
A)
of
this
section,
for
other
existing
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
B)
of
this
section,
and
for
a
new
emissions
unit
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
C)
of
this
section.
(
xxxvi)
[
Reserved]
(
xxxvii)
Regulated
NSR
pollutant,
for
purposes
of
this
section,
means
the
following:
(
A)
Nitrogen
oxides
or
any
volatile
organic
compounds;
(
B)
Any
pollutant
for
which
a
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
has
been
promulgated;
or
(
C)
Any
pollutant
that
is
a
constituent
or
precursor
of
a
general
pollutant
listed
under
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxxvii)(
A)
or
(
B)
of
this
section,
provided
that
a
constituent
or
precursor
pollutant
may
only
be
regulated
under
NSR
as
part
of
regulation
of
the
general
pollutant.
(
xxxviii)
Reviewing
authority
means
the
State
air
pollution
control
agency,
local
agency,
other
State
agency,
Indian
tribe,
or
other
agency
authorized
by
the
Administrator
to
carry
out
a
permit
program
under
this
section
and
§
51.166,
or
the
Administrator
in
the
case
of
EPA­
implemented
permit
programs
under
§
52.21.
(
xxxix)
Project
means
a
physical
change
in,
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of,
an
existing
major
stationary
source.
(
XL)
Best
available
control
technology
(
BACT)
means
an
emissions
limitation
(
including
a
visible
emissions
standard)
based
on
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
for
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant
which
would
be
emitted
from
any
proposed
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
which
the
reviewing
authority,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
taking
into
account
energy,
environmental,
and
economic
impacts
and
other
costs,
determines
is
achievable
for
such
source
or
modification
through
application
of
production
processes
or
available
methods,
systems,
and
techniques,
including
fuel
cleaning
or
treatment
or
innovative
fuel
combustion
techniques
for
control
of
such
pollutant.
In
no
event
shall
application
of
best
available
control
technology
result
in
emissions
of
any
pollutant
which
would
exceed
the
emissions
allowed
by
any
applicable
standard
under
40
CFR
part
60
or
61.
If
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
technological
or
economic
limitations
on
the
application
of
measurement
methodology
to
a
particular
emissions
unit
would
make
the
imposition
of
an
emissions
standard
infeasible,
a
design,
equipment,
work
practice,
operational
standard,
or
combination
thereof,
may
be
prescribed
instead
to
satisfy
the
requirement
for
the
application
of
BACT.
Such
standard
shall,
to
the
degree
possible,
set
forth
the
emissions
reduction
achievable
by
implementation
of
such
design,
equipment,
work
practice
or
operation,
and
shall
provide
for
compliance
by
means
which
achieve
equivalent
results.
(
XLi)
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
permit
means
any
permit
that
is
issued
under
a
major
source
preconstruction
permit
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
incorporated
into
the
plan
to
implement
the
requirements
of
§
51.166
of
this
chapter,
or
under
the
program
in
§
52.21
of
this
chapter.
(
XLii)
Federal
Land
Manager
means,
with
respect
to
any
lands
in
the
United
States,
the
Secretary
of
the
department
with
authority
over
such
lands.
(
2)
Applicability
procedures.
(
i)
Each
plan
shall
adopt
a
preconstruction
review
program
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
sections
172(
c)(
5)
and
173
of
the
Act
for
any
area
designated
nonattainment
for
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
under
subpart
C
of
40
CFR
part
81.
Such
a
program
shall
apply
to
any
new
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
that
is
major
for
the
pollutant
for
which
the
area
is
designated
nonattainment
under
section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
the
Act,
if
the
stationary
source
or
modification
would
locate
anywhere
in
the
designated
nonattainment
area.
(
ii)
Each
plan
shall
use
the
specific
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section.
Deviations
from
these
provisions
will
be
approved
only
if
the
State
specifically
demonstrates
that
the
submitted
provisions
are
more
stringent
than
or
at
least
as
stringent
in
all
respects
as
the
corresponding
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section.
(
A)
Except
as
otherwise
provided
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iii)
and
(
iv)
of
this
section,
and
consistent
with
the
definition
of
major
modification
contained
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
v)(
A)
of
this
section,
a
project
is
a
major
modification
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
if
it
causes
two
types
of
emissions
increases
 
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxvii)
of
this
section),
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
vi)
and
(
x)
of
this
section).
The
project
is
not
a
major
modification
if
it
does
not
cause
a
significant
emissions
increase.
If
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase,
then
the
project
is
a
major
modification
only
if
it
also
results
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
B)
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
i.
e.,
the
first
step
of
the
process)
will
occur
depends
upon
the
type
of
emissions
units
being
modified,
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
C)
through
(
F)
of
this
section.
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
will
occur
at
the
major
stationary
source
(
i.
e.,
the
second
step
of
the
process)
is
contained
in
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vi)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
any
such
preconstruction
projections,
a
major
modification
results
if
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
C)
Actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
existing
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
projected
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)
of
this
section)
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section,
as
applicable),
for
each
existing
emissions
unit,
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section).
(
D)
Actual­
to­
potential
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
construction
of
a
new
emissions
unit(
s).
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
potential
to
emit
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section)
from
each
new
emissions
unit
following
completion
of
the
project
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)(
C)
of
this
section)
of
these
units
before
the
project
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section).
(
E)
Emission
test
for
projects
that
involve
Clean
Units.
For
a
project
that
will
be
constructed
and
operated
at
a
Clean
Unit
without
causing
the
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
designation,
no
emissions
increase
is
deemed
to
occur.
(
F)
Hybrid
test
for
projects
that
involve
multiple
types
of
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
emissions
increases
for
each
emissions
unit,
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
C)
through
(
E)
of
this
section
as
applicable
with
respect
to
each
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80249
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
emissions
unit,
for
each
type
of
emissions
unit
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section).
For
example,
if
a
project
involves
both
an
existing
emissions
unit
and
a
Clean
Unit,
the
projected
increase
is
determined
by
summing
the
values
determined
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
C)
of
this
section
for
the
existing
unit
and
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
E)
of
this
section
for
the
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
The
plan
shall
require
that
for
any
major
stationary
source
for
a
PAL
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
comply
with
requirements
under
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
iv)
The
plan
shall
require
that
an
owner
or
operator
undertaking
a
PCP
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)
of
this
section)
shall
comply
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section.
(
3)
*
*
*
(
ii)
*
*
*
(
H)
Decreases
in
actual
emissions
resulting
from
the
installation
of
add­
on
control
technology
or
application
of
pollution
prevention
measures
that
were
relied
upon
in
designating
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
or
a
project
as
a
PCP
cannot
be
used
as
offsets.
(
I)
Decreases
in
actual
emissions
occurring
at
a
Clean
Unit
cannot
be
used
as
offsets,
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
8)
and
(
d)(
10)
of
this
section.
Similarly,
decreases
in
actual
emissions
occurring
at
a
PCP
cannot
be
used
as
offsets,
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
J)
The
total
tonnage
of
increased
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
resulting
from
a
major
modification
that
must
be
offset
in
accordance
with
section
173
of
the
Act
shall
be
determined
by
summing
the
difference
between
the
allowable
emissions
after
the
modification
(
as
defined
by
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xi)
of
this
section)
and
the
actual
emissions
before
the
modification
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xii)
of
this
section)
for
each
emissions
unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(
6)
Each
plan
shall
provide
that
the
following
specific
provisions
apply
to
projects
at
existing
emissions
units
at
a
major
stationary
source
(
other
than
projects
at
a
Clean
Unit
or
at
a
source
with
a
PAL)
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
a
project
that
is
not
a
part
of
a
major
modification
may
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
the
owner
or
operator
elects
to
use
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)(
B)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
for
calculating
projected
actual
emissions.
Deviations
from
these
provisions
will
be
approved
only
if
the
State
specifically
demonstrates
that
the
submitted
provisions
are
more
stringent
than
or
at
least
as
stringent
in
all
respects
as
the
corresponding
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
6)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Before
beginning
actual
construction
of
the
project,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
document
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
following
information:
(
A)
A
description
of
the
project;
(
B)
Identification
of
the
emissions
unit(
s)
whose
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
could
be
affected
by
the
project;
and
(
C)
A
description
of
the
applicability
test
used
to
determine
that
the
project
is
not
a
major
modification
for
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
including
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
the
projected
actual
emissions,
the
amount
of
emissions
excluded
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxviii)(
B)(
3)
of
this
section
and
an
explanation
for
why
such
amount
was
excluded,
and
any
netting
calculations,
if
applicable.
(
ii)
If
the
emissions
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
before
beginning
actual
construction,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
a
copy
of
the
information
set
out
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section
to
the
reviewing
authority.
Nothing
in
this
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
shall
be
construed
to
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
unit
to
obtain
any
determination
from
the
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction.
(
iii)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
monitor
the
emissions
of
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
that
could
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project
and
that
is
emitted
by
any
emissions
units
identified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)(
B)
of
this
section;
and
calculate
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year
on
a
calendar
year
basis,
for
a
period
of
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change,
or
for
a
period
of
10
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change
if
the
project
increases
the
design
capacity
or
potential
to
emit
of
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant
at
such
emissions
unit.
(
iv)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
each
year
during
which
records
must
be
generated
under
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section
setting
out
the
unit's
annual
emissions
during
the
year
that
preceded
submission
of
the
report.
(
v)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
unit
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
if
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
from
the
project
identified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section,
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)(
C)
of
this
section,
by
a
significant
amount
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section)
for
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
and
if
such
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)(
C)
of
this
section.
Such
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
such
year.
The
report
shall
contain
the
following:
(
A)
The
name,
address
and
telephone
number
of
the
major
stationary
source;
(
B)
The
annual
emissions
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section;
and
(
C)
Any
other
information
that
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
to
include
in
the
report
(
e.
g.,
an
explanation
as
to
why
the
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection).
(
7)
Each
plan
shall
provide
that
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
make
the
information
required
to
be
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section
available
for
review
upon
a
request
for
inspection
by
the
reviewing
authority
or
the
general
public
pursuant
to
the
requirements
contained
in
§
70.4(
b)(
3)(
viii)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
Clean
Unit
Test
for
emissions
units
that
are
subject
to
LAER.
The
plan
shall
provide
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
9)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
c)
apply
to
any
emissions
unit
for
which
the
reviewing
authority
has
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
c)(
4)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80250
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
paragraph
(
c)(
5)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
LAER
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
LAER
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
LAER
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
LAER
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
requalifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
D)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
F)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
(
v)
Certain
Emissions
Units
with
PSD
permits.
For
emissions
units
that
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section,
the
BACT
level
of
emissions
reductions
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
shall
satisfy
the
requirement
for
LAER
in
meeting
the
requirements
for
Clean
Units
under
paragraphs
(
c)(
3)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
For
these
emissions
units,
all
requirements
for
the
LAER
determination
under
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iii)
of
this
section
shall
also
apply
to
the
BACT
permit
terms
and
conditions.
In
addition,
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
c)(
7)(
i)(
B)
of
this
section
do
not
apply
to
emissions
units
that
qualify
for
Clean
Unit
status
under
this
paragraph
(
c)(
2)(
v).
(
A)
The
emissions
unit
must
have
received
a
PSD
permit
within
the
last
10
years
and
such
permit
must
require
the
emissions
unit
to
comply
with
BACT.
(
B)
The
emissions
unit
must
be
located
in
an
area
that
was
redesignated
as
nonattainment
for
the
relevant
pollutant(
s)
after
issuance
of
the
PSD
permit
and
before
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
Test
provisions
in
the
area.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
An
emissions
unit
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
c)(
5)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
c)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
re­
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
issued
through
the
applicable
nonattainment
major
NSR
program
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section.
Clean
Unit
designation
applies
individually
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit.
(
i)
Permitting
requirement.
The
emissions
unit
must
have
received
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
and
be
able
to
provide
information
that
would
demonstrate
that
this
permitting
requirement
is
met.
(
ii)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
an
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxvi)
of
this
section
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
3)(
ii)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
control
technology
achieves
the
LAER
level
of
emissions
reductions
as
determined
through
issuance
of
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
Clean
Unit
designation
if
the
LAER
determination
resulted
in
no
requirement
to
reduce
emissions
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled,
new
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type.
(
B)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
expenses
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
an
emissions
unit.
(
iii)
Re­
qualifying
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
the
currentday
LAER,
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
3)(
i)
and
(
c)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
at
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
modification)
is
determined
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
c)(
4)(
i)
or
(
c)(
4)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
as
Clean
Units
by
implementing
a
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
LAER.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
or
3
years
after
the
issuance
date
of
the
major
NSR
permit,
whichever
is
earlier,
but
no
sooner
than
the
date
that
provisions
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
are
approved
by
the
Administrator
for
incorporation
into
the
plan
and
become
effective
for
the
State
in
which
the
unit
is
located.
(
ii)
Emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
new,
major
NSR
permit
is
issued.
(
5)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
An
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
no
longer
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
affecting
the
emissions
unit
is,
or
is
part
of,
a
major
modification)
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
c)(
5)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
LAER.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraphs
(
c)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date,
or
the
date
the
equipment
went
into
service,
whichever
is
earlier;
or,
it
expires
at
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
c)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date;
or,
it
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
Designation
in
paragraph
(
c)(
7)
of
this
section.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80251
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
6)
Required
title
V
permit
content
for
a
Clean
Unit.
After
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed,
the
title
V
permit
for
the
major
stationary
source
must
include
the
following
terms
and
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
6)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
related
to
the
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
which
this
Clean
Unit
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
in
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
into
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
the
LAER,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
LAER
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
c)(
7)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
c)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
7)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
c)(
7)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
emissions
unit
has
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
the
LAER
that
is
recorded
in
the
major
NSR
permit,
and
subsequently
reflected
in
the
title
V
permit.
(
A)
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
LAER
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
B)
The
Clean
Unit
may
not
emit
above
a
level
that
has
been
offset.
(
ii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
iii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
8)
Offsets
and
netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis''),
or
be
used
for
generating
offsets
unless
such
use
occurs
before
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then,
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
9)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
redesignation
of
the
attainment
status
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
an
existing
Clean
Unit
designation
expires,
it
must
re­
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable
in
the
area.
(
d)
Clean
Unit
provisions
for
emissions
units
that
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
LAER.
The
plan
shall
provide
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
11)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
d)
apply
to
emissions
units
which
do
not
qualify
as
Clean
Units
under
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section,
but
which
are
achieving
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
LAER,
as
determined
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
accordance
with
this
paragraph
(
d).
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit
(
designated
under
this
paragraph
(
d)).
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
d)(
5)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
d)(
6)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
LAER,
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80252
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
LAER
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
LAER,
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
LAER
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
D)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)(
F)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
were
never
a
Clean
Unit.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
An
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
d)(
6)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
d)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section.
The
reviewing
authority
will
make
a
separate
Clean
Unit
designation
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit
for
which
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxvi)
of
this
section
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
3)(
i)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
owner
or
operator
has
demonstrated
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
LAER
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
if
its
emissions
are
not
reduced
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type
(
e.
g.,
if
the
LAER
determinations
to
which
it
is
compared
have
resulted
in
a
determination
that
no
control
measures
are
required).
(
B)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
to
retool
the
unit
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique.
(
ii)
Impact
of
emissions
from
the
unit.
The
reviewing
authority
must
determine
that
the
allowable
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
iii)
Date
of
installation.
An
emissions
unit
may
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
even
if
the
control
technology,
on
which
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
based,
was
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
to
implement
the
requirements
of
this
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
iii).
However,
for
such
emissions
units,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
within
2
years
after
the
plan
requirements
become
effective.
For
technologies
installed
after
the
plan
requirements
become
effective,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
at
the
time
the
control
technology
is
installed.
(
iv)
Re­
qualifying
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
(
pursuant
to
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section)
that
demonstrates
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
comparable
to
current­
day
LAER,
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
3)(
i)(
A)
and
(
d)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Demonstrating
control
effectiveness
comparable
to
LAER.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
LAER
for
purposes
of
paragraph
(
d)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section
according
to
either
paragraph
(
d)(
4)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
Paragraph
(
d)(
4)(
iii)
of
this
section
specifies
the
time
for
making
this
comparison.
(
i)
Comparison
to
previous
LAER
determinations.
The
administrator
maintains
an
on­
line
data
base
of
previous
determinations
of
RACT,
BACT,
and
LAER
in
the
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
Clearinghouse
(
RBLC).
The
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
presumed
to
be
comparable
to
LAER
if
it
achieves
an
emission
limitation
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
any
one
of
the
five
best­
performing
similar
sources
for
which
a
LAER
determination
has
been
made
within
the
preceding
5
years,
and
for
which
information
has
been
entered
into
the
RBLC.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
also
compare
this
presumption
to
any
additional
LAER
determinations
of
which
it
is
aware,
and
shall
consider
any
information
on
achieved­
in­
practice
pollution
control
technologies
provided
during
the
public
comment
period,
to
determine
whether
any
presumptive
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
comparable
to
LAER
is
correct.
(
ii)
The
substantially­
as­
effective
test.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
LAER.
In
addition,
any
other
person
may
present
evidence
related
to
whether
the
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
LAER
during
the
public
participation
process
required
under
paragraph
(
d)(
7)
of
this
section.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
consider
such
evidence
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
determine
whether
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
LAER.
(
iii)
Time
of
comparison.
(
A)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph.
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
whose
control
technology
is
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph
(
d)
may,
at
its
option,
either
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
LAER
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
or
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
LAER
requirements.
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
will
depend
on
which
option
the
owner
or
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80253
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
operator
uses,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
6)
of
this
section.
(
B)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
after
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph.
The
owner
or
operator
must
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
LAER
requirements.
(
5)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
involving
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
modification)
is
the
date
that
the
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
d)(
7)
of
this
section
is
issued
or
the
date
that
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
whichever
is
later.
(
6)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
If
the
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
LAER
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
date
that
the
control
technology
was
installed.
For
all
other
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
as
determined
according
to
paragraph
(
d)(
5)
of
this
section.
In
addition,
for
all
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
d)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Procedures
for
designating
emissions
units
as
Clean
Units.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
designate
an
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit
only
by
issuing
a
permit
through
a
permitting
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
that
conforms
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
51.160
through
51.164
of
this
chapter
including
requirements
for
public
notice
of
the
proposed
Clean
Unit
designation
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
Such
permit
must
also
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
d)(
8).
(
8)
Required
permit
content.
The
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
d)(
7)
of
this
section
shall
include
the
terms
and
conditions
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
8)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
Such
terms
and
conditions
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
major
stationary
source's
title
V
permit
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
which
this
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
emission
limitations
necessary
to
assure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
LAER,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
LAER
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
d)(
9)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
d)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Maintaining
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
Clean
Unit
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
d)(
9)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
reviewing
authority
has
designated
the
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
the
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
to
ensure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
emission
control
comparable
to
LAER.
(
ii)
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
that
is
comparable
to
LAER
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
iii)
The
Clean
Unit
may
not
emit
above
a
level
that
has
been
offset.
(
iv)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
v)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
10)
Offsets
and
Netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis''),
or
be
used
for
generating
offsets
unless
such
use
occurs
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
adopted
to
implement
this
paragraph
(
d)
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
emissions
unit's
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00069
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80254
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
11)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
redesignation
of
the
attainment
status
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
a
Clean
Unit's
designation
expires
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
iii)
and
(
d)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
it
must
re­
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable.
(
e)
PCP
exclusion
procedural
requirements.
Each
plan
shall
include
provisions
for
PCPs
equivalent
to
those
contained
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Before
an
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
a
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
either
submit
a
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority
if
the
project
is
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section,
or
if
the
project
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
a
permit
application
and
obtain
approval
to
use
the
PCP
exclusion
from
the
reviewing
authority
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
e)(
5)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
whether
the
owner
or
operator
submits
a
notice
or
a
permit
application,
the
project
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
e)(
2)
of
this
section,
and
the
notice
or
permit
application
must
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraph
(
e)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
2)
Any
project
that
relies
on
the
PCP
exclusion
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Environmentally
beneficial
analysis.
The
environmental
benefit
from
the
emission
reductions
of
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
must
outweigh
the
environmental
detriment
of
emissions
increases
in
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
A
statement
that
a
technology
from
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section
is
being
used
shall
be
presumed
to
satisfy
this
requirement.
(
ii)
Air
quality
analysis.
The
emissions
increases
from
the
project
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
3)
Content
of
notice
or
permit
application.
In
the
notice
or
permit
application
sent
to
the
reviewing
authority,
the
owner
or
operator
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
listed
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
3)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
description
of
the
project.
(
ii)
The
potential
emissions
increases
and
decreases
of
any
pollutant
regulated
under
the
Act
and
the
projected
emissions
increases
and
decreases
using
the
methodology
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section,
that
will
result
from
the
project,
and
a
copy
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
required
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
A
description
of
monitoring
and
recordkeeping,
and
all
other
methods,
to
be
used
on
an
ongoing
basis
to
demonstrate
that
the
project
is
environmentally
beneficial.
Methods
should
be
sufficient
to
meet
the
requirements
in
part
70
and
part
71.
(
iv)
A
certification
that
the
project
will
be
designed
and
operated
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application,
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
v)
Demonstration
that
the
PCP
will
not
have
an
adverse
air
quality
impact
(
e.
g.,
modeling,
screening
level
modeling
results,
or
a
statement
that
the
collateral
emissions
increase
is
included
within
the
parameters
used
in
the
most
recent
modeling
exercise)
as
required
by
paragraph
(
e)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section.
An
air
quality
impact
analysis
is
not
required
for
any
pollutant
which
will
not
experience
a
significant
emissions
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project.
(
4)
Notice
process
for
listed
projects.
For
projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
the
project
immediately
after
notice
is
sent
to
the
reviewing
authority
(
unless
otherwise
prohibited
under
requirements
of
the
applicable
plan).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
respond
to
any
requests
by
its
reviewing
authority
for
additional
information
that
the
reviewing
authority
determines
is
necessary
to
evaluate
the
suitability
of
the
project
for
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
5)
Permit
process
for
unlisted
projects.
Before
an
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
a
PCP
project
that
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
xxv)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section,
the
project
must
be
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority
and
recorded
in
a
plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
using
procedures
that
are
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
reviewing
authority
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval,
with
access
to
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
the
air
quality
analysis,
and
provide
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
the
public
and
the
Administrator
to
submit
comments.
The
reviewing
authority
must
address
all
material
comments
received
by
the
end
of
the
comment
period
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Operational
requirements.
Upon
installation
of
the
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
e)(
6)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
General
duty.
The
owner
or
operator
must
operate
the
PCP
in
a
manner
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application
required
by
paragraph
(
e)(
3)
of
this
section,
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
ii)
Recordkeeping.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
copies
on
site
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis,
the
air
quality
impacts
analysis,
and
monitoring
and
other
emission
records
to
prove
that
the
PCP
operated
consistent
with
the
general
duty
requirements
in
paragraph
(
e)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
Permit
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
any
provisions
in
the
plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
related
to
use
and
approval
of
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
iv)
Generation
of
emission
reduction
credits.
Emission
reductions
created
by
a
PCP
shall
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase,
or
be
used
for
generating
offsets,
unless
the
emissions
unit
further
reduces
emissions
after
qualifying
for
the
PCP
exclusion
(
e.
g.,
taking
an
operational
restriction
on
the
hours
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00070
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80255
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
operation).
The
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
of
reduction
which
was
used
to
qualify
for
the
PCP
exclusion
and
the
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
f)
Actuals
PALs.
The
plan
shall
provide
for
PALs
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
(
i)
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
the
use
of
an
actuals
PAL
for
any
existing
major
stationary
source
(
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section)
if
the
PAL
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
The
term
``
PAL''
shall
mean
``
actuals
PAL''
throughout
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
not
allow
an
actuals
PAL
for
VOC
or
NOX
for
any
major
stationary
source
located
in
an
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
area.
(
iii)
Any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
maintains
its
total
source­
wide
emissions
below
the
PAL
level,
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section,
and
complies
with
the
PAL
permit:
(
A)
Is
not
a
major
modification
for
the
PAL
pollutant;
(
B)
Does
not
have
to
be
approved
through
the
plan's
nonattainment
major
NSR
program;
and
(
C)
Is
not
subject
to
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section
(
restrictions
on
relaxing
enforceable
emission
limitations
that
the
major
stationary
source
used
to
avoid
applicability
of
the
nonattainment
major
NSR
program).
(
iv)
Except
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
iii)(
C)
of
this
section,
a
major
stationary
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
all
applicable
Federal
or
State
requirements,
emission
limitations,
and
work
practice
requirements
that
were
established
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
PAL.
(
2)
Definitions.
The
plan
shall
use
the
definitions
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
2)(
i)
through
(
xi)
of
this
section
for
the
purpose
of
developing
and
implementing
regulations
that
authorize
the
use
of
actuals
PALs
consistent
with
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
When
a
term
is
not
defined
in
these
paragraphs,
it
shall
have
the
meaning
given
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act.
(
i)
Actuals
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source
means
a
PAL
based
on
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)
of
this
section)
of
all
emissions
units
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
vii)
of
this
section)
at
the
source,
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
Allowable
emissions
means
``
allowable
emissions''
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xi)
of
this
section,
except
as
this
definition
is
modified
according
to
paragraphs
(
f)(
2)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
allowable
emissions
for
any
emissions
unit
shall
be
calculated
considering
any
emission
limitations
that
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
on
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
B)
An
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit
shall
be
determined
using
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section,
except
that
the
words
``
or
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter''
should
be
added
after
``
federally
enforceable.''
(
iii)
Small
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
less
than
the
significant
level
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
(
iv)
Major
emissions
unit
means:
(
A)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
attainment
area;
or
(
B)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
major
source
threshold
for
the
PAL
pollutant
as
defined
by
the
Act
for
nonattainment
areas.
For
example,
in
accordance
with
the
definition
of
major
stationary
source
in
section
182(
c)
of
the
Act,
an
emissions
unit
would
be
a
major
emissions
unit
for
VOC
if
the
emissions
unit
is
located
in
a
serious
ozone
nonattainment
area
and
it
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
50
or
more
tons
of
VOC
per
year.
(
v)
Plantwide
applicability
limitation
(
PAL)
means
an
emission
limitation
expressed
in
tons
per
year,
for
a
pollutant
at
a
major
stationary
source,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
and
established
source­
wide
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
f)(
15)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
PAL
effective
date
generally
means
the
date
of
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
However,
the
PAL
effective
date
for
an
increased
PAL
is
the
date
any
emissions
unit
which
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
vii)
PAL
effective
period
means
the
period
beginning
with
the
PAL
effective
date
and
ending
10
years
later.
(
viii)
PAL
major
modification
means,
notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
v)
and
(
vi)
of
this
section
(
the
definitions
for
major
modification
and
net
emissions
increase),
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
PAL
source
that
causes
it
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
a
level
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
PAL.
(
ix)
PAL
permit
means
the
major
NSR
permit,
the
minor
NSR
permit,
or
the
State
operating
permit
under
a
program
that
is
approved
into
the
plan,
or
the
title
V
permit
issued
by
the
reviewing
authority
that
establishes
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source.
(
x)
PAL
pollutant
means
the
pollutant
for
which
a
PAL
is
established
at
a
major
stationary
source.
(
xi)
Significant
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
a
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
significant
level
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower)
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
but
less
than
the
amount
that
would
qualify
the
unit
as
a
major
emissions
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
f)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Permit
application
requirements.
As
part
of
a
permit
application
requesting
a
PAL,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
the
following
information
to
the
reviewing
authority
for
approval:
(
i)
A
list
of
all
emissions
units
at
the
source
designated
as
small,
significant
or
major
based
on
their
potential
to
emit.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
indicate
which,
if
any,
Federal
or
State
applicable
requirements,
emission
limitations
or
work
practices
apply
to
each
unit.
(
ii)
Calculations
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
with
supporting
documentation).
Baseline
actual
emissions
are
to
include
emissions
associated
not
only
with
operation
of
the
unit,
but
also
emissions
associated
with
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction.
(
iii)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
proposes
to
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
as
required
by
paragraph
(
f)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
4)
General
requirements
for
establishing
PALs.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00071
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80256
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
i)
The
plan
allows
the
reviewing
authority
to
establish
a
PAL
at
a
major
stationary
source,
provided
that
at
a
minimum,
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
4)(
i)(
A)
through
(
G)
of
this
section
are
met.
(
A)
The
PAL
shall
impose
an
annual
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
for
the
entire
major
stationary
source.
For
each
month
during
the
PAL
effective
period
after
the
first
12
months
of
establishing
a
PAL,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
monthly
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
for
the
previous
12
consecutive
months
is
less
than
the
PAL
(
a
12­
month
average,
rolled
monthly).
For
each
month
during
the
first
11
months
from
the
PAL
effective
date,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
preceding
monthly
emissions
from
the
PAL
effective
date
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
is
less
than
the
PAL.
(
B)
The
PAL
shall
be
established
in
a
PAL
permit
that
meets
the
public
participation
requirements
in
paragraph
(
f)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
C)
The
PAL
permit
shall
contain
all
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
f)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
D)
The
PAL
shall
include
fugitive
emissions,
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
from
all
emissions
units
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
E)
Each
PAL
shall
regulate
emissions
of
only
one
pollutant.
(
F)
Each
PAL
shall
have
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
G)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
with
a
PAL
shall
comply
with
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
provided
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
12)
through
(
14)
of
this
section
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
through
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
ii)
At
no
time
(
during
or
after
the
PAL
effective
period)
are
emissions
reductions
of
a
PAL
pollutant,
which
occur
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
creditable
as
decreases
for
purposes
of
offsets
under
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section
unless
the
level
of
the
PAL
is
reduced
by
the
amount
of
such
emissions
reductions
and
such
reductions
would
be
creditable
in
the
absence
of
the
PAL.
(
5)
Public
participation
requirement
for
PALs.
PALs
for
existing
major
stationary
sources
shall
be
established,
renewed,
or
increased
through
a
procedure
that
is
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
reviewing
authority
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval
of
a
PAL
permit
and
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
submittal
of
public
comment.
The
reviewing
authority
must
address
all
material
comments
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Setting
the
10­
year
actuals
PAL
level.
The
plan
shall
provide
that
the
actuals
PAL
level
for
a
major
stationary
source
shall
be
established
as
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
xxxv)
of
this
section)
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
each
emissions
unit
at
the
source;
plus
an
amount
equal
to
the
applicable
significant
level
for
the
PAL
pollutant
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
x)
of
this
section
or
under
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
When
establishing
the
actuals
PAL
level,
for
a
PAL
pollutant,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
existing
emissions
units.
However,
a
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
may
be
used
for
each
different
PAL
pollutant.
Emissions
associated
with
units
that
were
permanently
shutdown
after
this
24­
month
period
must
be
subtracted
from
the
PAL
level.
Emissions
from
units
on
which
actual
construction
began
after
the
24­
month
period
must
be
added
to
the
PAL
level
in
an
amount
equal
to
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
units.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
specify
a
reduced
PAL
level(
s)
(
in
tons/
yr)
in
the
PAL
permit
to
become
effective
on
the
future
compliance
date(
s)
of
any
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirement(
s)
that
the
reviewing
authority
is
aware
of
prior
to
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
For
instance,
if
the
source
owner
or
operator
will
be
required
to
reduce
emissions
from
industrial
boilers
in
half
from
baseline
emissions
of
60
ppm
NOX
to
a
new
rule
limit
of
30
ppm,
then
the
permit
shall
contain
a
future
effective
PAL
level
that
is
equal
to
the
current
PAL
level
reduced
by
half
of
the
original
baseline
emissions
of
such
unit(
s).
(
7)
Contents
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
plan
shall
require
that
the
PAL
permit
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
7)(
i)
through
(
x)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
PAL
pollutant
and
the
applicable
source­
wide
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
effective
date
and
the
expiration
date
of
the
PAL
(
PAL
effective
period).
(
iii)
Specification
in
the
PAL
permit
that
if
a
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
applies
to
renew
a
PAL
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
f)(
10)
of
this
section
before
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
not
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period.
It
shall
remain
in
effect
until
a
revised
PAL
permit
is
issued
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
iv)
A
requirement
that
emission
calculations
for
compliance
purposes
include
emissions
from
startups,
shutdowns
and
malfunctions.
(
v)
A
requirement
that,
once
the
PAL
expires,
the
major
stationary
source
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
f)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
as
required
by
paragraph
(
f)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
vii)
A
requirement
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
monitor
all
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
under
paragraph
(
f)(
12)
of
this
section.
(
viii)
A
requirement
to
retain
the
records
required
under
paragraph
(
f)(
13)
of
this
section
on
site.
Such
records
may
be
retained
in
an
electronic
format.
(
ix)
A
requirement
to
submit
the
reports
required
under
paragraph
(
f)(
14)
of
this
section
by
the
required
deadlines.
(
x)
Any
other
requirements
that
the
reviewing
authority
deems
necessary
to
implement
and
enforce
the
PAL.
(
8)
PAL
effective
period
and
reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
plan
shall
require
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
8)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
PAL
effective
period.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
specify
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
ii)
Reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
(
A)
During
the
PAL
effective
period,
the
plan
shall
require
the
reviewing
authority
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
to:
(
1)
Correct
typographical/
calculation
errors
made
in
setting
the
PAL
or
reflect
a
more
accurate
determination
of
emissions
used
to
establish
the
PAL.
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
creates
creditable
emissions
reductions
for
use
as
offsets
under
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Revise
the
PAL
to
reflect
an
increase
in
the
PAL
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
f)(
11)
of
this
section.
(
B)
The
plan
shall
provide
the
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
for
the
following:
(
1)
Reduce
the
PAL
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
requirements
(
for
example,
NSPS)
with
compliance
dates
after
the
PAL
effective
date.
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
consistent
with
any
other
requirement,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00072
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80257
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
that
the
State
may
impose
on
the
major
stationary
source
under
the
plan.
(
3)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
a
reduction
is
necessary
to
avoid
causing
or
contributing
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
to
an
adverse
impact
on
an
air
quality
related
value
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
C)
Except
for
the
permit
reopening
in
paragraph
(
f)(
8)(
ii)(
A)(
1)
of
this
section
for
the
correction
of
typographical/
calculation
errors
that
do
not
increase
the
PAL
level,
all
other
reopenings
shall
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
public
participation
requirements
of
paragraph
(
f)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Expiration
of
a
PAL.
Any
PAL
which
is
not
renewed
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
f)(
10)
of
this
section
shall
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
i)
Each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units)
that
existed
under
the
PAL
shall
comply
with
an
allowable
emission
limitation
under
a
revised
permit
established
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
9)(
i)(
A)
through
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
Within
the
time
frame
specified
for
PAL
renewals
in
paragraph
(
f)(
10)(
ii)
of
this
section,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
proposed
allowable
emission
limitation
for
each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
if
such
a
distribution
is
more
appropriate
as
decided
by
the
reviewing
authority)
by
distributing
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
for
the
major
stationary
source
among
each
of
the
emissions
units
that
existed
under
the
PAL.
If
the
PAL
had
not
yet
been
adjusted
for
an
applicable
requirement
that
became
effective
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
f)(
10)(
v)
of
this
section,
such
distribution
shall
be
made
as
if
the
PAL
had
been
adjusted.
(
B)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
decide
whether
and
how
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
will
be
distributed
and
issue
a
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
the
reviewing
authority
determines
is
appropriate.
(
ii)
Each
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation
on
a
12­
month
rolling
basis.
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
the
use
of
monitoring
systems
(
source
testing,
emission
factors,
etc.)
other
than
CEMS,
CERMS,
PEMS
or
CPMS
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation.
(
iii)
Until
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
f)(
9)(
i)(
A)
of
this
section,
the
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
a
source­
wide,
multi­
unit
emissions
cap
equivalent
to
the
level
of
the
PAL
emission
limitation.
(
iv)
Any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
the
major
stationary
source
will
be
subject
to
the
nonattainment
major
NSR
requirements
if
such
change
meets
the
definition
of
major
modification
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
v)
of
this
section.
(
v)
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
continue
to
comply
with
any
State
or
Federal
applicable
requirements
(
BACT,
RACT,
NSPS,
etc.)
that
may
have
applied
either
during
the
PAL
effective
period
or
prior
to
the
PAL
effective
period
except
for
those
emission
limitations
that
had
been
established
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section,
but
were
eliminated
by
the
PAL
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
iii)(
C)
of
this
section.
(
10)
Renewal
of
a
PAL.
(
i)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
follow
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraph
(
f)(
5)
of
this
section
in
approving
any
request
to
renew
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source,
and
shall
provide
both
the
proposed
PAL
level
and
a
written
rationale
for
the
proposed
PAL
level
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment.
During
such
public
review,
any
person
may
propose
a
PAL
level
for
the
source
for
consideration
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
ii)
Application
deadline.
The
plan
shall
require
that
a
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
timely
application
to
the
reviewing
authority
to
request
renewal
of
a
PAL.
A
timely
application
is
one
that
is
submitted
at
least
6
months
prior
to,
but
not
earlier
than
18
months
from,
the
date
of
permit
expiration.
This
deadline
for
application
submittal
is
to
ensure
that
the
permit
will
not
expire
before
the
permit
is
renewed.
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
submits
a
complete
application
to
renew
the
PAL
within
this
time
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
continue
to
be
effective
until
the
revised
permit
with
the
renewed
PAL
is
issued.
(
iii)
Application
requirements.
The
application
to
renew
a
PAL
permit
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
10)(
iii)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
B)
A
proposed
PAL
level.
(
C)
The
sum
of
the
potential
to
emit
of
all
emissions
units
under
the
PAL
(
with
supporting
documentation).
(
D)
Any
other
information
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
the
reviewing
authority
to
consider
in
determining
the
appropriate
level
for
renewing
the
PAL.
(
iv)
PAL
adjustment.
In
determining
whether
and
how
to
adjust
the
PAL,
the
reviewing
authority
shall
consider
the
options
outlined
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
10)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section.
However,
in
no
case
may
any
such
adjustment
fail
to
comply
with
paragraph
(
f)(
10)(
iv)(
C)
of
this
section.
(
A)
If
the
emissions
level
calculated
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
f)(
6)
of
this
section
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
the
reviewing
authority
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
without
considering
the
factors
set
forth
in
paragraph
(
f)(
10)(
iv)(
B)
of
this
section;
or
(
B)
The
reviewing
authority
may
set
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
it
determines
to
be
more
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
or
that
it
determines
to
be
appropriate
considering
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
desire
to
reward
or
encourage
the
source's
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
or
other
factors
as
specifically
identified
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
its
written
rationale.
(
C)
Notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
f)(
10)(
iv)(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section,
(
1)
If
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
major
stationary
source
is
less
than
the
PAL,
the
reviewing
authority
shall
adjust
the
PAL
to
a
level
no
greater
than
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
source;
and
(
2)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
not
approve
a
renewed
PAL
level
higher
than
the
current
PAL,
unless
the
major
stationary
source
has
complied
with
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
f)(
11)
of
this
section
(
increasing
a
PAL).
(
v)
If
the
compliance
date
for
a
State
or
Federal
requirement
that
applies
to
the
PAL
source
occurs
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
if
the
reviewing
authority
has
not
already
adjusted
for
such
requirement,
the
PAL
shall
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
PAL
permit
renewal
or
title
V
permit
renewal,
whichever
occurs
first.
(
11)
Increasing
a
PAL
during
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
i)
The
plan
shall
require
that
the
reviewing
authority
may
increase
a
PAL
emission
limitation
only
if
the
major
stationary
source
complies
with
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00073
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80258
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
11)(
i)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
complete
application
to
request
an
increase
in
the
PAL
limit
for
a
PAL
major
modification.
Such
application
shall
identify
the
emissions
unit(
s)
contributing
to
the
increase
in
emissions
so
as
to
cause
the
major
stationary
source's
emissions
to
equal
or
exceed
its
PAL.
(
B)
As
part
of
this
application,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
demonstrate
that
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls,
plus
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
of
the
new
or
modified
emissions
unit(
s)
exceeds
the
PAL.
The
level
of
control
that
would
result
from
BACT
equivalent
controls
on
each
significant
or
major
emissions
unit
shall
be
determined
by
conducting
a
new
BACT
analysis
at
the
time
the
application
is
submitted,
unless
the
emissions
unit
is
currently
required
to
comply
with
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
was
established
within
the
preceding
10
years.
In
such
a
case,
the
assumed
control
level
for
that
emissions
unit
shall
be
equal
to
the
level
of
BACT
or
LAER
with
which
that
emissions
unit
must
currently
comply.
(
C)
The
owner
or
operator
obtains
a
major
NSR
permit
for
all
emissions
unit(
s)
identified
in
paragraph
(
f)(
11)(
i)(
A)
of
this
section,
regardless
of
the
magnitude
of
the
emissions
increase
resulting
from
them
(
that
is,
no
significant
levels
apply).
These
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
any
emissions
requirements
resulting
from
the
nonattainment
major
NSR
program
process
(
for
example,
LAER),
even
though
they
have
also
become
subject
to
the
PAL
or
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
PAL.
(
D)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
that
the
increased
PAL
level
shall
be
effective
on
the
day
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
calculate
the
new
PAL
as
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
for
each
modified
or
new
emissions
unit,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
(
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
f)(
11)(
i)(
B)),
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units.
(
iii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
be
revised
to
reflect
the
increased
PAL
level
pursuant
to
the
public
notice
requirements
of
paragraph
(
f)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
12)
Monitoring
requirements
for
PALs.
(
i)
General
Requirements.
(
A)
Each
PAL
permit
must
contain
enforceable
requirements
for
the
monitoring
system
that
accurately
determines
plantwide
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time.
Any
monitoring
system
authorized
for
use
in
the
PAL
permit
must
be
based
on
sound
science
and
meet
generally
acceptable
scientific
procedures
for
data
quality
and
manipulation.
Additionally,
the
information
generated
by
such
system
must
meet
minimum
legal
requirements
for
admissibility
in
a
judicial
proceeding
to
enforce
the
PAL
permit.
(
B)
The
PAL
monitoring
system
must
employ
one
or
more
of
the
four
general
monitoring
approaches
meeting
the
minimum
requirements
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
12)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section
and
must
be
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
C)
Notwithstanding
paragraph
(
f)(
12)(
i)(
B)
of
this
section,
you
may
also
employ
an
alternative
monitoring
approach
that
meets
paragraph
(
f)(
12)(
i)(
A)
of
this
section
if
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
D)
Failure
to
use
a
monitoring
system
that
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section
renders
the
PAL
invalid.
(
ii)
Minimum
Performance
Requirements
for
Approved
Monitoring
Approaches.
The
following
are
acceptable
general
monitoring
approaches
when
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
minimum
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
ix)
of
this
section:
(
A)
Mass
balance
calculations
for
activities
using
coatings
or
solvents;
(
B)
CEMS;
(
C)
CPMS
or
PEMS;
and
(
D)
Emission
Factors.
(
iii)
Mass
Balance
Calculations.
An
owner
or
operator
using
mass
balance
calculations
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
from
activities
using
coating
or
solvents
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
A)
Provide
a
demonstrated
means
of
validating
the
published
content
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
all
materials
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit;
(
B)
Assume
that
the
emissions
unit
emits
all
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
any
raw
material
or
fuel
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
if
it
cannot
otherwise
be
accounted
for
in
the
process;
and
(
C)
Where
the
vendor
of
a
material
or
fuel,
which
is
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
publishes
a
range
of
pollutant
content
from
such
material,
the
owner
or
operator
must
use
the
highest
value
of
the
range
to
calculate
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
there
is
site­
specific
data
or
a
site­
specific
monitoring
program
to
support
another
content
within
the
range.
(
iv)
CEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
A)
CEMS
must
comply
with
applicable
Performance
Specifications
found
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B;
and
(
B)
CEMS
must
sample,
analyze
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
v)
CPMS
or
PEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CPMS
or
PEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
A)
The
CPMS
or
the
PEMS
must
be
based
on
current
site­
specific
data
demonstrating
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
across
the
range
of
operation
of
the
emissions
unit;
and
(
B)
Each
CPMS
or
PEMS
must
sample,
analyze,
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes,
or
at
another
less
frequent
interval
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority,
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
vi)
Emission
factors.
An
owner
or
operator
using
emission
factors
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
A)
All
emission
factors
shall
be
adjusted,
if
appropriate,
to
account
for
the
degree
of
uncertainty
or
limitations
in
the
factors'
development;
(
B)
The
emissions
unit
shall
operate
within
the
designated
range
of
use
for
the
emission
factor,
if
applicable;
and
(
C)
If
technically
practicable,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
significant
emissions
unit
that
relies
on
an
emission
factor
to
calculate
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
conduct
validation
testing
to
determine
a
sitespecific
emission
factor
within
6
months
of
PAL
permit
issuance,
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
testing
is
not
required.
(
vii)
A
source
owner
or
operator
must
record
and
report
maximum
potential
emissions
without
considering
enforceable
emission
limitations
or
operational
restrictions
for
an
emissions
unit
during
any
period
of
time
that
there
is
no
monitoring
data,
unless
another
method
for
determining
emissions
during
such
periods
is
specified
in
the
PAL
permit.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00074
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80259
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
viii)
Notwithstanding
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section,
where
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
cannot
demonstrate
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
rate
at
all
operating
points
of
the
emissions
unit,
the
reviewing
authority
shall,
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance:
(
A)
Establish
default
value(
s)
for
determining
compliance
with
the
PAL
based
on
the
highest
potential
emissions
reasonably
estimated
at
such
operating
point(
s);
or
(
B)
Determine
that
operation
of
the
emissions
unit
during
operating
conditions
when
there
is
no
correlation
between
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
is
a
violation
of
the
PAL.
(
ix)
Re­
validation.
All
data
used
to
establish
the
PAL
pollutant
must
be
revalidated
through
performance
testing
or
other
scientifically
valid
means
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
Such
testing
must
occur
at
least
once
every
5
years
after
issuance
of
the
PAL.
(
13)
Recordkeeping
requirements.
(
i)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
all
records
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
any
requirement
of
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section
and
of
the
PAL,
including
a
determination
of
each
emissions
unit's
12­
month
rolling
total
emissions,
for
5
years
from
the
date
of
such
record.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
following
records
for
the
duration
of
the
PAL
effective
period
plus
5
years:
(
A)
A
copy
of
the
PAL
permit
application
and
any
applications
for
revisions
to
the
PAL;
and
(
B)
Each
annual
certification
of
compliance
pursuant
to
title
V
and
the
data
relied
on
in
certifying
the
compliance.
(
14)
Reporting
and
notification
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
semi­
annual
monitoring
reports
and
prompt
deviation
reports
to
the
reviewing
authority
in
accordance
with
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program.
The
reports
shall
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
14)(
i)
through
(
iii).
(
i)
Semi­
Annual
Report.
The
semiannual
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
each
reporting
period.
This
report
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
14)(
i)(
A)
through
(
G)
of
this
section.
(
A)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number.
(
B)
Total
annual
emissions
(
tons/
year)
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
in
the
reporting
period
recorded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
f)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
C)
All
data
relied
upon,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
Quality
Assurance
or
Quality
Control
data,
in
calculating
the
monthly
and
annual
PAL
pollutant
emissions.
(
D)
A
list
of
any
emissions
units
modified
or
added
to
the
major
stationary
source
during
the
preceding
6­
month
period.
(
E)
The
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
any
deviations
or
monitoring
malfunctions
(
other
than
the
time
associated
with
zero
and
span
calibration
checks),
and
any
corrective
action
taken.
(
F)
A
notification
of
a
shutdown
of
any
monitoring
system,
whether
the
shutdown
was
permanent
or
temporary,
the
reason
for
the
shutdown,
the
anticipated
date
that
the
monitoring
system
will
be
fully
operational
or
replaced
with
another
monitoring
system,
and
whether
the
emissions
unit
monitored
by
the
monitoring
system
continued
to
operate,
and
the
calculation
of
the
emissions
of
the
pollutant
or
the
number
determined
by
method
included
in
the
permit,
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
f)(
12)(
vii)
of
this
section.
(
G)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
ii)
Deviation
report.
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
promptly
submit
reports
of
any
deviations
or
exceedance
of
the
PAL
requirements,
including
periods
where
no
monitoring
is
available.
A
report
submitted
pursuant
to
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter
shall
satisfy
this
reporting
requirement.
The
deviation
reports
shall
be
submitted
within
the
time
limits
prescribed
by
the
applicable
program
implementing
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter.
The
reports
shall
contain
the
following
information:
(
A)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number;
(
B)
The
PAL
requirement
that
experienced
the
deviation
or
that
was
exceeded;
(
C)
Emissions
resulting
from
the
deviation
or
the
exceedance;
and
(
D)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
iii)
Re­
validation
results.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
to
the
reviewing
authority
the
results
of
any
re­
validation
test
or
method
within
3
months
after
completion
of
such
test
or
method.
(
15)
Transition
requirements.
(
i)
No
reviewing
authority
may
issue
a
PAL
that
does
not
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section
after
the
Administrator
has
approved
regulations
incorporating
these
requirements
into
a
plan.
(
ii)
The
reviewing
authority
may
supersede
any
PAL
which
was
established
prior
to
the
date
of
approval
of
the
plan
by
the
Administrator
with
a
PAL
that
complies
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
g)
If
any
provision
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
any
person
or
circumstance,
is
held
invalid,
the
remainder
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
persons
or
circumstances
other
than
those
as
to
which
it
is
held
invalid,
shall
not
be
affected
thereby.
5.
In
40
CFR
51.166(
b)(
1)(
i)(
b)
and
(
b)(
5),
remove
the
words
``
any
air
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act,''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant.''
6.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
section
51.166
is
amended:
a.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1).
b.
By
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i).
c.
By
adding
paragraph
(
a)(
7).
d.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii).
e.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
2)(
iii)(
h).
f.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
2)(
iv).
g.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
i).
h.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
iii)
and
(
iv).
i.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
vi)(
b)
and
(
c).
j.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
vi)(
d).
k.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
viii).
l.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)
and
(
8).
m.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
13).
n.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
21).
o.
By
removing
the
following
from
paragraph
(
b)(
23)(
i):
Asbestos:
0.007
tpy;
Beryllium:
0.0004
tpy;
Mercury:
0.1
tpy;
and
Vinyl
Chloride:
1
tpy.
p.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
31).
q.
By
reserving
paragraph
(
b)(
32).
r.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
b)(
38)
through
(
52).
s.
By
revising
the
introductory
text
of
paragraph
(
i).
t.
By
removing
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
3).
u.
By
re­
designating
paragraphs
(
i)(
4)
through
(
12)
as
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
9).
v.
By
revising
newly
redesignated
paragraphs
(
i)(
5)(
i)(
g)
through
(
j).

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00075
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80260
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
w.
By
removing
newly
redesignated
paragraphs
(
i)(
5)(
i)(
k)
through
(
m).
x.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
r)(
3)
through
(
7).
y.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
t)
through
(
x).
7.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
in
40
CFR
51.166,
remove
the
words
``
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant''
in
the
following
places:
a.
(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a);
c.
(
b)(
12);
d.
(
b)(
23)(
ii);
e.
newly
redesignated
(
i)(
4);
and
f.
(
j)(
2)
and
(
3).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
51.166
Prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.

(
a)(
1)
Plan
requirements.
In
accordance
with
the
policy
of
section
101(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act
and
the
purposes
of
section
160
of
the
Act,
each
applicable
State
Implementation
Plan
and
each
applicable
Tribal
Implementation
Plan
shall
contain
emission
limitations
and
such
other
measures
as
may
be
necessary
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.
*
*
*
*
*
(
6)
*
*
*
(
i)
Any
State
required
to
revise
its
implementation
plan
by
reason
of
an
amendment
to
this
section,
including
any
amendment
adopted
simultaneously
with
this
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i),
shall
adopt
and
submit
such
plan
revision
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
no
later
than
three
years
after
such
amendment
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
*
*
*
*
*
(
7)
Applicability.
Each
plan
shall
contain
procedures
that
incorporate
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
requirements
of
this
section
apply
to
the
construction
of
any
new
major
stationary
source
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
of
this
section)
or
any
project
at
an
existing
major
stationary
source
in
an
area
designated
as
attainment
or
unclassifiable
under
sections
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
ii)
or
(
iii)
of
the
Act.
(
ii)
The
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
j)
through
(
r)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
construction
of
any
new
major
stationary
source
or
the
major
modification
of
any
existing
major
stationary
source,
except
as
this
section
otherwise
provides.
(
iii)
No
new
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
to
which
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
j)
through
(
r)(
5)
of
this
section
apply
shall
begin
actual
construction
without
a
permit
that
states
that
the
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
will
meet
those
requirements.
(
iv)
Each
plan
shall
use
the
specific
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
Deviations
from
these
provisions
will
be
approved
only
if
the
State
specifically
demonstrates
that
the
submitted
provisions
are
more
stringent
than
or
at
least
as
stringent
in
all
respects
as
the
corresponding
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Except
as
otherwise
provided
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
v)
and
(
vi)
of
this
section,
and
consistent
with
the
definition
of
major
modification
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section,
a
project
is
a
major
modification
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
if
it
causes
two
types
of
emissions
increases
 
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section),
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
and
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
The
project
is
not
a
major
modification
if
it
does
not
cause
a
significant
emissions
increase.
If
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase,
then
the
project
is
a
major
modification
only
if
it
also
results
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
b)
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
i.
e.,
the
first
step
of
the
process)
will
occur
depends
upon
the
type
of
emissions
units
being
modified,
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
c)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
will
occur
at
the
major
stationary
source
(
i.
e.,
the
second
step
of
the
process)
is
contained
in
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
any
such
preconstruction
projections,
a
major
modification
results
if
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
c)
Actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
existing
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
projected
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
40)
of
this
section)
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
47)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section)
for
each
existing
emissions
unit,
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
(
d)
Actual­
to­
potential
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
construction
of
a
new
emissions
unit(
s).
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
potential
to
emit
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section)
from
each
new
emissions
unit
following
completion
of
the
project
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)(
iii)
of
this
section)
of
these
units
before
the
project
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
(
e)
Emission
test
for
projects
that
involve
Clean
Units.
For
a
project
that
will
be
constructed
and
operated
at
a
Clean
Unit
without
causing
the
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
designation,
no
emissions
increase
is
deemed
to
occur.
(
f)
Hybrid
test
for
projects
that
involve
multiple
types
of
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
emissions
increases
for
each
emissions
unit,
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
c)
through
(
e)
of
this
section
as
applicable
with
respect
to
each
emissions
unit,
for
each
type
of
emissions
unit
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
For
example,
if
a
project
involves
both
an
existing
emissions
unit
and
a
Clean
Unit,
the
projected
increase
is
determined
by
summing
the
values
determined
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
c)
of
this
section
for
the
existing
unit
and
determined
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
e)
of
this
section
for
the
Clean
Unit.
(
v)
The
plan
shall
require
that
for
any
major
stationary
source
for
a
PAL
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
comply
with
requirements
under
paragraph
(
w)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
The
plan
shall
require
that
an
owner
or
operator
undertaking
a
PCP
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
31)
of
this
section)
shall
comply
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
v)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
2)(
i)
Major
modification
means
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
would
result
in:
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section)
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
49)
of
this
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00076
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80261
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
section);
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
of
that
pollutant
from
the
major
stationary
source.
(
ii)
Any
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
at
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section)
from
any
emissions
units
or
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
at
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section)
at
a
major
stationary
source
that
is
significant
for
volatile
organic
compounds
shall
be
considered
significant
for
ozone.
(
iii)
*
*
*
(
h)
The
addition,
replacement,
or
use
of
a
PCP,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
31)
of
this
section,
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
v)
of
this
section.
A
replacement
control
technology
must
provide
more
effective
emission
control
than
that
of
the
replaced
control
technology
to
qualify
for
this
exclusion.
*
*
*
*
*
(
iv)
This
definition
shall
not
apply
with
respect
to
a
particular
regulated
NSR
pollutant
when
the
major
stationary
source
is
complying
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
w)
of
this
section
for
a
PAL
for
that
pollutant.
Instead,
the
definition
at
paragraph
(
w)(
2)(
viii)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
3)(
i)
Net
emissions
increase
means,
with
respect
to
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
emitted
by
a
major
stationary
source,
the
amount
by
which
the
sum
of
the
following
exceeds
zero:
(
a)
The
increase
in
emissions
from
a
particular
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
a
stationary
source
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iv)
of
this
section;
and
(
b)
Any
other
increases
and
decreases
in
actual
emissions
at
the
major
stationary
source
that
are
contemporaneous
with
the
particular
change
and
are
otherwise
creditable.
Baseline
actual
emissions
for
calculating
increases
and
decreases
under
this
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
i)(
b)
shall
be
determined
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47),
except
that
paragraphs
(
b)(
47)(
i)(
c)
and
(
b)(
47)(
ii)(
d)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply.
*
*
*
*
*
(
iii)
An
increase
or
decrease
in
actual
emissions
is
creditable
only
if:
(
a)
It
occurs
within
a
reasonable
period
(
to
be
specified
by
the
reviewing
authority);
and
(
b)
The
reviewing
authority
has
not
relied
on
it
in
issuing
a
permit
for
the
source
under
regulations
approved
pursuant
to
this
section,
which
permit
is
in
effect
when
the
increase
in
actual
emissions
from
the
particular
change
occurs;
and
(
c)
The
increase
or
decrease
in
emissions
did
not
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit,
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
8)
and
(
u)(
10)
of
this
section.
(
iv)
An
increase
or
decrease
in
actual
emissions
of
sulfur
dioxide,
particulate
matter,
or
nitrogen
oxides
that
occurs
before
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date
is
creditable
only
if
it
is
required
to
be
considered
in
calculating
the
amount
of
maximum
allowable
increases
remaining
available.
*
*
*
*
*
(
vi)
*
*
*
(
b)
It
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
at
and
after
the
time
that
actual
construction
on
the
particular
change
begins;
(
c)
It
has
approximately
the
same
qualitative
significance
for
public
health
and
welfare
as
that
attributed
to
the
increase
from
the
particular
change;
and
(
d)
The
decrease
in
actual
emissions
did
not
result
from
the
installation
of
add­
on
control
technology
or
application
of
pollution
prevention
practices
that
were
relied
on
in
designating
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
§
52.21(
y)
or
under
regulations
approved
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)
of
this
section
or
§
51.165(
d).
That
is,
once
an
emissions
unit
has
been
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit,
the
owner
or
operator
cannot
later
use
the
emissions
reduction
from
the
air
pollution
control
measures
that
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
based
on
in
calculating
the
net
emissions
increase
for
another
emissions
unit
(
i.
e.,
must
not
use
that
reduction
in
a
``
netting
analysis''
for
another
emissions
unit).
However,
any
new
emissions
reductions
that
were
not
relied
upon
in
a
PCP
excluded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
v)
of
this
section
or
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
are
creditable
to
the
extent
they
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
v)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section
for
the
PCP
and
paragraph
(
t)(
8)
or
(
u)(
10)
of
this
section
for
a
Clean
Unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(
viii)
Paragraph
(
b)(
21)(
ii)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply
for
determining
creditable
increases
and
decreases.
*
*
*
*
*
(
7)
Emissions
unit
means
any
part
of
a
stationary
source
that
emits
or
would
have
the
potential
to
emit
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
includes
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
30)
of
this
section.
For
purposes
of
this
section,
there
are
two
types
of
emissions
units
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
new
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
that
is
(
or
will
be)
newly
constructed
and
that
has
existed
for
less
than
2
years
from
the
date
such
emissions
unit
first
operated.
(
ii)
An
existing
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
that
does
not
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
b)(
7)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
8)
Construction
means
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
(
including
fabrication,
erection,
installation,
demolition,
or
modification
of
an
emissions
unit)
that
would
result
in
a
change
in
emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
(
13)(
i)
Baseline
concentration
means
that
ambient
concentration
level
that
exists
in
the
baseline
area
at
the
time
of
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date.
A
baseline
concentration
is
determined
for
each
pollutant
for
which
a
minor
source
baseline
date
is
established
and
shall
include:
(
a)
The
actual
emissions,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
representative
of
sources
in
existence
on
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date,
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)(
13)(
ii)
of
this
section;
(
b)
The
allowable
emissions
of
major
stationary
sources
that
commenced
construction
before
the
major
source
baseline
date,
but
were
not
in
operation
by
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date.
(
ii)
The
following
will
not
be
included
in
the
baseline
concentration
and
will
affect
the
applicable
maximum
allowable
increase(
s):
(
a)
Actual
emissions,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
from
any
major
stationary
source
on
which
construction
commenced
after
the
major
source
baseline
date;
and
(
b)
Actual
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
at
any
stationary
source
occurring
after
the
minor
source
baseline
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
21)(
i)
Actual
emissions
means
the
actual
rate
of
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
from
an
emissions
unit,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
21)(
ii)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section,
except
that
this
definition
shall
not
apply
for
calculating
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
has
occurred,
or
for
establishing
a
PAL
under
paragraph
(
w)
of
this
section.
Instead,
paragraphs
(
b)(
40)
and
(
b)(
47)
of
this
section
shall
apply
for
those
purposes.
(
ii)
In
general,
actual
emissions
as
of
a
particular
date
shall
equal
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
a
consecutive
24­
month
period
which
precedes
the
particular
date
and
which
is
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00077
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80262
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
Actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
using
the
unit's
actual
operating
hours,
production
rates,
and
types
of
materials
processed,
stored,
or
combusted
during
the
selected
time
period.
(
iii)
The
reviewing
authority
may
presume
that
source­
specific
allowable
emissions
for
the
unit
are
equivalent
to
the
actual
emissions
of
the
unit.
(
iv)
For
any
emissions
unit
that
has
not
begun
normal
operations
on
the
particular
date,
actual
emissions
shall
equal
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
unit
on
that
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
31)
Pollution
control
project
(
PCP)
means
any
activity,
set
of
work
practices
or
project
(
including
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
38)
of
this
section)
undertaken
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
that
reduces
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
such
unit.
Such
qualifying
activities
or
projects
can
include
the
replacement
or
upgrade
of
an
existing
emissions
control
technology
with
a
more
effective
unit.
Other
changes
that
may
occur
at
the
source
are
not
considered
part
of
the
PCP
if
they
are
not
necessary
to
reduce
emissions
through
the
PCP.
Projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
are
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
v)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
Projects
not
listed
in
these
paragraphs
may
qualify
for
a
case­
specific
PCP
exclusion
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
v)(
2)
and
(
v)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Conventional
or
advanced
flue
gas
desulfurization
or
sorbent
injection
for
control
of
SO2.
(
ii)
Electrostatic
precipitators,
baghouses,
high
efficiency
multiclones,
or
scrubbers
for
control
of
particulate
matter
or
other
pollutants.
(
iii)
Flue
gas
recirculation,
low­
NOX
burners
or
combustors,
selective
noncatalytic
reduction,
selective
catalytic
reduction,
low
emission
combustion
(
for
IC
engines),
and
oxidation/
absorption
catalyst
for
control
of
NOX.
(
iv)
Regenerative
thermal
oxidizers,
catalytic
oxidizers,
condensers,
thermal
incinerators,
hydrocarbon
combustion
flares,
biofiltration,
absorbers
and
adsorbers,
and
floating
roofs
for
storage
vessels
for
control
of
volatile
organic
compounds
or
hazardous
air
pollutants.
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
``
hydrocarbon
combustion
flare''
means
either
a
flare
used
to
comply
with
an
applicable
NSPS
or
MACT
standard
(
including
uses
of
flares
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
permitted
under
such
a
standard),
or
a
flare
that
serves
to
control
emissions
of
waste
streams
comprised
predominately
of
hydrocarbons
and
containing
no
more
than
230
mg/
dscm
hydrogen
sulfide.
(
v)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
(
or
partially
switching)
to
an
inherently
less
polluting
fuel,
to
be
limited
to
the
following
fuel
switches:
(
a)
Switching
from
a
heavier
grade
of
fuel
oil
to
a
lighter
fuel
oil,
or
any
grade
of
oil
to
0.05
percent
sulfur
diesel
(
i.
e.,
from
a
higher
sulfur
content
#
2
fuel
or
from
#
6
fuel,
to
CA
0.05
percent
sulfur
#
2
diesel);
(
b)
Switching
from
coal,
oil,
or
any
solid
fuel
to
natural
gas,
propane,
or
gasified
coal;
(
c)
Switching
from
coal
to
wood,
excluding
construction
or
demolition
waste,
chemical
or
pesticide
treated
wood,
and
other
forms
of
``
unclean''
wood;
(
d)
Switching
from
coal
to
#
2
fuel
oil
(
0.5
percent
maximum
sulfur
content);
and
(
e)
Switching
from
high
sulfur
coal
to
low
sulfur
coal
(
maximum
1.2
percent
sulfur
content).
(
vi)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
from
the
use
of
one
ozone
depleting
substance
(
ODS)
to
the
use
of
a
substance
with
a
lower
or
zero
ozone
depletion
potential
(
ODP),
including
changes
to
equipment
needed
to
accommodate
the
activity
or
project,
that
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
vi)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
productive
capacity
of
the
equipment
is
not
increased
as
a
result
of
the
activity
or
project.
(
b)
The
projected
usage
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODP­
weighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
To
make
this
determination,
follow
the
procedure
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
vi)(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
ODP
of
the
substances
by
consulting
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A,
appendices
A
and
B.
(
2)
Calculate
the
replaced
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
baseline
actual
usage
(
using
the
annualized
average
of
any
24
consecutive
months
of
usage
within
the
past
10
years)
by
the
ODP
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
3)
Calculate
the
projected
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
projected
annual
usage
of
the
new
substance
by
its
ODP.
(
4)
If
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
b)(
31)(
vi)(
b)(
2)
of
this
section
is
more
than
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
b)(
31)(
vi)(
b)(
3)
of
this
section,
then
the
projected
use
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODPweighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
32)
[
Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(
38)
Pollution
prevention
means
any
activity
that
through
process
changes,
product
reformulation
or
redesign,
or
substitution
of
less
polluting
raw
materials,
eliminates
or
reduces
the
release
of
air
pollutants
(
including
fugitive
emissions)
and
other
pollutants
to
the
environment
prior
to
recycling,
treatment,
or
disposal;
it
does
not
mean
recycling
(
other
than
certain
``
in­
process
recycling''
practices),
energy
recovery,
treatment,
or
disposal.
(
39)
Significant
emissions
increase
means,
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
an
increase
in
emissions
that
is
significant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section)
for
that
pollutant.
(
40)(
i)
Projected
actual
emissions
means
the
maximum
annual
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
an
existing
emissions
unit
is
projected
to
emit
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
in
any
one
of
the
5
years
(
12­
month
period)
following
the
date
the
unit
resumes
regular
operation
after
the
project,
or
in
any
one
of
the
10
years
following
that
date,
if
the
project
involves
increasing
the
emissions
unit's
design
capacity
or
its
potential
to
emit
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
and
full
utilization
of
the
unit
would
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase,
or
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
ii)
In
determining
the
projected
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
b)(
40)(
i)
of
this
section
(
before
beginning
actual
construction),
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source:
(
a)
Shall
consider
all
relevant
information,
including
but
not
limited
to,
historical
operational
data,
the
company's
own
representations,
the
company's
expected
business
activity
and
the
company's
highest
projections
of
business
activity,
the
company's
filings
with
the
State
or
Federal
regulatory
authorities,
and
compliance
plans
under
the
approved
plan;
and
(
b)
Shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions;
and
(
c)
Shall
exclude,
in
calculating
any
increase
in
emissions
that
results
from
the
particular
project,
that
portion
of
the
unit's
emissions
following
the
project
that
an
existing
unit
could
have
accommodated
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
used
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
b)(
47)
of
this
section
and
that
are
also
unrelated
to
the
particular
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00078
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80263
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
project,
including
any
increased
utilization
due
to
product
demand
growth;
or,
(
d)
In
lieu
of
using
the
method
set
out
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
40)(
ii)(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section,
may
elect
to
use
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit,
in
tons
per
year,
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section.
(
41)
Clean
Unit
means
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
BACT
or
LAER,
is
complying
with
such
BACT/
LAER
requirements,
and
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
regulations
approved
by
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
t)
of
this
section;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
by
a
reviewing
authority
as
a
Clean
Unit,
based
on
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section,
using
a
planapproved
permitting
process;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit
by
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
52.21
(
y)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
chapter.
(
42)
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
Program
(
PSD)
program
means
a
major
source
preconstruction
permit
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
incorporated
into
the
plan
to
implement
the
requirements
of
this
section,
or
the
program
in
§
52.21
of
this
chapter.
Any
permit
issued
under
such
a
program
is
a
major
NSR
permit.
(
43)
Continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
that
may
be
required
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
sample,
condition
(
if
applicable),
analyze,
and
provide
a
record
of
emissions
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
44)
Predictive
emissions
monitoring
system
(
PEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
calculate
and
record
the
mass
emissions
rate
(
for
example,
lb/
hr)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
45)
Continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
to
record
average
operational
parameter
value(
s)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
46)
Continuous
emissions
rate
monitoring
system
(
CERMS)
means
the
total
equipment
required
for
the
determination
and
recording
of
the
pollutant
mass
emissions
rate
(
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time).
(
47)
Baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
rate
of
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
47)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
For
any
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
5­
year
period
immediately
preceding
when
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
(
a)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
b)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
an
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
c)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
For
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
d)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraph
(
b)(
47)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
For
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit),
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
emissions
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
either
the
date
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project,
or
the
date
a
complete
permit
application
is
received
by
the
reviewing
authority
for
a
permit
required
either
under
this
section
or
under
a
plan
approved
by
the
Administrator,
whichever
is
earlier,
except
that
the
10­
year
period
shall
not
include
any
period
earlier
than
November
15,
1990.
(
a)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
b)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
an
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
c)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
emissions
that
would
have
exceeded
an
emission
limitation
with
which
the
major
stationary
source
must
currently
comply,
had
such
major
stationary
source
been
required
to
comply
with
such
limitations
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
However,
if
an
emission
limitation
is
part
of
a
maximum
achievable
control
technology
standard
that
the
Administrator
proposed
or
promulgated
under
part
63
of
this
chapter,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
need
only
be
adjusted
if
the
State
has
taken
credit
for
such
emissions
reductions
in
an
attainment
demonstration
or
maintenance
plan
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
G).
(
d)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
For
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
e)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraphs
(
b)(
47)(
ii)(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
For
a
new
emissions
unit,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
purposes
of
determining
the
emissions
increase
that
will
result
from
the
initial
construction
and
operation
of
such
unit
shall
equal
zero;
and
thereafter,
for
all
other
purposes,
shall
equal
the
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
iv)
For
a
PAL
for
a
stationary
source,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
for
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
units
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)(
i)
of
this
section,
for
other
existing
emissions
units
in
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00079
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80264
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)(
ii)
of
this
section,
and
for
a
new
emissions
unit
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
48)
[
Reserved]
(
49)
Regulated
NSR
pollutant,
for
purposes
of
this
section,
means
the
following:
(
i)
Any
pollutant
for
which
a
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
has
been
promulgated
and
any
constituents
or
precursors
for
such
pollutants
identified
by
the
Administrator
(
e.
g.,
volatile
organic
compounds
are
precursors
for
ozone);
(
ii)
Any
pollutant
that
is
subject
to
any
standard
promulgated
under
section
111
of
the
Act;
(
iii)
Any
Class
I
or
II
substance
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
title
VI
of
the
Act;
or
(
iv)
Any
pollutant
that
otherwise
is
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act;
except
that
any
or
all
hazardous
air
pollutants
either
listed
in
section
112
of
the
Act
or
added
to
the
list
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act,
which
have
not
been
delisted
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)(
3)
of
the
Act,
are
not
regulated
NSR
pollutants
unless
the
listed
hazardous
air
pollutant
is
also
regulated
as
a
constituent
or
precursor
of
a
general
pollutant
listed
under
section
108
of
the
Act.
(
50)
Reviewing
authority
means
the
State
air
pollution
control
agency,
local
agency,
other
State
agency,
Indian
tribe,
or
other
agency
authorized
by
the
Administrator
to
carry
out
a
permit
program
under
§
51.165
and
this
section,
or
the
Administrator
in
the
case
of
EPA­
implemented
permit
programs
under
§
52.21
of
this
chapter.
(
51)
Project
means
a
physical
change
in,
or
change
in
method
of
operation
of,
an
existing
major
stationary
source.
(
52)
Lowest
achievable
emission
rate
(
LAER)
is
as
defined
in
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
xiii).
*
*
*
*
*
(
i)
Exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(
5)
*
*
*
(
i)
*
*
*
(
g)
Fluorides
 
0.25
µ
g/
m3,
24­
hour
average;
(
h)
Total
reduced
sulfur
 
10
µ
g/
m3,
1­
hour
average
(
i)
Hydrogen
sulfide
 
0.2
µ
g/
m3,
1­
hour
average;
(
j)
Reduced
sulfur
compounds
 
10
µ
g/
m3,
1­
hour
average;
or
*
*
*
*
*
(
r)
*
*
*
(
3)
[
Reserved]
(
4)
[
Reserved]
(
5)
[
Reserved]
(
6)
Each
plan
shall
provide
that
the
following
specific
provisions
apply
to
projects
at
existing
emissions
units
at
a
major
stationary
source
(
other
than
projects
at
a
Clean
Unit
or
at
a
source
with
a
PAL)
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
a
project
that
is
not
a
part
of
a
major
modification
may
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
the
owner
or
operator
elects
to
use
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
40)(
ii)(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section
for
calculating
projected
actual
emissions.
Deviations
from
these
provisions
will
be
approved
only
if
the
State
specifically
demonstrates
that
the
submitted
provisions
are
more
stringent
than
or
at
least
as
stringent
in
all
respects
as
the
corresponding
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
r)(
6)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Before
beginning
actual
construction
of
the
project,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
document
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
following
information:
(
a)
A
description
of
the
project;
(
b)
Identification
of
the
emissions
unit(
s)
whose
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
could
be
affected
by
the
project;
and
(
c)
A
description
of
the
applicability
test
used
to
determine
that
the
project
is
not
a
major
modification
for
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
including
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
the
projected
actual
emissions,
the
amount
of
emissions
excluded
under
paragraph
(
b)(
40)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section
and
an
explanation
for
why
such
amount
was
excluded,
and
any
netting
calculations,
if
applicable.
(
ii)
If
the
emissions
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
before
beginning
actual
construction,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
a
copy
of
the
information
set
out
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section
to
the
reviewing
authority.
Nothing
in
this
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
ii)
shall
be
construed
to
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
unit
to
obtain
any
determination
from
the
reviewing
authority
before
beginning
actual
construction.
(
iii)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
monitor
the
emissions
of
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
that
could
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project
and
that
is
emitted
by
any
emissions
unit
identified
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section;
and
calculate
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year
on
a
calendar
year
basis,
for
a
period
of
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change,
or
for
a
period
of
10
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change
if
the
project
increases
the
design
capacity
or
potential
to
emit
of
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant
at
such
emissions
unit.
(
iv)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
each
year
during
which
records
must
be
generated
under
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section
setting
out
the
unit's
annual
emissions
during
the
calendar
year
that
preceded
submission
of
the
report.
(
v)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
unit
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
reviewing
authority
if
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
from
the
project
identified
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section,
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
c)
of
this
section)
by
a
significant
amount
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section)
for
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
and
if
such
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
c)
of
this
section.
Such
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
such
year.
The
report
shall
contain
the
following:
(
a)
The
name,
address
and
telephone
number
of
the
major
stationary
source;
(
b)
The
annual
emissions
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section;
and
(
c)
Any
other
information
that
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
to
include
in
the
report
(
e.
g.,
an
explanation
as
to
why
the
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection).
(
7)
Each
plan
shall
provide
that
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
make
the
information
required
to
be
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)
of
this
section
available
for
review
upon
request
for
inspection
by
the
reviewing
authority
or
the
general
public
pursuant
to
the
requirements
contained
in
§
70.4(
b)(
3)(
viii)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
t)
Clean
Unit
Test
for
emissions
units
that
are
subject
to
BACT
or
LAER.
The
plan
shall
provide
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
1)
through
(
9)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
t)
apply
to
any
emissions
unit
for
which
the
reviewing
authority
has
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00080
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80265
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
t)(
4)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
t)(
5)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
t)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
t)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
d)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
f)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Applicability
Test.
An
emissions
unit
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
t)(
5)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
t)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
re­
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
u)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
issued
through
the
applicable
PSD
program
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
applies
individually
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit.
(
i)
Permitting
requirement.
The
emissions
unit
must
have
received
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
and
be
able
to
provide
information
that
would
demonstrate
that
this
permitting
requirement
is
met.
(
ii)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
38)
of
this
section
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
3)(
ii)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
control
technology
achieves
the
BACT
or
LAER
level
of
emissions
reductions
as
determined
through
issuance
of
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
if
the
BACT
determination
resulted
in
no
requirement
to
reduce
emissions
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled,
new
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type.
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
expenses
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
an
emissions
unit.
(
iii)
Re­
qualifying
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
the
currentday
BACT
(
or
LAER),
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
3)(
i)
and
(
t)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
at
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
modification)
is
determined
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
t)(
4)(
i)
or
(
t)(
4)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
as
Clean
Units
by
implementing
a
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
or
3
years
after
the
issuance
date
of
the
major
NSR
permit,
whichever
is
earlier,
but
no
sooner
than
the
date
that
provisions
for
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
are
approved
by
the
Administrator
for
incorporation
into
the
plan
and
become
effective
for
the
State
in
which
the
unit
is
located.
(
ii)
Emissions
Units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
new,
major
NSR
permit
is
issued.
(
5)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
An
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
no
longer
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
affecting
the
emissions
unit
is,
or
is
part
of,
a
major
modification)
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
t)(
5)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraphs
(
t)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section
or
re­
qualifies
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
currentday
BACT
under
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date,
or
the
date
the
equipment
went
into
service,
whichever
is
earlier;
or,
it
expires
at
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
t)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
t)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section
using
an
existing
control
technology,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date;
or,
it
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
t)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
6)
Required
title
V
permit
content
for
a
Clean
Unit.
After
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed,
the
title
V
permit
for
the
major
stationary
source
must
include
the
following
terms
and
conditions
related
to
the
Clean
Unit
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
6)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00081
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80266
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
which
this
Clean
Unit
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
in
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
into
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
t)(
7)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
t)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
t)(
7)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
t)(
7)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
emissions
unit
has
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
the
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
the
BACT
that
is
recorded
in
the
major
NSR
permit,
and
subsequently
reflected
in
the
title
V
permit.
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
ii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
iii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
8)
Netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis''),
unless
such
use
occurs
before
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
9)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
redesignation
of
the
attainment
status
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
an
existing
Clean
Unit
designation
expires,
it
must
re­
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable
in
the
area.
(
u)
Clean
Unit
provisions
for
emissions
units
that
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
BACT.
The
plan
shall
provide
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
1)
through
(
11)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
u)
apply
to
emissions
units
which
do
not
qualify
as
Clean
Units
under
paragraph
(
t)
of
this
section,
but
which
are
achieving
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT,
as
determined
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
accordance
with
this
paragraph
(
u).
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
u)(
5)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
u)(
6)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
BACT,
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
u)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
BACT,
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
u)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00082
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80267
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
d)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iv)(
f)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
An
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
u)(
6)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
t)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section.
The
reviewing
authority
will
make
a
separate
Clean
Unit
designation
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit
for
which
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
38)
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
3)(
i)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
has
demonstrated
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
u)(
4)
of
this
section.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
if
its
emissions
are
not
reduced
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type
(
e.
g.,
if
the
BACT
determinations
to
which
it
is
compared
have
resulted
in
a
determination
that
no
control
measures
are
required).
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
to
retool
the
unit
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique.
(
ii)
Impact
of
emissions
from
the
unit.
The
reviewing
authority
must
determine
that
the
allowable
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
iii)
Date
of
installation.
An
emissions
unit
may
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
even
if
the
control
technology,
on
which
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
based,
was
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
to
implement
the
requirements
of
this
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iii).
However,
for
such
emissions
units,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
within
2
years
after
the
plan
requirements
become
effective.
For
technologies
installed
after
the
plan
requirements
become
effective,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
at
the
time
the
control
technology
is
installed.
(
iv)
Re­
qualifying
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
(
pursuant
to
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section)
that
demonstrates
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT,
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
3)(
i)(
a)
and
(
u)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Demonstrating
control
effectiveness
comparable
to
BACT.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
for
purposes
of
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section
according
to
either
paragraph
(
u)(
4)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
Paragraph
(
u)(
4)(
iii)
of
this
section
specifies
the
time
for
making
this
comparison.
(
i)
Comparison
to
previous
BACT
and
LAER
determinations.
The
Administrator
maintains
an
on­
line
data
base
of
previous
determinations
of
RACT,
BACT,
and
LAER
in
the
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
Clearinghouse
(
RBLC).
The
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
presumed
to
be
comparable
to
BACT
if
it
achieves
an
emission
limitation
that
is
equal
to
or
better
than
the
average
of
the
emission
limitations
achieved
by
all
the
sources
for
which
a
BACT
or
LAER
determination
has
been
made
within
the
preceding
5
years
and
entered
into
the
RBLC,
and
for
which
it
is
technically
feasible
to
apply
the
BACT
or
LAER
control
technology
to
the
emissions
unit.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
also
compare
this
presumption
to
any
additional
BACT
or
LAER
determinations
of
which
it
is
aware,
and
shall
consider
any
information
on
achieved­
in­
practice
pollution
control
technologies
provided
during
the
public
comment
period,
to
determine
whether
any
presumptive
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
is
correct.
(
ii)
The
substantially­
as­
effective
test.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT.
In
addition,
any
other
person
may
present
evidence
related
to
whether
the
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT
during
the
public
participation
process
required
under
paragraph
(
u)(
7)
of
this
section.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
consider
such
evidence
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
determine
whether
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT.
(
iii)
Time
of
comparison.
(
a)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph.
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
whose
control
technology
is
installed
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph
(
u)
may,
at
its
option,
either
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
BACT
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
or
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT
requirements.
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
will
depend
on
which
option
the
owner
or
operator
uses,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
u)(
6)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
after
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
implementing
this
paragraph.
The
owner
or
operator
must
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT
requirements.
(
5)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
involving
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00083
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80268
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
modification)
is
the
date
that
the
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
u)(
7)
of
this
section
is
issued
or
the
date
that
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
whichever
is
later.
(
6)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
If
the
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
BACT
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
date
that
the
control
technology
was
installed.
For
all
other
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
as
determined
according
to
paragraph
(
u)(
5)
of
this
section.
In
addition,
for
all
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
u)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Procedures
for
designating
emissions
units
as
Clean
Units.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
designate
an
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit
only
by
issuing
a
permit
through
a
permitting
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
that
conforms
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
51.160
through
51.164
of
this
chapter,
including
requirements
for
public
notice
of
the
proposed
Clean
Unit
designation
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
Such
permit
must
also
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
u)(
8)
of
this
section.
(
8)
Required
permit
content.
The
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
u)(
7)
of
this
section
shall
include
the
terms
and
conditions
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
8)(
i)
through
(
vi).
Such
terms
and
conditions
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
major
stationary
source's
title
V
permit
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
which
the
Clean
Unit
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
reviewing
authority
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
emission
limitations
necessary
to
assure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
BACT,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
u)(
9)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
u)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
u)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
u)(
9)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
reviewing
authority
has
designated
the
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
the
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
to
ensure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
emission
control
comparable
to
BACT.
(
ii)
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
that
is
comparable
to
BACT
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
iii)
[
Reserved]
(
iv)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
v)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
10)
Netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis'')
unless
such
use
occurs
before
the
effective
date
of
plan
requirements
adopted
to
implement
this
paragraph
(
u)
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
emissions
unit's
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
11)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
redesignation
of
the
attainment
designation
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
a
Clean
Unit's
designation
expires
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraphs
(
t)(
2)(
iii)
and
(
u)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
it
must
re­

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00084
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80269
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable.
(
v)
PCP
exclusion
procedural
requirements.
Each
plan
shall
include
provisions
for
PCPs
equivalent
to
those
contained
in
paragraphs
(
v)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Before
an
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
a
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
either
submit
a
notice
to
the
reviewing
authority
if
the
project
is
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
or
if
the
project
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
a
permit
application
and
obtain
approval
to
use
the
PCP
exclusion
from
the
reviewing
authority
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
v)(
5)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
whether
the
owner
or
operator
submits
a
notice
or
a
permit
application,
the
project
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
v)(
2)
of
this
section,
and
the
notice
or
permit
application
must
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraph
(
v)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
2)
Any
project
that
relies
on
the
PCP
exclusion
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
v)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Environmentally
beneficial
analysis.
The
environmental
benefit
from
the
emission
reductions
of
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
must
outweigh
the
environmental
detriment
of
emissions
increases
in
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
A
statement
that
a
technology
from
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
is
being
used
shall
be
presumed
to
satisfy
this
requirement.
(
ii)
Air
quality
analysis.
The
emissions
increases
from
the
project
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
3)
Content
of
notice
or
permit
application.
In
the
notice
or
permit
application
sent
to
the
reviewing
authority,
the
owner
or
operator
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
listed
in
paragraphs
(
v)(
3)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
description
of
the
project.
(
ii)
The
potential
emissions
increases
and
decreases
of
any
pollutant
regulated
under
the
Act
and
the
projected
emissions
increases
and
decreases
using
the
methodology
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
vi)
of
this
section,
that
will
result
from
the
project,
and
a
copy
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
required
by
paragraph
(
v)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
A
description
of
monitoring
and
recordkeeping,
and
all
other
methods,
to
be
used
on
an
ongoing
basis
to
demonstrate
that
the
project
is
environmentally
beneficial.
Methods
should
be
sufficient
to
meet
the
requirements
in
part
70
and
part
71.
(
iv)
A
certification
that
the
project
will
be
designed
and
operated
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
v)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application,
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
v)
Demonstration
that
the
PCP
will
not
have
an
adverse
air
quality
impact
(
e.
g.,
modeling,
screening
level
modeling
results,
or
a
statement
that
the
collateral
emissions
increase
is
included
within
the
parameters
used
in
the
most
recent
modeling
exercise)
as
required
by
paragraph
(
v)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section.
An
air
quality
impact
analysis
is
not
required
for
any
pollutant
that
will
not
experience
a
significant
emissions
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project.
(
4)
Notice
process
for
listed
projects.
For
projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
the
project
immediately
after
notice
is
sent
to
the
reviewing
authority
(
unless
otherwise
prohibited
under
requirements
of
the
applicable
plan).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
respond
to
any
requests
by
its
reviewing
authority
for
additional
information
that
the
reviewing
authority
determines
is
necessary
to
evaluate
the
suitability
of
the
project
for
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
5)
Permit
process
for
unlisted
projects.
Before
an
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
a
PCP
project
that
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
31)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
the
project
must
be
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority
and
recorded
in
a
plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
using
procedures
that
are
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
reviewing
authority
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval,
with
access
to
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
the
air
quality
analysis,
and
provide
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
the
public
and
the
Administrator
to
submit
comments.
The
reviewing
authority
must
address
all
material
comments
received
by
the
end
of
the
comment
period
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Operational
requirements.
Upon
installation
of
the
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
v)(
6)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
General
duty.
The
owner
or
operator
must
operate
the
PCP
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
v)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application
required
by
paragraph
(
v)(
3),
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
ii)
Recordkeeping.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
copies
on
site
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis,
the
air
quality
impacts
analysis,
and
monitoring
and
other
emission
records
to
prove
that
the
PCP
operated
consistent
with
the
general
duty
requirements
in
paragraph
(
v)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
Permit
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
any
provisions
in
the
plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
related
to
use
and
approval
of
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
iv)
Generation
of
Emission
Reduction
Credits.
Emission
reductions
created
by
a
PCP
shall
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
unless
the
emissions
unit
further
reduces
emissions
after
qualifying
for
the
PCP
exclusion
(
e.
g.,
taking
an
operational
restriction
on
the
hours
of
operation.)
The
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
of
reduction
which
was
used
to
qualify
for
the
PCP
exclusion
and
the
new
emission
limitation
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
w)
Actuals
PALs.
The
plan
shall
provide
for
PALs
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
(
i)
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
the
use
of
an
actuals
PAL
for
any
existing
major
stationary
source
if
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00085
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80270
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
PAL
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
The
term
``
PAL''
shall
mean
``
actuals
PAL''
throughout
paragraph
(
w)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
maintains
its
total
source­
wide
emissions
below
the
PAL
level,
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section,
and
complies
with
the
PAL
permit:
(
a)
Is
not
a
major
modification
for
the
PAL
pollutant;
(
b)
Does
not
have
to
be
approved
through
the
plan's
major
NSR
program;
and
(
c)
Is
not
subject
to
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
r)(
2)
of
this
section
(
restrictions
on
relaxing
enforceable
emission
limitations
that
the
major
stationary
source
used
to
avoid
applicability
of
the
major
NSR
program).
(
iii)
Except
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
w)(
1)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section,
a
major
stationary
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
all
applicable
Federal
or
State
requirements,
emission
limitations,
and
work
practice
requirements
that
were
established
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
PAL.
(
2)
Definitions.
The
plan
shall
use
the
definitions
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
2)(
i)
through
(
xi)
of
this
section
for
the
purpose
of
developing
and
implementing
regulations
that
authorize
the
use
of
actuals
PALs
consistent
with
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
When
a
term
is
not
defined
in
these
paragraphs,
it
shall
have
the
meaning
given
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act.
(
i)
Actuals
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source
means
a
PAL
based
on
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)
of
this
section)
of
all
emissions
units
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section)
at
the
source,
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
Allowable
emissions
means
``
allowable
emissions''
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
16)
of
this
section,
except
as
this
definition
is
modified
according
to
paragraphs
(
w)(
2)(
ii)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
allowable
emissions
for
any
emissions
unit
shall
be
calculated
considering
any
emission
limitations
that
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
on
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
b)
An
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit
shall
be
determined
using
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section,
except
that
the
words
``
or
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter''
should
be
added
after
``
federally
enforceable.''
(
iii)
Small
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
less
than
the
significant
level
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
(
iv)
Major
emissions
unit
means:
(
a)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
attainment
area;
or
(
b)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
major
source
threshold
for
the
PAL
pollutant
as
defined
by
the
Act
for
nonattainment
areas.
For
example,
in
accordance
with
the
definition
of
major
stationary
source
in
section
182(
c)
of
the
Act,
an
emissions
unit
would
be
a
major
emissions
unit
for
VOC
if
the
emissions
unit
is
located
in
a
serious
ozone
nonattainment
area
and
it
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
50
or
more
tons
of
VOC
per
year.
(
v)
Plantwide
applicability
limitation
(
PAL)
means
an
emission
limitation
expressed
in
tons
per
year,
for
a
pollutant
at
a
major
stationary
source,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
and
established
source­
wide
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
PAL
effective
date
generally
means
the
date
of
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
However,
the
PAL
effective
date
for
an
increased
PAL
is
the
date
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
vii)
PAL
effective
period
means
the
period
beginning
with
the
PAL
effective
date
and
ending
10
years
later.
(
viii)
PAL
major
modification
means,
notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
(
the
definitions
for
major
modification
and
net
emissions
increase),
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
PAL
source
that
causes
it
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
a
level
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
PAL.
(
ix)
PAL
permit
means
the
major
NSR
permit,
the
minor
NSR
permit,
or
the
State
operating
permit
under
a
program
that
is
approved
into
the
plan,
or
the
title
V
permit
issued
by
the
reviewing
authority
that
establishes
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source.
(
x)
PAL
pollutant
means
the
pollutant
for
which
a
PAL
is
established
at
a
major
stationary
source.
(
xi)
Significant
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
a
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
significant
level
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower)
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
but
less
than
the
amount
that
would
qualify
the
unit
as
a
major
emissions
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
w)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Permit
application
requirements.
As
part
of
a
permit
application
requesting
a
PAL,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
the
following
information
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section
to
the
reviewing
authority
for
approval.
(
i)
A
list
of
all
emissions
units
at
the
source
designated
as
small,
significant
or
major
based
on
their
potential
to
emit.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
indicate
which,
if
any,
Federal
or
State
applicable
requirements,
emission
limitations,
or
work
practices
apply
to
each
unit.
(
ii)
Calculations
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
with
supporting
documentation).
Baseline
actual
emissions
are
to
include
emissions
associated
not
only
with
operation
of
the
unit,
but
also
emissions
associated
with
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
iii)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
proposes
to
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
as
required
by
paragraph
(
w)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
4)
General
requirements
for
establishing
PALs.
(
i)
The
plan
allows
the
reviewing
authority
to
establish
a
PAL
at
a
major
stationary
source,
provided
that
at
a
minimum,
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
4)(
i)(
a)
through
(
g)
of
this
section
are
met.
(
a)
The
PAL
shall
impose
an
annual
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
for
the
entire
major
stationary
source.
For
each
month
during
the
PAL
effective
period
after
the
first
12
months
of
establishing
a
PAL,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
monthly
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
for
the
previous
12
consecutive
months
is
less
than
the
PAL
(
a
12­
month
average,
rolled
monthly).
For
each
month
during
the
first
11
months
from
the
PAL
effective
date,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
preceding
monthly
emissions
from
the
PAL
effective
date
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
is
less
than
the
PAL.
(
b)
The
PAL
shall
be
established
in
a
PAL
permit
that
meets
the
public
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00086
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80271
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
participation
requirements
in
paragraph
(
w)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
c)
The
PAL
permit
shall
contain
all
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
w)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
d)
The
PAL
shall
include
fugitive
emissions,
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
from
all
emissions
units
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
e)
Each
PAL
shall
regulate
emissions
of
only
one
pollutant.
(
f)
Each
PAL
shall
have
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
g)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
with
a
PAL
shall
comply
with
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
provided
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
12)
through
(
14)
of
this
section
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
through
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
ii)
At
no
time
(
during
or
after
the
PAL
effective
period)
are
emissions
reductions
of
a
PAL
pollutant
that
occur
during
the
PAL
effective
period
creditable
as
decreases
for
purposes
of
offsets
under
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
chapter
unless
the
level
of
the
PAL
is
reduced
by
the
amount
of
such
emissions
reductions
and
such
reductions
would
be
creditable
in
the
absence
of
the
PAL.
(
5)
Public
participation
requirements
for
PALs.
PALs
for
existing
major
stationary
sources
shall
be
established,
renewed,
or
increased,
through
a
procedure
that
is
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
reviewing
authority
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval
of
a
PAL
permit
and
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
submittal
of
public
comment.
The
reviewing
authority
must
address
all
material
comments
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Setting
the
10­
year
actuals
PAL
level.
The
plan
shall
provide
that
the
actuals
PAL
level
for
a
major
stationary
source
shall
be
established
as
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
47)
of
this
section)
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
each
emissions
unit
at
the
source;
plus
an
amount
equal
to
the
applicable
significant
level
for
the
PAL
pollutant
under
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
under
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
When
establishing
the
actuals
PAL
level,
for
a
PAL
pollutant,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
existing
emissions
units.
However,
a
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
may
be
used
for
each
different
PAL
pollutant.
Emissions
associated
with
units
that
were
permanently
shutdown
after
this
24­
month
period
must
be
subtracted
from
the
PAL
level.
Emissions
from
units
on
which
actual
construction
began
after
the
24­
month
period
must
be
added
to
the
PAL
level
in
an
amount
equal
to
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
units.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
specify
a
reduced
PAL
level(
s)
(
in
tons/
yr)
in
the
PAL
permit
to
become
effective
on
the
future
compliance
date(
s)
of
any
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirement(
s)
that
the
reviewing
authority
is
aware
of
prior
to
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
For
instance,
if
the
source
owner
or
operator
will
be
required
to
reduce
emissions
from
industrial
boilers
in
half
from
baseline
emissions
of
60
ppm
NOX
to
a
new
rule
limit
of
30
ppm,
then
the
permit
shall
contain
a
future
effective
PAL
level
that
is
equal
to
the
current
PAL
level
reduced
by
half
of
the
original
baseline
emissions
of
such
unit(
s).
(
7)
Contents
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
plan
shall
require
that
the
PAL
permit
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
7)(
i)
through
(
x)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
PAL
pollutant
and
the
applicable
source­
wide
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
effective
date
and
the
expiration
date
of
the
PAL
(
PAL
effective
period).
(
iii)
Specification
in
the
PAL
permit
that
if
a
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
applies
to
renew
a
PAL
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
w)(
10)
of
this
section
before
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
not
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period.
It
shall
remain
in
effect
until
a
revised
PAL
permit
is
issued
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
iv)
A
requirement
that
emission
calculations
for
compliance
purposes
include
emissions
from
startups,
shutdowns
and
malfunctions.
(
v)
A
requirement
that,
once
the
PAL
expires,
the
major
stationary
source
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
w)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
as
required
by
paragraph
(
w)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
vii)
A
requirement
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
monitor
all
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
under
paragraph
(
w)(
13)
of
this
section.
(
viii)
A
requirement
to
retain
the
records
required
under
paragraph
(
w)(
13)
of
this
section
on
site.
Such
records
may
be
retained
in
an
electronic
format.
(
ix)
A
requirement
to
submit
the
reports
required
under
paragraph
(
w)(
14)
of
this
section
by
the
required
deadlines.
(
x)
Any
other
requirements
that
the
reviewing
authority
deems
necessary
to
implement
and
enforce
the
PAL.
(
8)
PAL
effective
period
and
reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
plan
shall
require
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
8)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
PAL
effective
period.
The
reviewing
authority
shall
specify
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
ii)
Reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
(
a)
During
the
PAL
effective
period,
the
plan
shall
require
the
reviewing
authority
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
to:
(
1)
Correct
typographical/
calculation
errors
made
in
setting
the
PAL
or
reflect
a
more
accurate
determination
of
emissions
used
to
establish
the
PAL;
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
creates
creditable
emissions
reductions
for
use
as
offsets
under
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
chapter;
and
(
3)
Revise
the
PAL
to
reflect
an
increase
in
the
PAL
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
w)(
11)
of
this
section.
(
b)
The
plan
shall
provide
the
reviewing
authority
discretion
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
for
the
following:
(
1)
Reduce
the
PAL
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
requirements
(
for
example,
NSPS)
with
compliance
dates
after
the
PAL
effective
date;
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
consistent
with
any
other
requirement,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
and
that
the
State
may
impose
on
the
major
stationary
source
under
the
plan;
and
(
3)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
a
reduction
is
necessary
to
avoid
causing
or
contributing
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
to
an
adverse
impact
on
an
AQRV
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
c)
Except
for
the
permit
reopening
in
paragraph
(
w)(
8)(
ii)(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
for
the
correction
of
typographical/
calculation
errors
that
do
not
increase
the
PAL
level,
all
reopenings
shall
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
public
participation
requirements
of
paragraph
(
w)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Expiration
of
a
PAL.
Any
PAL
that
is
not
renewed
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
w)(
10)
of
this
section
shall
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00087
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80272
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
i)
Each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units)
that
existed
under
the
PAL
shall
comply
with
an
allowable
emission
limitation
under
a
revised
permit
established
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
9)(
i)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Within
the
time
frame
specified
for
PAL
renewals
in
paragraph
(
w)(
10)(
ii)
of
this
section,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
proposed
allowable
emission
limitation
for
each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
if
such
a
distribution
is
more
appropriate
as
decided
by
the
reviewing
authority)
by
distributing
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
for
the
major
stationary
source
among
each
of
the
emissions
units
that
existed
under
the
PAL.
If
the
PAL
had
not
yet
been
adjusted
for
an
applicable
requirement
that
became
effective
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
w)(
10)(
v)
of
this
section,
such
distribution
shall
be
made
as
if
the
PAL
had
been
adjusted.
(
b)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
decide
whether
and
how
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
will
be
distributed
and
issue
a
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
the
reviewing
authority
determines
is
appropriate.
(
ii)
Each
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation
on
a
12­
month
rolling
basis.
The
reviewing
authority
may
approve
the
use
of
monitoring
systems
(
source
testing,
emission
factors,
etc.)
other
than
CEMS,
CERMS,
PEMS
or
CPMS
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation.
(
iii)
Until
the
reviewing
authority
issues
the
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
w)(
9)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section,
the
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
a
source­
wide,
multi­
unit
emissions
cap
equivalent
to
the
level
of
the
PAL
emission
limitation.
(
iv)
Any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
the
major
stationary
source
will
be
subject
to
major
NSR
requirements
if
such
change
meets
the
definition
of
major
modification
in
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
v)
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
continue
to
comply
with
any
State
or
Federal
applicable
requirements
(
BACT,
RACT,
NSPS,
etc.)
that
may
have
applied
either
during
the
PAL
effective
period
or
prior
to
the
PAL
effective
period
except
for
those
emission
limitations
that
had
been
established
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
2)
of
this
section,
but
were
eliminated
by
the
PAL
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
w)(
1)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section.
(
10)
Renewal
of
a
PAL.
(
i)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
follow
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraph
(
w)(
5)
of
this
section
in
approving
any
request
to
renew
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source,
and
shall
provide
both
the
proposed
PAL
level
and
a
written
rationale
for
the
proposed
PAL
level
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment.
During
such
public
review,
any
person
may
propose
a
PAL
level
for
the
source
for
consideration
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
ii)
Application
deadline.
The
plan
shall
require
that
a
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
timely
application
to
the
reviewing
authority
to
request
renewal
of
a
PAL.
A
timely
application
is
one
that
is
submitted
at
least
6
months
prior
to,
but
not
earlier
than
18
months
from,
the
date
of
permit
expiration.
This
deadline
for
application
submittal
is
to
ensure
that
the
permit
will
not
expire
before
the
permit
is
renewed.
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
submits
a
complete
application
to
renew
the
PAL
within
this
time
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
continue
to
be
effective
until
the
revised
permit
with
the
renewed
PAL
is
issued.
(
iii)
Application
requirements.
The
application
to
renew
a
PAL
permit
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
10)(
iii)
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
b)
A
proposed
PAL
level.
(
c)
The
sum
of
the
potential
to
emit
of
all
emissions
units
under
the
PAL
(
with
supporting
documentation).
(
d)
Any
other
information
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
the
reviewing
authority
to
consider
in
determining
the
appropriate
level
for
renewing
the
PAL.
(
iv)
PAL
adjustment.
In
determining
whether
and
how
to
adjust
the
PAL,
the
reviewing
authority
shall
consider
the
options
outlined
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
10)(
iv)
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
However,
in
no
case
may
any
such
adjustment
fail
to
comply
with
paragraph
(
w)(
10)(
iv)(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
If
the
emissions
level
calculated
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
w)(
6)
of
this
section
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
the
reviewing
authority
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
without
considering
the
factors
set
forth
in
paragraph
(
w)(
10)(
iv)(
b)
of
this
section;
or
(
b)
The
reviewing
authority
may
set
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
it
determines
to
be
more
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
or
that
it
determines
to
be
appropriate
considering
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
desire
to
reward
or
encourage
the
source's
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
or
other
factors
as
specifically
identified
by
the
reviewing
authority
in
its
written
rationale.
(
c)
Notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
w)(
10)(
iv)
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section:
(
1)
If
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
major
stationary
source
is
less
than
the
PAL,
the
reviewing
authority
shall
adjust
the
PAL
to
a
level
no
greater
than
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
source;
and
(
2)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
not
approve
a
renewed
PAL
level
higher
than
the
current
PAL,
unless
the
major
stationary
source
has
complied
with
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
w)(
11)
of
this
section
(
increasing
a
PAL).
(
v)
If
the
compliance
date
for
a
State
or
Federal
requirement
that
applies
to
the
PAL
source
occurs
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
if
the
reviewing
authority
has
not
already
adjusted
for
such
requirement,
the
PAL
shall
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
PAL
permit
renewal
or
title
V
permit
renewal,
whichever
occurs
first.
(
11)
Increasing
a
PAL
during
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
i)
The
plan
shall
require
that
the
reviewing
authority
may
increase
a
PAL
emission
limitation
only
if
the
major
stationary
source
complies
with
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
11)(
i)
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
complete
application
to
request
an
increase
in
the
PAL
limit
for
a
PAL
major
modification.
Such
application
shall
identify
the
emissions
unit(
s)
contributing
to
the
increase
in
emissions
so
as
to
cause
the
major
stationary
source's
emissions
to
equal
or
exceed
its
PAL.
(
b)
As
part
of
this
application,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
demonstrate
that
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls,
plus
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
of
the
new
or
modified
emissions
unit(
s),
exceeds
the
PAL.
The
level
of
control
that
would
result
from
BACT
equivalent
controls
on
each
significant
or
major
emissions
unit
shall
be
determined
by
conducting
a
new
BACT
analysis
at
the
time
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
34
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00088
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80273
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
application
is
submitted,
unless
the
emissions
unit
is
currently
required
to
comply
with
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
was
established
within
the
preceding
10
years.
In
such
a
case,
the
assumed
control
level
for
that
emissions
unit
shall
be
equal
to
the
level
of
BACT
or
LAER
with
which
that
emissions
unit
must
currently
comply.
(
c)
The
owner
or
operator
obtains
a
major
NSR
permit
for
all
emissions
unit(
s)
identified
in
paragraph
(
w)(
11)(
i)(
a)
of
this
section,
regardless
of
the
magnitude
of
the
emissions
increase
resulting
from
them
(
that
is,
no
significant
levels
apply).
These
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
any
emissions
requirements
resulting
from
the
major
NSR
process
(
for
example,
BACT),
even
though
they
have
also
become
subject
to
the
PAL
or
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
PAL.
(
d)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
that
the
increased
PAL
level
shall
be
effective
on
the
day
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
The
reviewing
authority
shall
calculate
the
new
PAL
as
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
for
each
modified
or
new
emissions
unit,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
(
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
w)(
11)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section),
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units.
(
iii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
be
revised
to
reflect
the
increased
PAL
level
pursuant
to
the
public
notice
requirements
of
paragraph
(
w)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
12)
Monitoring
requirements
for
PALs.
(
i)
General
requirements.
(
a)
Each
PAL
permit
must
contain
enforceable
requirements
for
the
monitoring
system
that
accurately
determines
plantwide
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time.
Any
monitoring
system
authorized
for
use
in
the
PAL
permit
must
be
based
on
sound
science
and
meet
generally
acceptable
scientific
procedures
for
data
quality
and
manipulation.
Additionally,
the
information
generated
by
such
system
must
meet
minimum
legal
requirements
for
admissibility
in
a
judicial
proceeding
to
enforce
the
PAL
permit.
(
b)
The
PAL
monitoring
system
must
employ
one
or
more
of
the
four
general
monitoring
approaches
meeting
the
minimum
requirements
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
12)(
ii)
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section
and
must
be
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
c)
Notwithstanding
paragraph
(
w)(
12)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section,
you
may
also
employ
an
alternative
monitoring
approach
that
meets
paragraph
(
w)(
12)(
i)(
a)
of
this
section
if
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
(
d)
Failure
to
use
a
monitoring
system
that
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section
renders
the
PAL
invalid.
(
ii)
Minimum
performance
requirements
for
approved
monitoring
approaches.
The
following
are
acceptable
general
monitoring
approaches
when
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
minimum
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
ix)
of
this
section:
(
a)
Mass
balance
calculations
for
activities
using
coatings
or
solvents;
(
b)
CEMS;
(
c)
CPMS
or
PEMS;
and
(
d)
Emission
factors.
(
iii)
Mass
balance
calculations.
An
owner
or
operator
using
mass
balance
calculations
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
from
activities
using
coating
or
solvents
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
Provide
a
demonstrated
means
of
validating
the
published
content
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
all
materials
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit;
(
b)
Assume
that
the
emissions
unit
emits
all
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
any
raw
material
or
fuel
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
if
it
cannot
otherwise
be
accounted
for
in
the
process;
and
(
c)
Where
the
vendor
of
a
material
or
fuel,
which
is
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
publishes
a
range
of
pollutant
content
from
such
material,
the
owner
or
operator
must
use
the
highest
value
of
the
range
to
calculate
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
there
is
site­
specific
data
or
a
site­
specific
monitoring
program
to
support
another
content
within
the
range.
(
iv)
CEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
CEMS
must
comply
with
applicable
Performance
Specifications
found
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B;
and
(
b)
CEMS
must
sample,
analyze,
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
v)
CPMS
or
PEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CPMS
or
PEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
The
CPMS
or
the
PEMS
must
be
based
on
current
site­
specific
data
demonstrating
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
across
the
range
of
operation
of
the
emissions
unit;
and
(
b)
Each
CPMS
or
PEMS
must
sample,
analyze,
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes,
or
at
another
less
frequent
interval
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority,
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
vi)
Emission
factors.
An
owner
or
operator
using
emission
factors
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
All
emission
factors
shall
be
adjusted,
if
appropriate,
to
account
for
the
degree
of
uncertainty
or
limitations
in
the
factors'
development;
(
b)
The
emissions
unit
shall
operate
within
the
designated
range
of
use
for
the
emission
factor,
if
applicable;
and
(
c)
If
technically
practicable,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
significant
emissions
unit
that
relies
on
an
emission
factor
to
calculate
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
conduct
validation
testing
to
determine
a
sitespecific
emission
factor
within
6
months
of
PAL
permit
issuance,
unless
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
testing
is
not
required.
(
vii)
A
source
owner
or
operator
must
record
and
report
maximum
potential
emissions
without
considering
enforceable
emission
limitations
or
operational
restrictions
for
an
emissions
unit
during
any
period
of
time
that
there
is
no
monitoring
data,
unless
another
method
for
determining
emissions
during
such
periods
is
specified
in
the
PAL
permit.
(
viii)
Notwithstanding
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section,
where
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
cannot
demonstrate
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
rate
at
all
operating
points
of
the
emissions
unit,
the
reviewing
authority
shall,
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance:
(
a)
Establish
default
value(
s)
for
determining
compliance
with
the
PAL
based
on
the
highest
potential
emissions
reasonably
estimated
at
such
operating
point(
s);
or
(
b)
Determine
that
operation
of
the
emissions
unit
during
operating
conditions
when
there
is
no
correlation
between
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
is
a
violation
of
the
PAL.
(
ix)
Re­
validation.
All
data
used
to
establish
the
PAL
pollutant
must
be
revalidated
through
performance
testing
or
other
scientifically
valid
means
approved
by
the
reviewing
authority.
Such
testing
must
occur
at
least
once
every
5
years
after
issuance
of
the
PAL.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
17:
13
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00089
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80274
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
13)
Recordkeeping
requirements.
(
i)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
all
records
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
any
requirement
of
paragraph
(
w)
of
this
section
and
of
the
PAL,
including
a
determination
of
each
emissions
unit's
12­
month
rolling
total
emissions,
for
5
years
from
the
date
of
such
record.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
following
records,
for
the
duration
of
the
PAL
effective
period
plus
5
years:
(
a)
A
copy
of
the
PAL
permit
application
and
any
applications
for
revisions
to
the
PAL;
and
(
b)
Each
annual
certification
of
compliance
pursuant
to
title
V
and
the
data
relied
on
in
certifying
the
compliance.
(
14)
Reporting
and
notification
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
semi­
annual
monitoring
reports
and
prompt
deviation
reports
to
the
reviewing
authority
in
accordance
with
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program.
The
reports
shall
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
14)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Semi­
annual
report.
The
semiannual
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
reviewing
authority
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
each
reporting
period.
This
report
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
14)(
i)(
a)
through
(
g)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number.
(
b)
Total
annual
emissions
(
tons/
year)
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
in
the
reporting
period
recorded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
w)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
c)
All
data
relied
upon,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
Quality
Assurance
or
Quality
Control
data,
in
calculating
the
monthly
and
annual
PAL
pollutant
emissions.
(
d)
A
list
of
any
emissions
units
modified
or
added
to
the
major
stationary
source
during
the
preceding
6­
month
period.
(
e)
The
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
any
deviations
or
monitoring
malfunctions
(
other
than
the
time
associated
with
zero
and
span
calibration
checks),
and
any
corrective
action
taken.
(
f)
A
notification
of
a
shutdown
of
any
monitoring
system,
whether
the
shutdown
was
permanent
or
temporary,
the
reason
for
the
shutdown,
the
anticipated
date
that
the
monitoring
system
will
be
fully
operational
or
replaced
with
another
monitoring
system,
and
whether
the
emissions
unit
monitored
by
the
monitoring
system
continued
to
operate,
and
the
calculation
of
the
emissions
of
the
pollutant
or
the
number
determined
by
method
included
in
the
permit,
as
provided
by
paragraph
(
w)(
12)(
vii)
of
this
section.
(
g)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
ii)
Deviation
report.
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
promptly
submit
reports
of
any
deviations
or
exceedance
of
the
PAL
requirements,
including
periods
where
no
monitoring
is
available.
A
report
submitted
pursuant
to
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter
shall
satisfy
this
reporting
requirement.
The
deviation
reports
shall
be
submitted
within
the
time
limits
prescribed
by
the
applicable
program
implementing
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter.
The
reports
shall
contain
the
following
information:
(
a)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number;
(
b)
The
PAL
requirement
that
experienced
the
deviation
or
that
was
exceeded;
(
c)
Emissions
resulting
from
the
deviation
or
the
exceedance;
and
(
d)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
iii)
Re­
validation
results.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
to
the
reviewing
authority
the
results
of
any
re­
validation
test
or
method
within
three
months
after
completion
of
such
test
or
method.
(
15)
Transition
requirements.
(
i)
No
reviewing
authority
may
issue
a
PAL
that
does
not
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section
after
the
Administrator
has
approved
regulations
incorporating
these
requirements
into
a
plan.
(
ii)
The
reviewing
authority
may
supersede
any
PAL
which
was
established
prior
to
the
date
of
approval
of
the
plan
by
the
Administrator
with
a
PAL
that
complies
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
w)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
x)
If
any
provision
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
any
person
or
circumstance,
is
held
invalid,
the
remainder
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
persons
or
circumstances
other
than
those
as
to
which
it
is
held
invalid,
shall
not
be
affected
thereby.
PART
52
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
52
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

Subpart
A
 
[
Amended]

2.
In
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
1)(
i)(
b)
and
(
b)(
5),
remove
the
words
``
any
air
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act,''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant.''
3.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
section
52.21
is
amended:
a.
By
redesignating
paragraph
(
a)
as
paragraph
(
a)(
1).
b.
By
adding
paragraph
(
a)(
2).
c.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii).
d.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
2)(
iii)(
h).
e.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
2)(
iv).
f.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
i).
g.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
iii)
and
(
iv).
h.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
vi)(
b)
and
(
c).
i.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
vi)(
d).
j.
By
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
ix).
k.
By
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)
and
(
8).
l.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
13).
m.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
21).
n.
By
removing
the
following
items
from
the
list
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)(
i):
``
Asbestos:
0.007
tpy'';
``
Beryllium:
0.0004
tpy'';
``
Mercury:
0.1
tpy'';
and
``
Vinyl
Chloride:
1
tpy''.
o.
By
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
32).
p.
By
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
b)(
33).
q.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
b)(
39)
through
(
48),
adding
and
reserving
paragraph
(
b)(
49),
and
by
adding
paragraphs
(
b)(
50)
through
(
b)(
54).
r.
By
revising
the
introductory
text
of
paragraph
(
i).
s.
By
removing
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
3).
t.
By
redesignating
paragraphs
(
i)(
4)
through
(
13)
as
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
10).
u.
By
removing
the
following
items
from
the
list
in
newly
redesignated
paragraph
(
i)(
5)(
i):
``
Mercury
 
0.25
µ
g/
m3,
24­
hour
average'';
``
Beryllium
 
0.001
µ
g/
m3,
24­
hour
average'';
``
Vinyl
chloride
 
15
µ
g/
m3,
24­
hour
average''.
v.
By
adding
and
reserving
paragraphs
(
r)(
5)
and
adding
paragraphs
(
r)(
6)
through
(
7).
w.
By
adding
paragraphs
(
x)
through
(
bb).
4.
In
addition
to
the
amendments
set
forth
above,
in
40
CFR
52.21,
remove
the
words
``
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act''
and
add,
in
their
place,
the
words
``
regulated
NSR
pollutant''
in
the
following
places:

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00090
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80275
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
a.
(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a);
b.
(
b)(
2)(
i);
c.
(
b)(
23)(
ii);
d.
newly
redesignated
(
i)(
4);
and
e.
(
j)(
2)
and
(
3).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
52.21
Prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.

(
a)(
1)
Plan
disapproval.
*
*
*
(
2)
Applicability
procedures.
(
i)
The
requirements
of
this
section
apply
to
the
construction
of
any
new
major
stationary
source
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
of
this
section)
or
any
project
at
an
existing
major
stationary
source
in
an
area
designated
as
attainment
or
unclassifiable
under
sections
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
ii)
or
(
iii)
of
the
Act.
(
ii)
The
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
j)
through
(
r)
of
this
section
apply
to
the
construction
of
any
new
major
stationary
source
or
the
major
modification
of
any
existing
major
stationary
source,
except
as
this
section
otherwise
provides.
(
iii)
No
new
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
to
which
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
j)
through
(
r)(
5)
of
this
section
apply
shall
begin
actual
construction
without
a
permit
that
states
that
the
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
will
meet
those
requirements.
The
Administrator
has
authority
to
issue
any
such
permit.
(
iv)
The
requirements
of
the
program
will
be
applied
in
accordance
with
the
principles
set
out
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Except
as
otherwise
provided
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
v)
and
(
vi)
of
this
section,
and
consistent
with
the
definition
of
major
modification
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section,
a
project
is
a
major
modification
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
if
it
causes
two
types
of
emissions
increases
 
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
40)
of
this
section),
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
and
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
The
project
is
not
a
major
modification
if
it
does
not
cause
a
significant
emissions
increase.
If
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase,
then
the
project
is
a
major
modification
only
if
it
also
results
in
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
b)
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
i.
e.,
the
first
step
of
the
process)
will
occur
depends
upon
the
type
of
emissions
units
being
modified,
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
c)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
The
procedure
for
calculating
(
before
beginning
actual
construction)
whether
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
will
occur
at
the
major
stationary
source
(
i.
e.,
the
second
step
of
the
process)
is
contained
in
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
any
such
preconstruction
projections,
a
major
modification
results
if
the
project
causes
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase.
(
c)
Actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
existing
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
projected
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
41)
of
this
section)
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
48)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section),
for
each
existing
emissions
unit,
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
(
d)
Actual­
to­
potential
test
for
projects
that
only
involve
construction
of
a
new
emissions
unit(
s).
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
difference
between
the
potential
to
emit
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section)
from
each
new
emissions
unit
following
completion
of
the
project
and
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)(
iii)
of
this
section)
of
these
units
before
the
project
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
(
e)
Emission
test
for
projects
that
involve
Clean
Units.
For
a
project
that
will
be
constructed
and
operated
at
a
Clean
Unit
without
causing
the
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
Clean
Unit
designation,
no
emissions
increase
is
deemed
to
occur.
(
f)
Hybrid
test
for
projects
that
involve
multiple
types
of
emissions
units.
A
significant
emissions
increase
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
is
projected
to
occur
if
the
sum
of
the
emissions
increases
for
each
emissions
unit,
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
c)
through
(
e)
of
this
section
as
applicable
with
respect
to
each
emissions
unit,
for
each
type
of
emissions
unit
equals
or
exceeds
the
significant
amount
for
that
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section).
For
example,
if
a
project
involves
both
an
existing
emissions
unit
and
a
Clean
Unit,
the
projected
increase
is
determined
by
summing
the
values
determined
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
c)
of
this
section
for
the
existing
unit
and
using
the
method
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
e)
of
this
section
for
the
Clean
Unit.
(
v)
For
any
major
stationary
source
for
a
PAL
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
comply
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
An
owner
or
operator
undertaking
a
PCP
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
32)
of
this
section)
shall
comply
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
z)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*
(
2)(
i)
Major
modification
means
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
would
result
in:
a
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
40)
of
this
section)
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
50)
of
this
section);
and
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
of
that
pollutant
from
the
major
stationary
source.
(
ii)
Any
significant
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
40)
of
this
section)
from
any
emissions
units
or
net
emissions
increase
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section)
at
a
major
stationary
source
that
is
significant
for
volatile
organic
compounds
shall
be
considered
significant
for
ozone.
(
iii)
*
*
*
(
h)
The
addition,
replacement,
or
use
of
a
PCP,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
32)
of
this
section,
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
z)
of
this
section.
A
replacement
control
technology
must
provide
more
effective
emission
control
than
that
of
the
replaced
control
technology
to
qualify
for
this
exclusion.
*
*
*
*
*
(
iv)
This
definition
shall
not
apply
with
respect
to
a
particular
regulated
NSR
pollutant
when
the
major
stationary
source
is
complying
with
the
requirements
under
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section
for
a
PAL
for
that
pollutant.
Instead,
the
definition
at
paragraph
(
aa)(
2)(
viii)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
3)(
i)
Net
emissions
increase
means,
with
respect
to
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
emitted
by
a
major
stationary
source,
the
amount
by
which
the
sum
of
the
following
exceeds
zero:
(
a)
The
increase
in
emissions
from
a
particular
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
a
stationary
source
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section;
and
(
b)
Any
other
increases
and
decreases
in
actual
emissions
at
the
major
stationary
source
that
are
contemporaneous
with
the
particular
change
and
are
otherwise
creditable.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00091
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80276
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Baseline
actual
emissions
for
calculating
increases
and
decreases
under
this
paragraph
(
b)(
3)(
i)(
b)
shall
be
determined
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)
of
this
section,
except
that
paragraphs
(
b)(
48)(
i)(
c)
and
(
b)(
48)(
ii)(
d)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply.
*
*
*
*
*
(
iii)
An
increase
or
decrease
in
actual
emissions
is
creditable
only
if:
(
a)
The
Administrator
or
other
reviewing
authority
has
not
relied
on
it
in
issuing
a
permit
for
the
source
under
this
section,
which
permit
is
in
effect
when
the
increase
in
actual
emissions
from
the
particular
change
occurs;
and
(
b)
The
increase
or
decrease
in
emissions
did
not
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
8)
and
(
y)(
10)
of
this
section.
(
iv)
An
increase
or
decrease
in
actual
emissions
of
sulfur
dioxide,
particulate
matter,
or
nitrogen
oxides
that
occurs
before
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date
is
creditable
only
if
it
is
required
to
be
considered
in
calculating
the
amount
of
maximum
allowable
increases
remaining
available.
*
*
*
*
*
(
vi)
*
*
*
(
b)
It
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
at
and
after
the
time
that
actual
construction
on
the
particular
change
begins.
(
c)
It
has
approximately
the
same
qualitative
significance
for
public
health
and
welfare
as
that
attributed
to
the
increase
from
the
particular
change;
and
(
d)
The
decrease
in
actual
emissions
did
not
result
from
the
installation
of
add­
on
control
technology
or
application
of
pollution
prevention
practices
that
were
relied
on
in
designating
an
emissions
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
y)
of
this
section
or
under
regulations
approved
pursuant
to
§
51.165(
d)
or
to
§
51.166(
u)
of
this
chapter.
That
is,
once
an
emissions
unit
has
been
designated
as
a
Clean
Unit,
the
owner
or
operator
cannot
later
use
the
emissions
reduction
from
the
air
pollution
control
measures
that
the
designation
is
based
on
in
calculating
the
net
emissions
increase
for
another
emissions
unit
(
i.
e.,
must
not
use
that
reduction
in
a
``
netting
analysis''
for
another
emissions
unit).
However,
any
new
emission
reductions
that
were
not
relied
upon
in
a
PCP
excluded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
z)
of
this
section
or
for
a
Clean
Unit
designation
are
creditable
to
the
extent
they
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
z)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section
for
the
PCP
and
paragraphs
(
x)(
8)
or
(
y)(
10)
of
this
section
for
a
Clean
Unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(
ix)
Paragraph
(
b)(
21)(
ii)
of
this
section
shall
not
apply
for
determining
creditable
increases
and
decreases.
(
7)
Emissions
unit
means
any
part
of
a
stationary
source
that
emits
or
would
have
the
potential
to
emit
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
includes
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
31)
of
this
section.
For
purposes
of
this
section,
there
are
two
types
of
emissions
units
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
new
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
that
is
(
or
will
be)
newly
constructed
and
that
has
existed
for
less
than
2
years
from
the
date
such
emissions
unit
first
operated.
(
ii)
An
existing
emissions
unit
is
any
emissions
unit
that
does
not
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
b)(
7)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
8)
Construction
means
any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
(
including
fabrication,
erection,
installation,
demolition,
or
modification
of
an
emissions
unit)
that
would
result
in
a
change
in
emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
(
13)(
i)
Baseline
concentration
means
that
ambient
concentration
level
that
exists
in
the
baseline
area
at
the
time
of
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date.
A
baseline
concentration
is
determined
for
each
pollutant
for
which
a
minor
source
baseline
date
is
established
and
shall
include:
(
a)
The
actual
emissions,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
representative
of
sources
in
existence
on
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date,
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)(
13)(
ii)
of
this
section;
and
(
b)
The
allowable
emissions
of
major
stationary
sources
that
commenced
construction
before
the
major
source
baseline
date,
but
were
not
in
operation
by
the
applicable
minor
source
baseline
date.
(
ii)
The
following
will
not
be
included
in
the
baseline
concentration
and
will
affect
the
applicable
maximum
allowable
increase(
s):
(
a)
Actual
emissions,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
from
any
major
stationary
source
on
which
construction
commenced
after
the
major
source
baseline
date;
and
(
b)
Actual
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
21)
of
this
section,
at
any
stationary
source
occurring
after
the
minor
source
baseline
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
21)(
i)
Actual
emissions
means
the
actual
rate
of
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
from
an
emissions
unit,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
21)(
ii)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section,
except
that
this
definition
shall
not
apply
for
calculating
whether
a
significant
emissions
increase
has
occurred,
or
for
establishing
a
PAL
under
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section.
Instead,
paragraphs
(
b)(
41)
and
(
b)(
48)
of
this
section
shall
apply
for
those
purposes.
(
ii)
In
general,
actual
emissions
as
of
a
particular
date
shall
equal
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
a
consecutive
24­
month
period
which
precedes
the
particular
date
and
which
is
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
The
Administrator
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
Actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
using
the
unit's
actual
operating
hours,
production
rates,
and
types
of
materials
processed,
stored,
or
combusted
during
the
selected
time
period.
(
iii)
The
Administrator
may
presume
that
source­
specific
allowable
emissions
for
the
unit
are
equivalent
to
the
actual
emissions
of
the
unit.
(
iv)
For
any
emissions
unit
that
has
not
begun
normal
operations
on
the
particular
date,
actual
emissions
shall
equal
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
unit
on
that
date.
*
*
*
*
*
(
32)
Pollution
control
project
(
PCP)
means
any
activity,
set
of
work
practices
or
project
(
including
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section)
undertaken
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
that
reduces
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
such
unit.
Such
qualifying
activities
or
projects
can
include
the
replacement
or
upgrade
of
an
existing
emissions
control
technology
with
a
more
effective
unit.
Other
changes
that
may
occur
at
the
source
are
not
considered
part
of
the
PCP
if
they
are
not
necessary
to
reduce
emissions
through
the
PCP.
Projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
are
presumed
to
be
environmentally
beneficial
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
z)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
Projects
not
listed
in
these
paragraphs
may
qualify
for
a
case­
specific
PCP
exclusion
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
z)(
2)
and
(
z)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Conventional
or
advanced
flue
gas
desulfurization
or
sorbent
injection
for
control
of
SO2.
(
ii)
Electrostatic
precipitators,
baghouses,
high
efficiency
multiclones,
or
scrubbers
for
control
of
particulate
matter
or
other
pollutants.
(
iii)
Flue
gas
recirculation,
low­
NOX
burners
or
combustors,
selective
non­

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00092
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80277
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
catalytic
reduction,
selective
catalytic
reduction,
low
emission
combustion
(
for
IC
engines),
and
oxidation/
absorption
catalyst
for
control
of
NOX.
(
iv)
Regenerative
thermal
oxidizers,
catalytic
oxidizers,
condensers,
thermal
incinerators,
hydrocarbon
combustion
flares,
biofiltration,
absorbers
and
adsorbers,
and
floating
roofs
for
storage
vessels
for
control
of
volatile
organic
compounds
or
hazardous
air
pollutants.
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
``
hydrocarbon
combustion
flare''
means
either
a
flare
used
to
comply
with
an
applicable
NSPS
or
MACT
standard
(
including
uses
of
flares
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
permitted
under
such
a
standard),
or
a
flare
that
serves
to
control
emissions
of
waste
streams
comprised
predominately
of
hydrocarbons
and
containing
no
more
than
230
mg/
dscm
hydrogen
sulfide.
(
v)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
(
or
partially
switching)
to
an
inherently
less
polluting
fuel,
to
be
limited
to
the
following
fuel
switches:
(
a)
Switching
from
a
heavier
grade
of
fuel
oil
to
a
lighter
fuel
oil,
or
any
grade
of
oil
to
0.05
percent
sulfur
diesel
(
i.
e.,
from
a
higher
sulfur
content
#
2
fuel
or
from
#
6
fuel,
to
CA
0.05
percent
sulfur
#
2
diesel);
(
b)
Switching
from
coal,
oil,
or
any
solid
fuel
to
natural
gas,
propane,
or
gasified
coal;
(
c)
Switching
from
coal
to
wood,
excluding
construction
or
demolition
waste,
chemical
or
pesticide
treated
wood,
and
other
forms
of
``
unclean''
wood;
(
d)
Switching
from
coal
to
#
2
fuel
oil
(
0.5
percent
maximum
sulfur
content);
and
(
e)
Switching
from
high
sulfur
coal
to
low
sulfur
coal
(
maximum
1.2
percent
sulfur
content).
(
vi)
Activities
or
projects
undertaken
to
accommodate
switching
from
the
use
of
one
ozone
depleting
substance
(
ODS)
to
the
use
of
a
substance
with
a
lower
or
zero
ozone
depletion
potential
(
ODP,)
including
changes
to
equipment
needed
to
accommodate
the
activity
or
project,
that
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
vi)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
productive
capacity
of
the
equipment
is
not
increased
as
a
result
of
the
activity
or
project.
(
b)
The
projected
usage
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODP­
weighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
To
make
this
determination,
follow
the
procedure
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
vi)(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
ODP
of
the
substances
by
consulting
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A,
appendices
A
and
B.
(
2)
Calculate
the
replaced
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
baseline
actual
usage
(
using
the
annualized
average
of
any
24
consecutive
months
of
usage
within
the
past
10
years)
by
the
ODP
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
3)
Calculate
the
projected
ODPweighted
amount
by
multiplying
the
projected
actual
usage
of
the
new
substance
by
its
ODP.
(
4)
If
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
b)(
32)(
vi)(
b)(
2)
of
this
section
is
more
than
the
value
calculated
in
paragraph
(
b)(
32)(
vi)(
b)(
3)
of
this
section,
then
the
projected
use
of
the
new
substance
is
lower,
on
an
ODPweighted
basis,
than
the
baseline
usage
of
the
replaced
ODS.
(
33)
[
Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(
39)
Pollution
prevention
means
any
activity
that
through
process
changes,
product
reformulation
or
redesign,
or
substitution
of
less
polluting
raw
materials,
eliminates
or
reduces
the
release
of
air
pollutants
(
including
fugitive
emissions)
and
other
pollutants
to
the
environment
prior
to
recycling,
treatment,
or
disposal;
it
does
not
mean
recycling
(
other
than
certain
``
in­
process
recycling''
practices),
energy
recovery,
treatment,
or
disposal.
(
40)
Significant
emissions
increase
means,
for
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
an
increase
in
emissions
that
is
significant
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section)
for
that
pollutant.
(
41)(
i)
Projected
actual
emissions
means
the
maximum
annual
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
an
existing
emissions
unit
is
projected
to
emit
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
in
any
one
of
the
5
years
(
12­
month
period)
following
the
date
the
unit
resumes
regular
operation
after
the
project,
or
in
any
one
of
the
10
years
following
that
date,
if
the
project
involves
increasing
the
emissions
unit's
design
capacity
or
its
potential
to
emit
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant
and
full
utilization
of
the
unit
would
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
or
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
ii)
In
determining
the
projected
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
b)(
41)(
i)
of
this
section
(
before
beginning
actual
construction),
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source:
(
a)
Shall
consider
all
relevant
information,
including
but
not
limited
to,
historical
operational
data,
the
company's
own
representations,
the
company's
expected
business
activity
and
the
company's
highest
projections
of
business
activity,
the
company's
filings
with
the
State
or
Federal
regulatory
authorities,
and
compliance
plans
under
the
approved
State
Implementation
Plan;
and
(
b)
Shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions;
and
(
c)
Shall
exclude,
in
calculating
any
increase
in
emissions
that
results
from
he
particular
project,
that
portion
of
the
unit's
emissions
following
the
project
that
an
existing
unit
could
have
accommodated
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
used
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions
under
paragraph
(
b)(
48)
of
this
section
and
that
are
also
unrelated
to
the
particular
project,
including
any
increased
utilization
due
to
product
demand
growth;
or
(
d)
In
lieu
of
using
the
method
set
out
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
41)(
ii)(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section,
may
elect
to
use
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit,
in
tons
per
year,
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section.
(
42)
Clean
Unit
means
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
BACT
or
LAER,
is
complying
with
such
BACT/
LAER
requirements,
and
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
x)
of
this
section;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
by
the
Administrator
as
a
Clean
Unit,
based
on
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
BACT
or
LAER,
is
complying
with
such
BACT/
LAER
requirements,
and
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
regulations
approved
into
the
State
Implementation
Plan
in
accordance
with
§
51.165(
c)
or
§
51.166(
u)
of
this
chapter;
or
any
emissions
unit
that
has
been
designated
by
the
reviewing
authority
as
a
Clean
Unit
in
accordance
with
regulations
approved
into
the
plan
to
carry
out
§
51.165(
d)
or
§
51.166(
u)
of
this
chapter.
(
43)
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program
means
the
EPA­
implemented
major
source
preconstruction
permit
programs
under
this
section
or
a
major
source
preconstruction
permit
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
incorporated
into
the
State
Implementation
Plan
pursuant
to
§
51.166
of
this
chapter
to
implement
the
requirements
of
that
section.
Any
permit
issued
under
such
a
program
is
a
major
NSR
permit.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00093
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80278
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
44)
Continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
that
may
be
required
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
sample,
condition
(
if
applicable),
analyze,
and
provide
a
record
of
emissions
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
45)
Predictive
emissions
monitoring
system
(
PEMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
calculate
and
record
the
mass
emissions
rate
(
for
example,
lb/
hr)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
46)
Continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
means
all
of
the
equipment
necessary
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
section,
to
monitor
process
and
control
device
operational
parameters
(
for
example,
control
device
secondary
voltages
and
electric
currents)
and
other
information
(
for
example,
gas
flow
rate,
O2
or
CO2
concentrations),
and
to
record
average
operational
parameter
value(
s)
on
a
continuous
basis.
(
47)
Continuous
emissions
rate
monitoring
system
(
CERMS)
means
the
total
equipment
required
for
the
determination
and
recording
of
the
pollutant
mass
emissions
rate
(
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time).
(
48)
Baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
rate
of
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
b)(
48)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
For
any
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
5­
year
period
immediately
preceding
when
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project.
The
Administrator
shall
allow
the
use
of
a
different
time
period
upon
a
determination
that
it
is
more
representative
of
normal
source
operation.
(
a)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
b)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
any
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
c)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
For
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
d)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraph
(
b)(
48)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
For
an
existing
emissions
unit
(
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit),
baseline
actual
emissions
means
the
average
rate,
in
tons
per
year,
at
which
the
emissions
unit
actually
emitted
the
pollutant
during
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
selected
by
the
owner
or
operator
within
the
10­
year
period
immediately
preceding
either
the
date
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
the
project,
or
the
date
a
complete
permit
application
is
received
by
the
Administrator
for
a
permit
required
under
this
section
or
by
the
reviewing
authority
for
a
permit
required
by
a
plan,
whichever
is
earlier,
except
that
the
10­
year
period
shall
not
include
any
period
earlier
than
November
15,
1990.
(
a)
The
average
rate
shall
include
fugitive
emissions
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
and
emissions
associated
with
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
b)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
noncompliant
emissions
that
occurred
while
the
source
was
operating
above
an
emission
limitation
that
was
legally
enforceable
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
(
c)
The
average
rate
shall
be
adjusted
downward
to
exclude
any
emissions
that
would
have
exceeded
an
emission
limitation
with
which
the
major
stationary
source
must
currently
comply,
had
such
major
stationary
source
been
required
to
comply
with
such
limitations
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period.
However,
if
an
emission
limitation
is
part
of
a
maximum
achievable
control
technology
standard
that
the
Administrator
proposed
or
promulgated
under
part
63
of
this
chapter,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
need
only
be
adjusted
if
the
State
has
taken
credit
for
such
emissions
reductions
in
an
attainment
demonstration
or
maintenance
plan
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
G)
of
this
chapter.
(
d)
For
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
when
a
project
involves
multiple
emissions
units,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
the
emissions
units
being
changed.
A
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
can
be
used
For
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
(
e)
The
average
rate
shall
not
be
based
on
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
for
which
there
is
inadequate
information
for
determining
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
and
for
adjusting
this
amount
if
required
by
paragraphs
(
b)(
48)(
ii)(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
For
a
new
emissions
unit,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
purposes
of
determining
the
emissions
increase
that
will
result
from
the
initial
construction
and
operation
of
such
unit
shall
equal
zero;
and
thereafter,
for
all
other
purposes,
shall
equal
the
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
iv)
For
a
PAL
for
a
stationary
source,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
shall
be
calculated
for
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
units
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)(
i)
of
this
section,
for
other
existing
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)(
ii)
of
this
section,
and
for
a
new
emissions
unit
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
contained
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
49)
[
Reserved]
(
50)
Regulated
NSR
pollutant,
for
purposes
of
this
section,
means
the
following:
(
i)
Any
pollutant
for
which
a
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
has
been
promulgated
and
any
constituents
or
precursors
for
such
pollutants
identified
by
the
Administrator
(
e.
g.,
volatile
organic
compounds
are
precursors
for
ozone);
(
ii)
Any
pollutant
that
is
subject
to
any
standard
promulgated
under
section
111
of
the
Act;
(
iii)
Any
Class
I
or
II
substance
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
title
VI
of
the
Act;
or
(
iv)
Any
pollutant
that
otherwise
is
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act;
except
that
any
or
all
hazardous
air
pollutants
either
listed
in
section
112
of
the
Act
or
added
to
the
list
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act,
which
have
not
been
delisted
pursuant
to
section
112(
b)(
3)
of
the
Act,
are
not
regulated
NSR
pollutants
unless
the
listed
hazardous
air
pollutant
is
also
regulated
as
a
constituent
or
precursor
of
a
general
pollutant
listed
under
section
108
of
the
Act.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00094
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80279
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
51)
Reviewing
authority
means
the
State
air
pollution
control
agency,
local
agency,
other
State
agency,
Indian
tribe,
or
other
agency
authorized
by
the
Administrator
to
carry
out
a
permit
program
under
§
51.165
and
§
51.166
of
this
chapter,
or
the
Administrator
in
the
case
of
EPA­
implemented
permit
programs
under
this
section.
(
52)
Project
means
a
physical
change
in,
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of,
an
existing
major
stationary
source.
(
53)
Lowest
achievable
emission
rate
(
LAER)
is
as
defined
in
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
xiii)
of
this
chapter.
(
54)
Reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
is
as
defined
in
§
51.100(
o)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
i)
Exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
r)
*
*
*
(
5)
[
Reserved]
(
6)
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
r)(
6)
apply
to
projects
at
an
existing
emissions
unit
at
a
major
stationary
source
(
other
than
projects
at
a
Clean
Unit
or
at
a
source
with
a
PAL)
in
circumstances
where
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
a
project
that
is
not
a
part
of
a
major
modification
may
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
and
the
owner
or
operator
elects
to
use
the
method
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
41)(
ii)(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section
for
calculating
projected
actual
emissions.
(
i)
Before
beginning
actual
construction
of
the
project,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
document
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
following
information:
(
a)
A
description
of
the
project;
(
b)
Identification
of
the
emissions
unit(
s)
whose
emissions
of
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
could
be
affected
by
the
project;
and
(
c)
A
description
of
the
applicability
test
used
to
determine
that
the
project
is
not
a
major
modification
for
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
including
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
the
projected
actual
emissions,
the
amount
of
emissions
excluded
under
paragraph
(
b)(
41)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section
and
an
explanation
for
why
such
amount
was
excluded,
and
any
netting
calculations,
if
applicable.
(
ii)
If
the
emissions
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
before
beginning
actual
construction,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
a
copy
of
the
information
set
out
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section
to
the
Administrator.
Nothing
in
this
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
ii)
shall
be
construed
to
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
unit
to
obtain
any
determination
from
the
Administrator
before
beginning
actual
construction.
(
iii)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
monitor
the
emissions
of
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant
that
could
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project
and
that
is
emitted
by
any
emissions
unit
identified
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section;
and
calculate
and
maintain
a
record
of
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year
on
a
calendar
year
basis,
for
a
period
of
5
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change,
or
for
a
period
of
10
years
following
resumption
of
regular
operations
after
the
change
if
the
project
increases
the
design
capacity
of
or
potential
to
emit
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant
at
such
emissions
unit.
(
iv)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
Administrator
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
each
year
during
which
records
must
be
generated
under
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section
setting
out
the
unit's
annual
emissions
during
the
calendar
year
that
preceded
submission
of
the
report.
(
v)
If
the
unit
is
an
existing
unit
other
than
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
report
to
the
Administrator
if
the
annual
emissions,
in
tons
per
year,
from
the
project
identified
in
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section,
exceed
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
c)
of
this
section),
by
a
significant
amount
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section)
for
that
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
and
if
such
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection
as
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
i)(
c)
of
this
section.
Such
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
within
60
days
after
the
end
of
such
year.
The
report
shall
contain
the
following:
(
a)
The
name,
address
and
telephone
number
of
the
major
stationary
source;
(
b)
The
annual
emissions
as
calculated
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section;
and
(
c)
Any
other
information
that
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
to
include
in
the
report
(
e.
g.,
an
explanation
as
to
why
the
emissions
differ
from
the
preconstruction
projection).
(
7)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
make
the
information
required
to
be
documented
and
maintained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
6)
of
this
section
available
for
review
upon
a
request
for
inspection
by
the
Administrator
or
the
general
public
pursuant
to
the
requirements
contained
in
§
70.4(
b)(
3)(
viii)
of
this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
x)
Clean
Unit
Test
for
emissions
units
that
are
subject
to
BACT
or
LAER.
An
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
has
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
1)
through
(
9)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
x)
apply
to
any
emissions
unit
for
which
a
reviewing
authority
has
issued
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
last
10
years.
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
x)(
4)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
x)(
5)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
x)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
x)(
6)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
d)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
f)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Applicability
Test.
An
emissions
unit
automatically
qualifies
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00095
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80280
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
x)(
5)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
x)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
y)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
issued
through
the
applicable
PSD
program
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
applies
individually
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit.
(
i)
Permitting
requirement.
The
emissions
unit
must
have
received
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
last
10
years.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
and
be
able
to
provide
information
that
would
demonstrate
that
this
permitting
requirement
is
met.
(
ii)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
3)(
ii)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
control
technology
achieves
the
BACT
or
LAER
level
of
emissions
reductions
as
determined
through
issuance
of
a
major
NSR
permit
within
the
past
10
years.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
if
the
BACT
determination
resulted
in
no
requirement
to
reduce
emissions
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled,
new
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type.
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
expenses
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
an
emissions
unit.
(
iii)
Re­
qualifying
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
major
NSR
permit
that
requires
compliance
with
the
currentday
BACT
(
or
LAER),
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
3)(
i)
and
(
x)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
at
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
modification)
is
determined
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
x)(
4)(
i)
or
(
x)(
4)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
as
Clean
Units
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
or
3
years
after
the
issuance
date
of
the
major
NSR
permit,
whichever
is
earlier,
but
no
sooner
than
March
3,
2003,
that
is
the
date
these
provisions
become
effective.
(
ii)
Emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
the
new,
major
NSR
permit
is
issued.
(
5)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
An
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
no
longer
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
affecting
the
emissions
unit
is,
or
is
part
of,
a
major
modification)
according
to
the
applicable
paragraph
(
x)(
5)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Original
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
current­
day
BACT.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
automatically
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraphs
(
x)(
3)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section
or
re­
qualifies
by
implementing
new
control
technology
to
meet
currentday
BACT
under
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date,
or
the
date
the
equipment
went
into
service,
whichever
is
earlier;
or,
it
expires
at
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
x)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Emissions
units
that
re­
qualify
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
using
an
existing
control
technology.
For
any
emissions
unit
that
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
x)(
3)(
iii)
of
this
section
using
an
existing
control
technology,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
after
the
effective
date;
or,
it
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
x)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
6)
Required
title
V
permit
content
for
a
Clean
Unit.
After
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
and
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed,
the
title
V
permit
for
the
major
stationary
source
must
include
the
following
terms
and
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
6)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
related
to
the
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
which
this
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
in
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
initially
recorded
into
the
title
V
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
determined,
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
which
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
x)(
7)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
x)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00096
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80281
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
x)(
7)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
x)(
7)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
emissions
unit
has
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
the
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
the
BACT
that
is
recorded
in
the
major
NSR
permit,
and
subsequently
reflected
in
the
title
V
permit.
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT
determination
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
ii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
iii)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
8)
Netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis''),
unless
such
use
occurs
before
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
new
emissions
limit
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
9)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
re­
designation
of
the
attainment
status
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
an
existing
Clean
Unit
designation
expires,
it
must
re­
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable
in
the
area.
(
y)
Clean
Unit
provisions
for
emissions
units
that
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
BACT.
An
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
has
the
option
of
using
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
emissions
increases
at
a
Clean
Unit
are
part
of
a
project
that
is
a
major
modification
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
1)
through
(
11)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Applicability.
The
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
y)
apply
to
emissions
units
which
do
not
qualify
as
Clean
Units
under
paragraph
(
x)
of
this
section,
but
which
are
achieving
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
this
paragraph
(
y).
(
2)
General
provisions
for
Clean
Units.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section
apply
to
a
Clean
Unit
(
designated
under
this
paragraph
(
y)).
(
i)
Any
project
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
y)(
5)
of
this
section)
and
before
the
expiration
date
(
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
y)(
6)
of
this
section)
will
be
considered
to
have
occurred
while
the
emissions
unit
was
a
Clean
Unit.
(
ii)
If
a
project
at
a
Clean
Unit
does
not
cause
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
y)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
BACT,
and
the
project
would
not
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
y)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
remains
a
Clean
Unit.
(
iii)
If
a
project
causes
the
need
for
a
change
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
have
been
determined
(
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
y)(
4)
of
this
section)
to
be
comparable
to
BACT,
or
the
project
would
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
y)(
8)(
iv)
of
this
section,
then
the
emissions
unit
loses
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
upon
issuance
of
the
necessary
permit
revisions
(
unless
the
unit
re­
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
u)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section).
If
the
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
on
the
project
without
first
applying
to
revise
the
emissions
unit's
permit,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends
immediately
prior
to
the
time
when
actual
construction
begins.
(
iv)
A
project
that
causes
an
emissions
unit
to
lose
its
designation
as
a
Clean
Unit
is
subject
to
the
applicability
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
a)
through
(
d)
and
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
f)
of
this
section
as
if
the
emissions
unit
is
not
a
Clean
Unit.
(
3)
Qualifying
or
re­
qualifying
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
applicability
test.
An
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
when
the
unit
meets
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
After
the
original
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
y)(
6)
of
this
section
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
y)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
such
emissions
unit
may
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
either
paragraph
(
y)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
or
under
the
Clean
Unit
provisions
in
paragraph
(
x)
of
this
section.
To
requalify
as
a
Clean
Unit
under
paragraph
(
y)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section,
the
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section
and
meet
all
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
y)(
3)(
iv)
of
this
section.
The
Administrator
will
make
a
separate
Clean
Unit
designation
for
each
pollutant
emitted
by
the
emissions
unit
for
which
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit.
(
i)
Qualifying
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
must
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
air
pollution
control
technology
(
which
includes
pollution
prevention
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
39)
of
this
section
or
work
practices)
that
meets
both
the
following
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
3)(
i)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
has
demonstrated
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
y)(
4)
of
this
section.
However,
the
emissions
unit
is
not
eligible
for
a
Clean
Unit
designation
if
its
emissions
are
not
reduced
below
the
level
of
a
standard,
uncontrolled
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00097
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80282
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
emissions
unit
of
the
same
type
(
e.
g.,
if
the
BACT
determinations
to
which
it
is
compared
have
resulted
in
a
determination
that
no
control
measures
are
required).
(
b)
The
owner
or
operator
made
an
investment
to
install
the
control
technology.
For
the
purpose
of
this
determination,
an
investment
includes
expenses
to
research
the
application
of
a
pollution
prevention
technique
to
the
emissions
unit
or
to
retool
the
unit
to
apply
a
pollution
prevention
technique.
(
ii)
Impact
of
emissions
from
the
unit.
The
Administrator
must
determine
that
the
allowable
emissions
from
the
emissions
unit
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
iii)
Date
of
installation.
An
emissions
unit
may
qualify
as
a
Clean
Unit
even
if
the
control
technology,
on
which
the
Clean
Unit
designation
is
based,
was
installed
before
March
3,
2003.
However,
for
such
emissions
units,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
before
December
31,
2004.
For
technologies
installed
on
and
after
March
3,
2003,
the
owner
or
operator
must
apply
for
the
Clean
Unit
designation
at
the
time
the
control
technology
is
installed.
(
iv)
Re­
qualifying
as
a
Clean
Unit.
The
emissions
unit
must
obtain
a
new
permit
(
pursuant
to
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
7)
and
(
8)
of
this
section)
that
demonstrates
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT,
and
the
emissions
unit
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
3)(
i)(
a)
and
(
y)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Demonstrating
control
effectiveness
comparable
to
BACT.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
for
purposes
of
paragraph
(
y)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section
according
to
either
paragraph
(
y)(
4)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
Paragraph
(
y)(
4)(
iii)
of
this
section
specifies
the
time
for
making
this
comparison.
(
i)
Comparison
to
previous
BACT
and
LAER
determinations.
The
Administrator
maintains
an
on­
line
data
base
of
previous
determinations
of
RACT,
BACT,
and
LAER
in
the
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
Clearinghouse
(
RBLC).
The
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
presumed
to
be
comparable
to
BACT
if
it
achieves
an
emission
limitation
that
is
equal
to
or
better
than
the
average
of
the
emission
limitations
achieved
by
all
the
sources
for
which
a
BACT
or
LAER
determination
has
been
made
within
the
preceding
5
years
and
entered
into
the
RBLC,
and
for
which
it
is
technically
feasible
to
apply
the
BACT
or
LAER
control
technology
to
the
emissions
unit.
The
Administrator
shall
also
compare
this
presumption
to
any
additional
BACT
or
LAER
determinations
of
which
he
or
she
is
aware,
and
shall
consider
any
information
on
achieved­
in­
practice
pollution
control
technologies
provided
during
the
public
comment
period,
to
determine
whether
any
presumptive
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
comparable
to
BACT
is
correct.
(
ii)
The
substantially­
as­
effective
test.
The
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT.
In
addition,
any
other
person
may
present
evidence
related
to
whether
the
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT
during
the
public
participation
process
required
under
paragraph
(
y)(
7)
of
this
section.
The
Administrator
shall
consider
such
evidence
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
determine
whether
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
substantially
as
effective
as
BACT.
(
iii)
Time
of
comparison.
(
a)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
before
March
3,
2003.
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
whose
control
technology
is
installed
before
March
3,
2003
may,
at
its
option,
either
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
BACT
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
or
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT
requirements.
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation
will
depend
on
which
option
the
owner
or
operator
uses,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
y)(
6)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Emissions
units
with
control
technologies
that
are
installed
on
and
after
March
3,
2003.
The
owner
or
operator
must
demonstrate
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
current­
day
BACT
requirements.
(
5)
Effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
effective
date
of
an
emissions
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation
(
that
is,
the
date
on
which
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
to
use
the
Clean
Unit
Test
to
determine
whether
a
project
involving
the
emissions
unit
is
a
major
modification)
is
the
date
that
the
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
y)(
7)
of
this
section
is
issued
or
the
date
that
the
emissions
unit's
air
pollution
control
technology
is
placed
into
service,
whichever
is
later.
(
6)
Clean
Unit
expiration.
If
the
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
that
the
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
is
comparable
to
the
BACT
requirements
that
applied
at
the
time
the
control
technology
was
installed,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
date
that
the
control
technology
was
installed.
For
all
other
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
10
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
as
determined
according
to
paragraph
(
y)(
5)
of
this
section.
In
addition,
for
all
emissions
units,
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires
any
time
the
owner
or
operator
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
for
maintaining
the
Clean
Unit
designation
in
paragraph
(
y)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
7)
Procedures
for
designating
emissions
units
as
Clean
Units.
The
Administrator
shall
designate
an
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit
only
by
issuing
a
permit
through
a
permitting
program
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
that
conforms
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
51.160
through
51.164
of
this
chapter
including
requirements
for
public
notice
of
the
proposed
Clean
Unit
designation
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
Such
permit
must
also
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
y)(
8)
of
this
section.
(
8)
Required
permit
content.
The
permit
required
by
paragraph
(
y)(
7)
of
this
section
shall
include
the
terms
and
conditions
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
8)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
Such
terms
and
conditions
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
major
stationary
source's
title
V
permit
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
applicable
title
V
permit
program
under
part
70
or
part
71
of
this
chapter,
but
no
later
than
when
the
title
V
permit
is
renewed.
(
i)
A
statement
indicating
that
the
emissions
unit
qualifies
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
identifying
the
pollutant(
s)
for
which
this
designation
applies.
(
ii)
The
effective
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Administrator
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
effective
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
effective
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
the
exact
date.
This
specific
effective
date
must
be
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00098
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80283
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iii)
The
expiration
date
of
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
this
date
is
not
known
when
the
Administrator
issues
the
permit
(
e.
g.,
because
the
air
pollution
control
technology
is
not
yet
in
service),
then
the
permit
must
describe
the
event
that
will
determine
the
expiration
date
(
e.
g.,
the
date
the
control
technology
is
placed
into
service).
Once
the
expiration
date
is
known,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
the
exact
date.
The
expiration
date
must
be
added
to
the
source's
title
V
permit
at
the
first
opportunity,
such
as
a
modification,
revision,
reopening,
or
renewal
of
the
title
V
permit
for
any
reason,
whichever
comes
first,
but
in
no
case
later
than
the
next
renewal.
(
iv)
All
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
adopted
in
conjunction
with
emission
limitations
necessary
to
assure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
an
emission
limitation
comparable
to
BACT,
and
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
determining
that
the
emissions
unit's
control
technology
achieves
a
level
of
emissions
control
comparable
to
BACT
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
v)
Monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
as
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
unit
continues
to
meet
the
criteria
for
maintaining
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
See
paragraph
(
y)(
9)
of
this
section.)
(
vi)
Terms
reflecting
the
owner
or
operator's
duties
to
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
do
so,
as
presented
in
paragraph
(
y)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Maintaining
a
Clean
Unit
designation.
To
maintain
the
Clean
Unit
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
must
conform
to
all
the
restrictions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
y)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
This
paragraph
(
y)(
9)
applies
independently
to
each
pollutant
for
which
the
Administrator
has
designated
the
emissions
unit
a
Clean
Unit.
That
is,
failing
to
conform
to
the
restrictions
for
one
pollutant
affects
the
Clean
Unit
designation
only
for
that
pollutant.
(
i)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
the
emission
limitation(
s)
and/
or
work
practice
requirements
adopted
to
ensure
that
the
control
technology
continues
to
achieve
emission
control
comparable
to
BACT.
(
ii)
The
owner
or
operator
may
not
make
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
Clean
Unit
that
causes
the
emissions
unit
to
function
in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
determination
that
the
control
technology
is
achieving
a
level
of
emission
control
that
is
comparable
to
BACT
(
e.
g.,
possibly
the
emissions
unit's
capacity
or
throughput).
(
iii)
[
Reserved]
(
iv)
The
Clean
Unit
must
comply
with
any
terms
and
conditions
in
the
title
V
permit
related
to
the
unit's
Clean
Unit
designation.
(
v)
The
Clean
Unit
must
continue
to
control
emissions
using
the
specific
air
pollution
control
technology
that
was
the
basis
for
its
Clean
Unit
designation.
If
the
emissions
unit
or
control
technology
is
replaced,
then
the
Clean
Unit
designation
ends.
(
10)
Netting
at
Clean
Units.
Emissions
changes
that
occur
at
a
Clean
Unit
must
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
(
that
is,
must
not
be
used
in
a
``
netting
analysis'')
unless
such
use
occurs
before
March
3,
2003
or
after
the
Clean
Unit
designation
expires;
or,
unless
the
emissions
unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit.
However,
if
the
Clean
Unit
reduces
emissions
below
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit,
then
the
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
that
qualified
the
unit
as
a
Clean
Unit
and
the
emissions
unit's
new
emissions
limit
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
11)
Effect
of
redesignation
on
a
Clean
Unit
designation.
The
Clean
Unit
designation
of
an
emissions
unit
is
not
affected
by
redesignation
of
the
attainment
status
of
the
area
in
which
it
is
located.
That
is,
if
a
Clean
Unit
is
located
in
an
attainment
area
and
the
area
is
redesignated
to
nonattainment,
its
Clean
Unit
designation
is
not
affected.
Similarly,
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
does
not
affect
the
Clean
Unit
designation.
However,
if
a
Clean
Unit's
designation
expires
or
is
lost
pursuant
to
paragraphs
(
x)(
2)(
iii)
and
(
y)(
2)(
iii)
of
this
section,
it
must
re­
qualify
under
the
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable.
(
z)
PCP
exclusion
procedural
requirements.
PCPs
shall
be
provided
according
to
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
z)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Before
an
owner
or
operator
begins
actual
construction
of
a
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
either
submit
a
notice
to
the
Administrator
if
the
project
is
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
or
if
the
project
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
then
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
a
permit
application
and
obtain
approval
to
use
the
PCP
exclusion
from
the
Administrator
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
z)(
5)
of
this
section.
Regardless
of
whether
the
owner
or
operator
submits
a
notice
or
a
permit
application,
the
project
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
z)(
2)
of
this
section,
and
the
notice
or
permit
application
must
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraph
(
z)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
2)
Any
project
that
relies
on
the
PCP
exclusion
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
z)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Environmentally
beneficial
analysis.
The
environmental
benefit
from
the
emissions
reductions
of
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
must
outweigh
the
environmental
detriment
of
emissions
increases
in
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
A
statement
that
a
technology
from
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section
is
being
used
shall
be
presumed
to
satisfy
this
requirement.
(
ii)
Air
quality
analysis.
The
emissions
increases
from
the
project
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
PSD
increment,
or
adversely
impact
an
air
quality
related
value
(
such
as
visibility)
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
3)
Content
of
notice
or
permit
application.
In
the
notice
or
permit
application
sent
to
the
Administrator,
the
owner
or
operator
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
listed
in
paragraphs
(
z)(
3)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
description
of
the
project.
(
ii)
The
potential
emissions
increases
and
decreases
of
any
pollutant
regulated
under
the
Act
and
the
projected
emissions
increases
and
decreases
using
the
methodology
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section,
that
will
result
from
the
project,
and
a
copy
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
required
by
paragraph
(
z)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
A
description
of
monitoring
and
recordkeeping,
and
all
other
methods,
to
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00099
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80284
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
be
used
on
an
ongoing
basis
to
demonstrate
that
the
project
is
environmentally
beneficial.
Methods
should
be
sufficient
to
meet
the
requirements
in
part
70
and
part
71
of
this
chapter.
(
iv)
A
certification
that
the
project
will
be
designed
and
operated
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
z)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application,
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
v)
Demonstration
that
the
PCP
will
not
have
an
adverse
air
quality
impact
(
e.
g.,
modeling,
screening
level
modeling
results,
or
a
statement
that
the
collateral
emissions
increase
is
included
within
the
parameters
used
in
the
most
recent
modeling
exercise)
as
required
by
paragraph
(
z)(
2)(
ii)
of
this
section.
An
air
quality
impact
analysis
is
not
required
for
any
pollutant
that
will
not
experience
a
significant
emissions
increase
as
a
result
of
the
project.
(
4)
Notice
process
for
listed
projects.
For
projects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
the
project
immediately
after
notice
is
sent
to
the
Administrator
(
unless
otherwise
prohibited
under
requirements
of
the
applicable
State
Implementation
Plan).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
respond
to
any
requests
by
the
Administrator
for
additional
information
that
the
Administrator
determines
is
necessary
to
evaluate
the
suitability
of
the
project
for
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
5)
Permit
process
for
unlisted
projects.
Before
an
owner
or
operator
may
begin
actual
construction
of
a
PCP
project
that
is
not
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
32)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section,
the
project
must
be
approved
by
the
Administrator
and
recorded
in
a
State
Implementation
Plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
using
procedures
that
are
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
Administrator
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval,
with
access
to
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
the
air
quality
analysis,
and
provide
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
the
public
and
the
Administrator
to
submit
comments.
The
Administrator
must
address
all
material
comments
received
by
the
end
of
the
comment
period
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Operational
requirements.
Upon
installation
of
the
PCP,
the
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
z)(
6)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
General
duty.
The
owner
or
operator
must
operate
the
PCP
in
a
manner
consistent
with
proper
industry
and
engineering
practices,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis
and
air
quality
analysis
required
by
paragraphs
(
z)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
with
information
submitted
in
the
notice
or
permit
application
required
by
paragraph
(
z)(
3)
of
this
section,
and
in
such
a
way
as
to
minimize,
within
the
physical
configuration
and
operational
standards
usually
associated
with
the
emissions
control
device
or
strategy,
emissions
of
collateral
pollutants.
(
ii)
Recordkeeping.
The
owner
or
operator
must
maintain
copies
on
site
of
the
environmentally
beneficial
analysis,
the
air
quality
impacts
analysis,
and
monitoring
and
other
emission
records
to
prove
that
the
PCP
operated
consistent
with
the
general
duty
requirements
in
paragraph
(
z)(
6)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
Permit
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
must
comply
with
any
provisions
in
the
State
Implementation
Plan­
approved
permit
or
title
V
permit
related
to
use
and
approval
of
the
PCP
exclusion.
(
iv)
Generation
of
emission
reduction
credits.
Emission
reductions
created
by
a
PCP
shall
not
be
included
in
calculating
a
significant
net
emissions
increase
unless
the
emissions
unit
further
reduces
emissions
after
qualifying
for
the
PCP
exclusion
(
e.
g.,
taking
an
operational
restriction
on
the
hours
of
operation).
The
owner
or
operator
may
generate
a
credit
for
the
difference
between
the
level
of
reduction
which
was
used
to
qualify
for
the
PCP
exclusion
and
the
new
emissions
limit
if
such
reductions
are
surplus,
quantifiable,
and
permanent.
For
purposes
of
generating
offsets,
the
reductions
must
also
be
federally
enforceable.
For
purposes
of
determining
creditable
net
emissions
increases
and
decreases,
the
reductions
must
also
be
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
aa)
Actuals
PALs.
The
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section
govern
actuals
PALs.
(
1)
Applicability.
(
i)
The
Administrator
may
approve
the
use
of
an
actuals
PAL
for
any
existing
major
stationary
source
if
the
PAL
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
The
term
``
PAL''
shall
mean
``
actuals
PAL''
throughout
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
Any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that
maintains
its
total
source­
wide
emissions
below
the
PAL
level,
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section,
and
complies
with
the
PAL
permit:
(
a)
Is
not
a
major
modification
for
the
PAL
pollutant;
(
b)
Does
not
have
to
be
approved
through
the
PSD
program;
and
(
c)
Is
not
subject
to
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
r)(
4)
of
this
section
(
restrictions
on
relaxing
enforceable
emission
limitations
that
the
major
stationary
source
used
to
avoid
applicability
of
the
major
NSR
program).
(
iii)
Except
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
1)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section,
a
major
stationary
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
all
applicable
Federal
or
State
requirements,
emission
limitations,
and
work
practice
requirements
that
were
established
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
PAL.
(
2)
Definitions.
For
the
purposes
of
this
section,
the
definitions
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
2)(
i)
through
(
xi)
of
this
section
apply.
When
a
term
is
not
defined
in
these
paragraphs,
it
shall
have
the
meaning
given
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act.
(
i)
Actuals
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source
means
a
PAL
based
on
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)
of
this
section)
of
all
emissions
units
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section)
at
the
source,
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
Allowable
emissions
means
``
allowable
emissions''
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
16)
of
this
section,
except
as
this
definition
is
modified
according
to
paragraphs
(
aa)(
2)(
ii)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
allowable
emissions
for
any
emissions
unit
shall
be
calculated
considering
any
emission
limitations
that
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
on
the
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
b)
An
emissions
unit's
potential
to
emit
shall
be
determined
using
the
definition
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section,
except
that
the
words
``
or
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter''
should
be
added
after
``
federally
enforceable.''
(
iii)
Small
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
less
than
the
significant
level
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
as
defined
in
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00100
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80285
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
(
iv)
Major
emissions
unit
means:
(
a)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
attainment
area;
or
(
b)
Any
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
major
source
threshold
for
the
PAL
pollutant
as
defined
by
the
Act
for
nonattainment
areas.
For
example,
in
accordance
with
the
definition
of
major
stationary
source
in
section
182(
c)
of
the
Act,
an
emissions
unit
would
be
a
major
emissions
unit
for
VOC
if
the
emissions
unit
is
located
in
a
serious
ozone
nonattainment
area
and
it
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
50
or
more
tons
of
VOC
per
year.
(
v)
Plantwide
applicability
limitation
(
PAL)
means
an
emission
limitation
expressed
in
tons
per
year,
for
a
pollutant
at
a
major
stationary
source,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter
and
established
source­
wide
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
PAL
effective
date
generally
means
the
date
of
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
However,
the
PAL
effective
date
for
an
increased
PAL
is
the
date
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
vii)
PAL
effective
period
means
the
period
beginning
with
the
PAL
effective
date
and
ending
10
years
later.
(
viii)
PAL
major
modification
means,
notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
and
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
(
the
definitions
for
major
modification
and
net
emissions
increase),
any
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
PAL
source
that
causes
it
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
a
level
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
PAL.
(
ix)
PAL
permit
means
the
major
NSR
permit,
the
minor
NSR
permit,
or
the
State
operating
permit
under
a
program
that
is
approved
into
the
State
Implementation
Plan,
or
the
title
V
permit
issued
by
the
Administrator
that
establishes
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source.
(
x)
PAL
pollutant
means
the
pollutant
for
which
a
PAL
is
established
at
a
major
stationary
source.
(
xi)
Significant
emissions
unit
means
an
emissions
unit
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
a
PAL
pollutant
in
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
significant
level
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
in
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower)
for
that
PAL
pollutant,
but
less
than
the
amount
that
would
qualify
the
unit
as
a
major
emissions
unit
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
2)(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Permit
application
requirements.
As
part
of
a
permit
application
requesting
a
PAL,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
the
following
information
to
the
Administrator
for
approval:
(
i)
A
list
of
all
emissions
units
at
the
source
designated
as
small,
significant
or
major
based
on
their
potential
to
emit.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
source
shall
indicate
which,
if
any,
Federal
or
State
applicable
requirements,
emission
limitations,
or
work
practices
apply
to
each
unit.
(
ii)
Calculations
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
with
supporting
documentation).
Baseline
actual
emissions
are
to
include
emissions
associated
not
only
with
operation
of
the
unit,
but
also
emissions
associated
with
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
iii)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
proposes
to
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
as
required
by
paragraph
(
aa)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
4)
General
requirements
for
establishing
PALs.
(
i)
The
Administrator
is
allowed
to
establish
a
PAL
at
a
major
stationary
source,
provided
that
at
a
minimum,
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
4)(
i)(
a)
through
(
g)
of
this
section
are
met.
(
a)
The
PAL
shall
impose
an
annual
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
for
the
entire
major
stationary
source.
For
each
month
during
the
PAL
effective
period
after
the
first
12
months
of
establishing
a
PAL,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
monthly
emissions
from
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
for
the
previous
12
consecutive
months
is
less
than
the
PAL
(
a
12­
month
average,
rolled
monthly).
For
each
month
during
the
first
11
months
from
the
PAL
effective
date,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
show
that
the
sum
of
the
preceding
monthly
emissions
from
the
PAL
effective
date
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
is
less
than
the
PAL.
(
b)
The
PAL
shall
be
established
in
a
PAL
permit
that
meets
the
public
participation
requirements
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
c)
The
PAL
permit
shall
contain
all
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
aa)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
d)
The
PAL
shall
include
fugitive
emissions,
to
the
extent
quantifiable,
from
all
emissions
units
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant
at
the
major
stationary
source.
(
e)
Each
PAL
shall
regulate
emissions
of
only
one
pollutant.
(
f)
Each
PAL
shall
have
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
g)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
with
a
PAL
shall
comply
with
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
provided
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
12)
through
(
14)
of
this
section
for
each
emissions
unit
under
the
PAL
through
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
ii)
At
no
time
(
during
or
after
the
PAL
effective
period)
are
emissions
reductions
of
a
PAL
pollutant
that
occur
during
the
PAL
effective
period
creditable
as
decreases
for
purposes
of
offsets
under
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
chapter
unless
the
level
of
the
PAL
is
reduced
by
the
amount
of
such
emissions
reductions
and
such
reductions
would
be
creditable
in
the
absence
of
the
PAL.
(
5)
Public
participation
requirements
for
PALs.
PALs
for
existing
major
stationary
sources
shall
be
established,
renewed,
or
increased
through
a
procedure
that
is
consistent
with
§
§
51.160
and
51.161
of
this
chapter.
This
includes
the
requirement
that
the
Administrator
provide
the
public
with
notice
of
the
proposed
approval
of
a
PAL
permit
and
at
least
a
30­
day
period
for
submittal
of
public
comment.
The
Administrator
must
address
all
material
comments
before
taking
final
action
on
the
permit.
(
6)
Setting
the
10­
year
actuals
PAL
level.
The
actuals
PAL
level
for
a
major
stationary
source
shall
be
established
as
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
b)(
48)
of
this
section)
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
each
emissions
unit
at
the
source;
plus
an
amount
equal
to
the
applicable
significant
level
for
the
PAL
pollutant
under
paragraph
(
b)(
23)
of
this
section
or
under
the
Act,
whichever
is
lower.
When
establishing
the
actuals
PAL
level,
for
a
PAL
pollutant,
only
one
consecutive
24­
month
period
must
be
used
to
determine
the
baseline
actual
emissions
for
all
existing
emissions
units.
However,
a
different
consecutive
24­
month
period
may
be
used
for
each
different
PAL
pollutant.
Emissions
associated
with
units
that
were
permanently
shutdown
after
this
24­
month
period
must
be
subtracted
from
the
PAL
level.
Emissions
from
units
on
which
actual
construction
began
after
the
24­
month
period
must
be
added
to
the
PAL
level
in
an
amount
equal
to
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
units.
The
Administrator
shall
specify
a
reduced
PAL
level(
s)
(
in
tons/
yr)
in
the
PAL
permit
to
become
effective
on
the
future
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00101
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80286
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
compliance
date(
s)
of
any
applicable
Federal
or
State
regulatory
requirement(
s)
that
the
Administrator
is
aware
of
prior
to
issuance
of
the
PAL
permit.
For
instance,
if
the
source
owner
or
operator
will
be
required
to
reduce
emissions
from
industrial
boilers
in
half
from
baseline
emissions
of
60
ppm
NOX
to
a
new
rule
limit
of
30
ppm,
then
the
permit
shall
contain
a
future
effective
PAL
level
that
is
equal
to
the
current
PAL
level
reduced
by
half
of
the
original
baseline
emissions
of
such
unit(
s).
(
7)
Contents
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
PAL
permit
must
contain,
at
a
minimum,
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
7)(
i)
through
(
x)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
PAL
pollutant
and
the
applicable
source­
wide
emission
limitation
in
tons
per
year.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
effective
date
and
the
expiration
date
of
the
PAL
(
PAL
effective
period).
(
iii)
Specification
in
the
PAL
permit
that
if
a
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
applies
to
renew
a
PAL
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)
of
this
section
before
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
not
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period.
It
shall
remain
in
effect
until
a
revised
PAL
permit
is
issued
by
a
reviewing
authority.
(
iv)
A
requirement
that
emission
calculations
for
compliance
purposes
must
include
emissions
from
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
(
v)
A
requirement
that,
once
the
PAL
expires,
the
major
stationary
source
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
aa)(
9)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
The
calculation
procedures
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
use
to
convert
the
monitoring
system
data
to
monthly
emissions
and
annual
emissions
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
as
required
by
paragraph
(
aa)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
vii)
A
requirement
that
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
monitor
all
emissions
units
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
12)
of
this
section.
(
viii)
A
requirement
to
retain
the
records
required
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
13)
of
this
section
on
site.
Such
records
may
be
retained
in
an
electronic
format.
(
ix)
A
requirement
to
submit
the
reports
required
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
14)
of
this
section
by
the
required
deadlines.
(
x)
Any
other
requirements
that
the
Administrator
deems
necessary
to
implement
and
enforce
the
PAL.
(
8)
PAL
effective
period
and
reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
The
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
8)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section
apply
to
actuals
PALs.
(
i)
PAL
effective
period.
The
Administrator
shall
specify
a
PAL
effective
period
of
10
years.
(
ii)
Reopening
of
the
PAL
permit.
(
a)
During
the
PAL
effective
period,
the
Administrator
must
reopen
the
PAL
permit
to:
(
1)
Correct
typographical/
calculation
errors
made
in
setting
the
PAL
or
reflect
a
more
accurate
determination
of
emissions
used
to
establish
the
PAL;
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
creates
creditable
emissions
reductions
for
use
as
offsets
under
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
this
chapter;
and
(
3)
Revise
the
PAL
to
reflect
an
increase
in
the
PAL
as
provided
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
11)
of
this
section.
(
b)
The
Administrator
shall
have
discretion
to
reopen
the
PAL
permit
for
the
following:
(
1)
Reduce
the
PAL
to
reflect
newly
applicable
Federal
requirements
(
for
example,
NSPS)
with
compliance
dates
after
the
PAL
effective
date;
(
2)
Reduce
the
PAL
consistent
with
any
other
requirement,
that
is
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter,
and
that
the
State
may
impose
on
the
major
stationary
source
under
the
State
Implementation
Plan;
and
(
3)
Reduce
the
PAL
if
the
reviewing
authority
determines
that
a
reduction
is
necessary
to
avoid
causing
or
contributing
to
a
NAAQS
or
PSD
increment
violation,
or
to
an
adverse
impact
on
an
air
quality
related
value
that
has
been
identified
for
a
Federal
Class
I
area
by
a
Federal
Land
Manager
and
for
which
information
is
available
to
the
general
public.
(
c)
Except
for
the
permit
reopening
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
8)(
ii)(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
for
the
correction
of
typographical/
calculation
errors
that
do
not
increase
the
PAL
level,
all
other
reopenings
shall
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
public
participation
requirements
of
paragraph
(
aa)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
9)
Expiration
of
a
PAL.
Any
PAL
that
is
not
renewed
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)
of
this
section
shall
expire
at
the
end
of
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
9)(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section
shall
apply.
(
i)
Each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units)
that
existed
under
the
PAL
shall
comply
with
an
allowable
emission
limitation
under
a
revised
permit
established
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
9)(
i)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Within
the
time
frame
specified
for
PAL
renewals
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)(
ii)
of
this
section,
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
proposed
allowable
emission
limitation
for
each
emissions
unit
(
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
if
such
a
distribution
is
more
appropriate
as
decided
by
the
Administrator)
by
distributing
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
for
the
major
stationary
source
among
each
of
the
emissions
units
that
existed
under
the
PAL.
If
the
PAL
had
not
yet
been
adjusted
for
an
applicable
requirement
that
became
effective
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)(
v)
of
this
section,
such
distribution
shall
be
made
as
if
the
PAL
had
been
adjusted.
(
b)
The
Administrator
shall
decide
whether
and
how
the
PAL
allowable
emissions
will
be
distributed
and
issue
a
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
the
Administrator
determines
is
appropriate.
(
ii)
Each
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation
on
a
12­
month
rolling
basis.
The
Administrator
may
approve
the
use
of
monitoring
systems
(
source
testing,
emission
factors,
etc.)
other
than
CEMS,
CERMS,
PEMS,
or
CPMS
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
allowable
emission
limitation.
(
iii)
Until
the
Administrator
issues
the
revised
permit
incorporating
allowable
limits
for
each
emissions
unit,
or
each
group
of
emissions
units,
as
required
under
paragraph
(
aa)(
9)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section,
the
source
shall
continue
to
comply
with
a
source­
wide,
multi­
unit
emissions
cap
equivalent
to
the
level
of
the
PAL
emission
limitation.
(
iv)
Any
physical
change
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
at
the
major
stationary
source
will
be
subject
to
major
NSR
requirements
if
such
change
meets
the
definition
of
major
modification
in
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
v)
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
continue
to
comply
with
any
State
or
Federal
applicable
requirements
(
BACT,
RACT,
NSPS,
etc.)
that
may
have
applied
either
during
the
PAL
effective
period
or
prior
to
the
PAL
effective
period
except
for
those
emission
limitations
that
had
been
established
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
r)(
4)
of
this
section,
but
were
eliminated
by
the
PAL
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
1)(
ii)(
c)
of
this
section.
(
10)
Renewal
of
a
PAL.
(
i)
The
Administrator
shall
follow
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
5)
of
this
section
in
approving
any
request
to
renew
a
PAL
for
a
major
stationary
source,
and
shall
provide
both
the
proposed
PAL
level
and
a
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00102
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80287
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
written
rationale
for
the
proposed
PAL
level
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment.
During
such
public
review,
any
person
may
propose
a
PAL
level
for
the
source
for
consideration
by
the
Administrator.
(
ii)
Application
deadline.
A
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
a
timely
application
to
the
Administrator
to
request
renewal
of
a
PAL.
A
timely
application
is
one
that
is
submitted
at
least
6
months
prior
to,
but
not
earlier
than
18
months
from,
the
date
of
permit
expiration.
This
deadline
for
application
submittal
is
to
ensure
that
the
permit
will
not
expire
before
the
permit
is
renewed.
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
submits
a
complete
application
to
renew
the
PAL
within
this
time
period,
then
the
PAL
shall
continue
to
be
effective
until
the
revised
permit
with
the
renewed
PAL
is
issued.
(
iii)
Application
requirements.
The
application
to
renew
a
PAL
permit
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
10)(
iii)(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
b)
A
proposed
PAL
level.
(
c)
The
sum
of
the
potential
to
emit
of
all
emissions
units
under
the
PAL
(
with
supporting
documentation).
(
d)
Any
other
information
the
owner
or
operator
wishes
the
Administrator
to
consider
in
determining
the
appropriate
level
for
renewing
the
PAL.
(
iv)
PAL
adjustment.
In
determining
whether
and
how
to
adjust
the
PAL,
the
Administrator
shall
consider
the
options
outlined
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
10)(
iv)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
However,
in
no
case
may
any
such
adjustment
fail
to
comply
with
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)(
iv)(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
If
the
emissions
level
calculated
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
aa)(
6)
of
this
section
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
80
percent
of
the
PAL
level,
the
Administrator
may
renew
the
PAL
at
the
same
level
without
considering
the
factors
set
forth
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
10)(
iv)(
b)
of
this
section;
or
(
b)
The
Administrator
may
set
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
he
or
she
determines
to
be
more
representative
of
the
source's
baseline
actual
emissions,
or
that
he
or
she
determines
to
be
more
appropriate
considering
air
quality
needs,
advances
in
control
technology,
anticipated
economic
growth
in
the
area,
desire
to
reward
or
encourage
the
source's
voluntary
emissions
reductions,
or
other
factors
as
specifically
identified
by
the
Administrator
in
his
or
her
written
rationale.
(
c)
Notwithstanding
paragraphs
(
aa)(
10)(
iv)(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section:
(
1)
If
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
major
stationary
source
is
less
than
the
PAL,
the
Administrator
shall
adjust
the
PAL
to
a
level
no
greater
than
the
potential
to
emit
of
the
source;
and
(
2)
The
Administrator
shall
not
approve
a
renewed
PAL
level
higher
than
the
current
PAL,
unless
the
major
stationary
source
has
complied
with
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
aa)(
11)
of
this
section
(
increasing
a
PAL).
(
v)
If
the
compliance
date
for
a
State
or
Federal
requirement
that
applies
to
the
PAL
source
occurs
during
the
PAL
effective
period,
and
if
the
Administrator
has
not
already
adjusted
for
such
requirement,
the
PAL
shall
be
adjusted
at
the
time
of
PAL
permit
renewal
or
title
V
permit
renewal,
whichever
occurs
first.
(
11)
Increasing
a
PAL
during
the
PAL
effective
period.
(
i)
The
Administrator
may
increase
a
PAL
emission
limitation
only
if
the
major
stationary
source
complies
with
the
provisions
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
11)(
i)(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
owner
or
operator
of
the
major
stationary
source
shall
submit
a
complete
application
to
request
an
increase
in
the
PAL
limit
for
a
PAL
major
modification.
Such
application
shall
identify
the
emissions
unit(
s)
contributing
to
the
increase
in
emissions
so
as
to
cause
the
major
stationary
source's
emissions
to
equal
or
exceed
its
PAL.
(
b)
As
part
of
this
application,
the
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
demonstrate
that
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls,
plus
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
of
the
new
or
modified
emissions
unit(
s)
exceeds
the
PAL.
The
level
of
control
that
would
result
from
BACT
equivalent
controls
on
each
significant
or
major
emissions
unit
shall
be
determined
by
conducting
a
new
BACT
analysis
at
the
time
the
application
is
submitted,
unless
the
emissions
unit
is
currently
required
to
comply
with
a
BACT
or
LAER
requirement
that
was
established
within
the
preceding
10
years.
In
such
a
case,
the
assumed
control
level
for
that
emissions
unit
shall
be
equal
to
the
level
of
BACT
or
LAER
with
which
that
emissions
unit
must
currently
comply.
(
c)
The
owner
or
operator
obtains
a
major
NSR
permit
for
all
emissions
unit(
s)
identified
in
paragraph
(
aa)(
11)(
i)(
a)
of
this
section,
regardless
of
the
magnitude
of
the
emissions
increase
resulting
from
them
(
that
is,
no
significant
levels
apply).
These
emissions
unit(
s)
shall
comply
with
any
emissions
requirements
resulting
from
the
major
NSR
process
(
for
example,
BACT),
even
though
they
have
also
become
subject
to
the
PAL
or
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
PAL.
(
d)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
that
the
increased
PAL
level
shall
be
effective
on
the
day
any
emissions
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PAL
major
modification
becomes
operational
and
begins
to
emit
the
PAL
pollutant.
(
ii)
The
Administrator
shall
calculate
the
new
PAL
as
the
sum
of
the
allowable
emissions
for
each
modified
or
new
emissions
unit,
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
significant
and
major
emissions
units
(
assuming
application
of
BACT
equivalent
controls
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
aa)(
11)(
i)(
b)),
plus
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
small
emissions
units.
(
iii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
be
revised
to
reflect
the
increased
PAL
level
pursuant
to
the
public
notice
requirements
of
paragraph
(
aa)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
12)
Monitoring
requirements
for
PALs.
(
i)
General
requirements.
(
a)
Each
PAL
permit
must
contain
enforceable
requirements
for
the
monitoring
system
that
accurately
determines
plantwide
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
in
terms
of
mass
per
unit
of
time.
Any
monitoring
system
authorized
for
use
in
the
PAL
permit
must
be
based
on
sound
science
and
meet
generally
acceptable
scientific
procedures
for
data
quality
and
manipulation.
Additionally,
the
information
generated
by
such
system
must
meet
minimum
legal
requirements
for
admissibility
in
a
judicial
proceeding
to
enforce
the
PAL
permit.
(
b)
The
PAL
monitoring
system
must
employ
one
or
more
of
the
four
general
monitoring
approaches
meeting
the
minimum
requirements
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
12)(
ii)(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section
and
must
be
approved
by
the
Administrator.
(
c)
Notwithstanding
paragraph
(
aa)(
12)(
i)(
b)
of
this
section,
you
may
also
employ
an
alternative
monitoring
approach
that
meets
paragraph
(
aa)(
12)(
i)(
a)
of
this
section
if
approved
by
the
Administrator.
(
d)
Failure
to
use
a
monitoring
system
that
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section
renders
the
PAL
invalid.
(
ii)
Minimum
performance
requirements
for
approved
monitoring
approaches.
The
following
are
acceptable
general
monitoring
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00103
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80288
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
approaches
when
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
minimum
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
ix)
of
this
section:
(
a)
Mass
balance
calculations
for
activities
using
coatings
or
solvents;
(
b)
CEMS;
(
c)
CPMS
or
PEMS;
and
(
d)
Emission
factors.
(
iii)
Mass
balance
calculations.
An
owner
or
operator
using
mass
balance
calculations
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
from
activities
using
coating
or
solvents
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
Provide
a
demonstrated
means
of
validating
the
published
content
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
all
materials
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit;
(
b)
Assume
that
the
emissions
unit
emits
all
of
the
PAL
pollutant
that
is
contained
in
or
created
by
any
raw
material
or
fuel
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
if
it
cannot
otherwise
be
accounted
for
in
the
process;
and
(
c)
Where
the
vendor
of
a
material
or
fuel,
which
is
used
in
or
at
the
emissions
unit,
publishes
a
range
of
pollutant
content
from
such
material,
the
owner
or
operator
must
use
the
highest
value
of
the
range
to
calculate
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
unless
the
Administrator
determines
there
is
sitespecific
data
or
a
site­
specific
monitoring
program
to
support
another
content
within
the
range.
(
iv)
CEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
CEMS
must
comply
with
applicable
Performance
Specifications
found
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B;
and
(
b)
CEMS
must
sample,
analyze
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
v)
CPMS
or
PEMS.
An
owner
or
operator
using
CPMS
or
PEMS
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
The
CPMS
or
the
PEMS
must
be
based
on
current
site­
specific
data
demonstrating
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
across
the
range
of
operation
of
the
emissions
unit;
and
(
b)
Each
CPMS
or
PEMS
must
sample,
analyze,
and
record
data
at
least
every
15
minutes,
or
at
another
less
frequent
interval
approved
by
the
Administrator,
while
the
emissions
unit
is
operating.
(
vi)
Emission
factors.
An
owner
or
operator
using
emission
factors
to
monitor
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
(
a)
All
emission
factors
shall
be
adjusted,
if
appropriate,
to
account
for
the
degree
of
uncertainty
or
limitations
in
the
factors'
development;
(
b)
The
emissions
unit
shall
operate
within
the
designated
range
of
use
for
the
emission
factor,
if
applicable;
and
(
c)
If
technically
practicable,
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
significant
emissions
unit
that
relies
on
an
emission
factor
to
calculate
PAL
pollutant
emissions
shall
conduct
validation
testing
to
determine
a
sitespecific
emission
factor
within
6
months
of
PAL
permit
issuance,
unless
the
Administrator
determines
that
testing
is
not
required.
(
vii)
A
source
owner
or
operator
must
record
and
report
maximum
potential
emissions
without
considering
enforceable
emission
limitations
or
operational
restrictions
for
an
emissions
unit
during
any
period
of
time
that
there
is
no
monitoring
data,
unless
another
method
for
determining
emissions
during
such
periods
is
specified
in
the
PAL
permit.
(
viii)
Notwithstanding
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
12)(
iii)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section,
where
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
emissions
unit
cannot
demonstrate
a
correlation
between
the
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
rate
at
all
operating
points
of
the
emissions
unit,
the
Administrator
shall,
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance:
(
a)
Establish
default
value(
s)
for
determining
compliance
with
the
PAL
based
on
the
highest
potential
emissions
reasonably
estimated
at
such
operating
point(
s);
or
(
b)
Determine
that
operation
of
the
emissions
unit
during
operating
conditions
when
there
is
no
correlation
between
monitored
parameter(
s)
and
the
PAL
pollutant
emissions
is
a
violation
of
the
PAL.
(
ix)
Re­
validation.
All
data
used
to
establish
the
PAL
pollutant
must
be
revalidated
through
performance
testing
or
other
scientifically
valid
means
approved
by
the
Administrator.
Such
testing
must
occur
at
least
once
every
5
years
after
issuance
of
the
PAL.
(
13)
Recordkeeping
requirements.
(
i)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
all
records
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
any
requirement
of
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section
and
of
the
PAL,
including
a
determination
of
each
emissions
unit's
12­
month
rolling
total
emissions,
for
5
years
from
the
date
of
such
record.
(
ii)
The
PAL
permit
shall
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
following
records
for
the
duration
of
the
PAL
effective
period
plus
5
years:
(
a)
A
copy
of
the
PAL
permit
application
and
any
applications
for
revisions
to
the
PAL;
and
(
b)
Each
annual
certification
of
compliance
pursuant
to
title
V
and
the
data
relied
on
in
certifying
the
compliance.
(
14)
Reporting
and
notification
requirements.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
semi­
annual
monitoring
reports
and
prompt
deviation
reports
to
the
Administrator
in
accordance
with
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program.
The
reports
shall
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
14)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Semi­
annual
report.
The
semiannual
report
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
each
reporting
period.
This
report
shall
contain
the
information
required
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
14)(
i)(
a)
through
(
g)
of
this
section.
(
a)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number.
(
b)
Total
annual
emissions
(
tons/
year)
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
month
in
the
reporting
period
recorded
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
aa)(
13)(
i)
of
this
section.
(
c)
All
data
relied
upon,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
Quality
Assurance
or
Quality
Control
data,
in
calculating
the
monthly
and
annual
PAL
pollutant
emissions.
(
d)
A
list
of
any
emissions
units
modified
or
added
to
the
major
stationary
source
during
the
preceding
6­
month
period.
(
e)
The
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
any
deviations
or
monitoring
malfunctions
(
other
than
the
time
associated
with
zero
and
span
calibration
checks),
and
any
corrective
action
taken.
(
f)
A
notification
of
a
shutdown
of
any
monitoring
system,
whether
the
shutdown
was
permanent
or
temporary,
the
reason
for
the
shutdown,
the
anticipated
date
that
the
monitoring
system
will
be
fully
operational
or
replaced
with
another
monitoring
system,
and
whether
the
emissions
unit
monitored
by
the
monitoring
system
continued
to
operate,
and
the
calculation
of
the
emissions
of
the
pollutant
or
the
number
determined
by
method
included
in
the
permit,
as
provided
by
(
aa)(
12)(
vii).
(
g)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
ii)
Deviation
report.
The
major
stationary
source
owner
or
operator
shall
promptly
submit
reports
of
any
deviations
or
exceedance
of
the
PAL
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00104
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3
80289
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
requirements,
including
periods
where
no
monitoring
is
available.
A
report
submitted
pursuant
to
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter
shall
satisfy
this
reporting
requirement.
The
deviation
reports
shall
be
submitted
within
the
time
limits
prescribed
by
the
applicable
program
implementing
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
chapter.
The
reports
shall
contain
the
following
information:
(
a)
The
identification
of
owner
and
operator
and
the
permit
number;
(
b)
The
PAL
requirement
that
experienced
the
deviation
or
that
was
exceeded;
(
c)
Emissions
resulting
from
the
deviation
or
the
exceedance;
and
(
d)
A
signed
statement
by
the
responsible
official
(
as
defined
by
the
applicable
title
V
operating
permit
program)
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
information
provided
in
the
report.
(
iii)
Re­
validation
results.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
submit
to
the
Administrator
the
results
of
any
revalidation
test
or
method
within
3
months
after
completion
of
such
test
or
method.
(
15)
Transition
requirements.
(
i)
The
Administrator
may
not
issue
a
PAL
that
does
not
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section
after
March
3,
2003.
(
ii)
The
Administrator
may
supersede
any
PAL
that
was
established
prior
to
March
3,
2003
with
a
PAL
that
complies
with
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
aa)(
1)
through
(
15)
of
this
section.
(
bb)
If
any
provision
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
any
person
or
circumstance,
is
held
invalid,
the
remainder
of
this
section,
or
the
application
of
such
provision
to
persons
or
circumstances
other
than
those
as
to
which
it
is
held
invalid,
shall
not
be
affected
thereby.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31899
Filed
12
 
30
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
09
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00105
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER3.
SGM
31DER3