Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0180-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-14T05:00Z

6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
70
and
71
[
OAR­
2003­
0180;
FRL­______]

[
RIN
2060­
AK29]

Request
for
Comment
on
Potentially
Inadequate
Monitoring
in
Clean
Air
Act
Applicable
Requirements
and
on
Methods
to
Improve
Such
Monitoring
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
ANPR).

SUMMARY:
Today's
ANPR
asks
for
public
comment
to
help
us
identify
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
that
is
potentially
inadequate
with
respect
to
the
statutory
monitoring
requirements
for
operating
permits
issued
under
title
V
of
the
Act.
Today's
ANPR
also
asks
for
public
comment
on
ways
to
improve
such
monitoring.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
will
be
more
effective,
more
equitable,
and
more
efficient
to
improve
inadequate
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements,
where
necessary,

through
rulemakings
to
revise
the
applicable
requirements
themselves
or
through
other
programmatic
approaches,
rather
than
by
addressing
inadequate
monitoring
on
a
case­

bycase
basis
in
the
issuance
and
renewal
of
title
V
operating
permits.
To
inform
EPA's
consideration
of
improvements
to
existing
monitoring,
today's
ANPR
seeks
stakeholder
input
to
identify
inadequate
monitoring
in
certain
Federal
standards
and
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
rules
and
to
suggest
specific
ways
to
improve
such
monitoring.

Comments
received
in
response
to
today's
ANPR
will
enable
EPA
to
better
evaluate
where
inadequate
monitoring
exists
and
to
determine
how
to
craft
any
necessary
improvements.
2
DATES:
Comments.
We
must
receive
written
comments
on
or
before
[
insert
date
60
days
following
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0180,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

°
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:
http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
Agency
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.

Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
E­
mail:
Send
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
EPA
Docket
Center
at
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epamail.
epa.
gov.

°
Fax:
Send
faxes
to
EPA
Docket
Center
at
(
202)
566­
1741.

°
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
code:

6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.

°
Hand
Delivery:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington
DC,
20004.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0180.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
3
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
Federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
EDOCKET
or
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CDROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
public
docket
visit
EDOCKET
on­
line
or
see
the
Federal
Register
of
May
31,
2002
(
67
FR
38102).

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.

Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
4
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Jeff
Herring,
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Implementation
Division,
Office
and
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Mail
Code
C304­
04,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711;
telephone
number:
(
919)
541­
3195;
fax
number:
(
919)
541­
5509;
and
email
address:
herring.
jeff@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

Categories
and
entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
include
facilities
currently
required
to
obtain
title
V
permits
under
State,
local,
tribal,
or
Federal
operating
permits
programs,
and
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
that
issue
such
permits
pursuant
to
EPA­
approved
programs.

B.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

1.
Submitting
CBI.
Do
not
submit
CBI
to
EPA
through
EDOCKET,

regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Instead,
mail
CBI
to
the
following
address:

Mr.
Roberto
Morales,
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404­
02),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
E­
Docket
ID
No.

OAR­
2003­
0180.
Alternatively,
such
information
may
be
hand
delivered
to
the
following
address:
Mr.
Roberto
Morales,
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404­
02),
U.
S.
5
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
109
T.
W.
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709,
Attention
E­
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0180.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.
For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
Mr.
Morales,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
claimed
as
CBI.

In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
a
CD
ROM
or
disc
that
does
not
contain
CBI,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Information
marked
as
CBI
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR),
part
2.

2.
Tips
for
Preparing
Your
Comments.
When
submitting
comments,
remember
to:

°
Identify
the
rulemaking
by
docket
number
and
other
identifying
information
(
subject
heading,
Federal
Register
date
and
page
number).

°
Follow
directions
­
The
agency
may
ask
you
to
respond
to
specific
questions
or
organize
comments
by
referencing
a
CFR
part
or
section
number.

°
Explain
why
you
agree
or
disagree;
suggest
alternatives
and
substitute
language
for
your
requested
changes.
6
°
Describe
any
assumptions
and
provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
that
you
used.

°
If
you
estimate
potential
costs
or
burdens,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate
in
sufficient
detail
to
allow
for
it
to
be
reproduced.

°
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns,
and
suggest
alternatives.

°
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible,
avoiding
the
use
of
profanity
or
personal
threats.

°
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

C.
Where
Can
I
Obtain
Additional
Information?

In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
notice
is
also
available
on
the
World
Wide
Web
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).

Following
signature
by
the
EPA
Administrator,
a
copy
of
today's
notice
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg
.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,

call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541­
5384.

D.
How
Is
This
Preamble
Organized?

The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
B.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
1.
Submitting
CBI
2.
Tips
for
Preparing
your
Comments
C.
Where
Can
I
Obtain
Additional
Information?
D.
How
Is
This
Preamble
Organized?
7
II.
Background
III.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
Today's
ANPR?
IV.
What
Are
We
Specifically
Seeking
Comment
On?
V.
What
Additional
Steps
Are
Expected
After
EPA
Reviews
the
Comments
Received?

II.
Background
Two
provisions
of
EPA's
State
and
Federal
operating
permits
program
regulations
require
that
title
V
permits
contain
monitoring
requirements.
The
"
periodic
monitoring"

rules,
40
CFR
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
require
that:

[
w]
here
the
applicable
requirement
does
not
require
periodic
testing
or
instrumental
or
noninstrumental
monitoring
(
which
may
consist
of
recordkeeping
designed
to
serve
as
monitoring),
[
each
title
V
permit
must
contain]
periodic
monitoring
sufficient
to
yield
reliable
data
from
the
relevant
time
period
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit,
as
reported
pursuant
to
[
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
or
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)].
Such
monitoring
requirements
shall
assure
use
of
terms,
test
methods,
units,
averaging
periods,
and
other
statistical
conventions
consistent
with
the
applicable
requirement.
Recordkeeping
provisions
may
be
sufficient
to
meet
the
requirements
of
[
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)].

The
so­
called
"
umbrella
monitoring"
rules,
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
require
that
each
title
V
permit
contain,
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section,
compliance
certification,
testing,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."

In
a
final
rule
entitled
"
Revisions
to
Clarify
the
Scope
of
Certain
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Federal
and
State
Operating
Permits
Programs"
(
69
FR
3202,
January
22,
2004),
also
known
as
the
"
umbrella
monitoring"
rule,
EPA
announced
a
four­
step
strategy
for
improving
existing
monitoring
that
is
designed
to
minimize
reliance
on
case­

bycase
monitoring
reviews
and
so­
called
"
gap­
filling"
in
title
V
operating
permits
over
time.

Today's
ANPR
is
part
of
that
strategy.
8
In
the
first
step,
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
(
69
FR
3202,
January
22,
2004),
EPA
decided
not
to
adopt
proposed
revisions
to
the
regulatory
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
(
67
FR
58561,
September
17,
2002)
and
instead
ratified
the
regulatory
text
of
those
rules
without
making
any
changes.
The
EPA
also
announced
that
it
has
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
these
provisions
is
that
they
do
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
The
EPA
explained
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
require
that
title
V
permits
contain:
(
1)
Monitoring
required
by
"
applicable
requirements"
under
the
Act,
as
that
term
is
defined
in
40
CFR
§
§
70.2
and
71.2;
and
(
2)
such
monitoring
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).
See
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.

EPA,
208
F.
3d
1015
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
The
term
"
applicable
requirements"
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to:
Monitoring
required
under
the
compliance
assurance
monitoring
(
CAM)

rule,
40
CFR
part
64,
where
it
applies;
monitoring
required
under
Federal
rules
such
as
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
in
40
CFR
part
60,
national
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
in
40
CFR
part
61,
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards
in
40
CFR
part
63,
the
acid
rain
program
rules
in
40
CFR
parts
72
through
75;
and
monitoring
required
in
SIP,
tribal
implementation
plan
and
Federal
implementation
plan
rules.
Thus,
for
monitoring,
EPA
explained,
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)

and
71.6(
c)(
1)
constitute
"
umbrella
provisions"
that
direct
permitting
authorities
to
include
monitoring
required
under
existing
statutory
or
regulatory
authorities
in
title
V
permits.

Based
on
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
Act,
the
plain
language
and
structure
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
9
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
and
the
policy
reasons
described
in
the
preamble
to
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
(
see
69
FR
at
3204),
EPA
concluded
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
do
not
require
or
authorize
a
new
and
independent
type
of
monitoring
in
permits
beyond
what
is
required
by
section
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i).

In
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule,
EPA
also
announced
plans
to
address
monitoring
in
three
related
rulemaking
actions.
First,
EPA
announced
plans
to
encourage
States
to
improve
potentially
inadequate
monitoring
in
certain
SIP
rules.
The
EPA
intends
to
address
such
monitoring
in
guidance
to
be
developed
in
connection
with
an
upcoming
rulemaking
concerning
the
implementation
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS)
for
fine
particulate
matter
(
particulate
matter
with
an
aerodynamic
diameter
of
less
than
2.5
micrometers,
or
PM
2.5),
also
referred
to
as
the
proposed
PM
2.5
implementation
rule.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
proposed
PM
2.5
implementation
rule
will
be
to
describe
the
requirements
that
States
and
Tribes
have
to
meet
in
order
to
implement
the
PM
2.5
NAAQS.
Because
opacity
and
particulate
monitoring
are
related
to
compliance
with
particulate
matter
standards,
one
part
of
this
proposal
will
address
EPA's
plans
to
develop
separate
guidance
on
how
States
can
reduce
PM
2.5
emissions
by
improving
source
monitoring
related
to
particulate
matter
emission
limits.
This
may
include
increasing
the
frequency
of
existing
opacity
monitoring,
adding
monitoring
for
10
parameters
of
a
control
device,
installing
continuous
particulate
emissions
monitoring,
or
a
combination
of
the
above.
See
69
FR
at
3204.

In
addition,
EPA
announced
plans
to
publish
a
separate
proposed
rule
to
address
what
monitoring
constitutes
"
periodic"
monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
what
types
of
monitoring
should
be
created
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)

and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).
Finally,
EPA
announced
plans
for
today's
ANPR.
See
69
FR
at
3204­
3205.
Together
with
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule,
these
three
related
rulemaking
actions
comprise
EPA's
four­
step
strategy
for
improving
existing
monitoring
where
necessary
on
a
programmatic
basis.

In
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule,
EPA
stated
that
the
strategy
will
ensure
that
the
Act's
monitoring
requirements
will
be
met.
See
69
FR
at
3207.
For
instance,
EPA
explained
that
"
section
504(
c)'
s
command
that
each
title
V
permit
`
set
forth
.
.
.
monitoring
.
.
.
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permit
terms
and
conditions'
will
be
satisfied
through
the
combination
of
EPA
and,
as
necessary,
State
rulemakings
to
address
monitoring,
and
the
addition
to
permits
of
such
monitoring
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).
See
42
USC
§
7661c(
c)."
Id.
The
EPA
also
explained
that
"[
s]
atisfying
the
specific
monitoring
requirements
of
section
504(
c)
will
assure
that
the
more
general
requirements
of
section
504(
a)
are
satisfied
as
to
monitoring."
See
42
USC
§
7661c(
a)

("
Each
[
title
V]
permit
.
.
.
shall
include
.
.
.
conditions
as
are
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
of
this
chapter,
including
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
implementation
plan").
Id.
Further,
the
EPA
noted
that
the
Act
grants
the
Agency
broad
discretion
to
implement
the
monitoring
requirements
of
section
504
of
the
11
Act
as
well
as
the
"
enhanced
monitoring"
requirement
of
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act.
69
FR
at
3207;
see
42
USC
§
74
14(
a)(
3)
("[
the
Administrator
shall
in
the
case
of
any
person
which
is
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source
...
require
enhanced
monitoring....").

III.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
Today's
ANPR?

The
purpose
of
today's
ANPR
is
to
request
public
comments
to
identify
potentially
inadequate
monitoring
contained
in
certain
applicable
requirements
and
on
ways
to
improve
such
monitoring.
In
particular,
EPA
is
requesting
comments
on
existing
monitoring
requirements
in
NSPS
under
40
CFR
part
60
and
NESHAP
under
40
CFR
part
61
that
were
promulgated
prior
to
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act.
See
Section
IV
of
this
preamble
for
identification
of
certain
patterns
of
potentially
categories
of
monitoring
in
which
individual
rules
may
have
inadequate
monitoring
that
may
exist
in
Federal
rules.
We
believe
these
patternscategories,
listed
below,
are
a
good
starting
point
to
frame
public
comments
on
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
in
Federal
standards.
However,
we
are
not
limiting
comment
to
the
patternscategories
which
we
specifically
list
for
comment.
In
addition,
as
explained
below,
in
this
ANPR,
EPA
is
asking
for
comments
identifying
specific
SIP
rules
likely
towhich
contain
inadequate
monitoring.
Although
we
believe
some
SIP's
are
likely
to
contain
some
of
the
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
listed
below,
we
do
not
identify
specific
SIP
rules
where
such
inadequacies
may
exist.
In
this
notice,
EPA
is
not
making
any
determinations
that
the
categories
of
potentially
inadequate
monitoring
listed
below
represent
inadequate
monitoring
in
any
specific
Federal
rules
and
SIP
rules,

and
thus,
an
important
purpose
of
this
notice
is
to
seek
public
comments
to
help
us
to
12
identify
specific
Federal
rules
and
SIP
rules
where
such
monitoring
categories
actually
result
in
monitoring
that
is
inadequate
Further,
we
note
that
the
Agency
has
previously
met
any
obligation
it
had
to
promulgate
regulations
for
the
"
enhanced
monitoring"

requirement
in
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act.
Nevertheless,
EPA
will
consider
any
comments
in
response
to
this
ANPR
regarding
whether
any
of
the
monitoring
requirements
in
the
pre­
1990
NSPS
and
NESHAP
and
in
any
specific
SIP
rules
fail
to
meet
"
enhanced
monitoring"
requirements
and
the
monitoring
requirements
in
title
V
of
the
Act.
If
we
conclude
that
any
such
inadequacies
exist,
we
will
take
appropriate
action
to
ensure
that
these
statutory
requirements
are
fully
satisfied.

By
contrast,
we
are
not
seeking
comments
on
or
otherwise
reopening
standards
promulgated
after
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act,
for
example,
many
NESHAP
standards
under
part
63,
and
acid
rain
requirements,
because
we
believe
these
more
recent
standards
are
unlikely
to
contain
inadequate
monitoring.
This
is
so
because
such
rules
are
already
required
to
meet
and
were
promulgated
to
meet
Act
requirements
for
monitoring
that
were
enacted
in
1990.
Therefore
to
the
extent
the
categories
listed
below
exist
in
federal
rules
promulgated
since
1990,
EPA
believes
they
are
unlikely
to
contain
inadequate
monitoring.
For
example,
in
the
final
NESHAP
for
lime
manufacturing
plants
published
on
January
5,
2004,
we
allowed
use
of
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems
(
COMS)
for
HAP
metals
instead
of
requiring
continuous
particulate
mass
monitoring.
This
is
an
example
of
a
category
of
potentially
inadequate
monitoring
in
which
limits
on
both
PM
mass
and
opacity
are
specified,
but
only
monitoring
of
opacity
is
required,
not
PM
mass.
A
commenter
asserted
that
a
COMS
as
a
surrogate
for
HAP
metals
emitted
from
kilns,
13
coolers,
or
processed
stone
operations
was
inappropriate
because
COMS
does
not
correlate
to
particulate
matter
(
PM)
mass,
and
that
a
better
alternative
was
to
use
PM
continuous
monitoring
that
measures
PM
mass
in
units
directly
related
to
the
mass
emissions
limit
(
see
69
FR
407).
In
its
response,
EPA
agreed
that
COMS
cannot
directly
measure
PM
emissions,
but
argued
that
a
properly
calibrated
and
maintained
COMS
is
sufficient
to
demonstrate
long
term
PM
control
device
performance,
since
the
purpose
of
the
monitoring
is
to
demonstrate
with
reasonable
certainty
that
the
PM
control
device
is
operating
as
well
as
it
did
during
the
PM
emission
test
used
to
demonstrate
compliance.

EPA
also
justied
the
use
of
a
COMS
because
PM
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS)
are
significantly
more
expensive
to
purchase
and
maintain
than
a
COMS,
and
that
PM
CEMS
measure
concentration,
while
the
basis
of
the
standard
is
mass
per
unit
of
feed
input.
As
another
example,
the
National
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Standards
for
Consumer
Products,
published
on
September
11,
1998
(
40
CFR
59
subpart
C)
requires
no
monitoring
of
the
consumer
product.
Instead,
manufacturers
demonstrate
compliance
by
keeping
records
of
ingredients
used
in
each
batch
of
product.
These
records
are
then
used
to
ensure
compliance
with
limitations
on
VOC
content
(
weight
percent)
each
consumer
product.
Because
the
manufacturers'
recordkeeping,
monitoring
of
the
consumer
products
is
not
necessary
and
it
would
also
be
infeasible
and
costly.
[
If
we
find
a
better
example
we
will
include
it
instead
of
the
consumer
products
example.]
We
are
also
not
seeking
comment
on
or
otherwise
reopening
the
CAM
rule
for
similar
reasons.

Specifically,
we
believe
the
CAM
rule
is
currently
structured
such
that,
when
it
applies,
it
already
requires
adequate
monitoring
in
permits.
(
The
next
paragraph
discusses
in
more
14
detail
how
this
ANPR
relates
to
the
CAM
rule.)

An
important
purpose
of
this
notice
is
to
solicit
comments
that
could
inform
rulemaking
actions
that
potentially
would
reduce
the
resource
burdens
associated
with
case­
by­
case
review
under
the
periodic
monitoring
and
CAM
rules.
Because
periodic
monitoring
rules
apply
when
existing
monitoring
is
not
"
periodic"
and
our
strategy
for
improving
existing
monitoring
through
rulemaking
may
result
in
more
existing
monitoring
that
is
"
periodic,"
our
strategy
for
improving
monitoring
will
likely
result
in
fewer
instances
where
periodic
monitoring
rules
apply.
Also,
for
two
reasons,
our
strategy
for
improving
monitoring
through
rulemaking
may
result
in
less
need
for
case­
by­
case
review
and
enhancement
under
the
CAM
rule.
First,
as
provided
in
§
64.2(
b)(
1)(
i),
any
rulemakings
to
revise
emission
limitations
and
standards
established
pursuant
to
section
111
or
112
of
the
Act
will
result
in
exemptions
from
CAM
for
those
emission
limitations
and
standards.
The
CAM
rule
provides
for
this
because
any
such
rulemakings
must
satisfy
certain
Act
requirements
for
monitoring,
and
thus,
EPA
believes
further
enhancements
to
monitoring
through
CAM
would
be
unnecessary.
Second,
§
64.4(
b)(
1)
allows
States
to
provide
SIP
rules
designed
to
satisfy
certain
CAM
requirements
(
the
requirements
to
document
the
appropriateness
of
monitoring
within
the
CAM
plan)
for
particular
types
of
emission
units.

To
the
extent
that
our
strategy
for
improving
monitoring
through
rulemaking
results
in
SIP
rules
designed
for
this
purpose,
it
follows
that
this
strategy
may
potentially
reduce
some
of
the
burdens
associated
with
implementation
of
the
CAM
rule.

Aside
from
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
that
is
not
"
periodic,"
there
may
be
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
that
is
"
inadequate"
because
it
is
outdated,
and
15
another
purpose
of
this
notice
is
to
identify
such
outdated
monitoring.
Many
NSPS
and
NESHAP
standards
were
promulgated
two
decades
ago
or
more,
and
many
have
not
been
revised
since
that
time.
Air
pollution
monitoring
technologies
have
advanced
significantly
since
many
of
these
standards
were
promulgated.
For
example,
there
is
widespread
availability
and
utility
of
programmable
microprocessors
for
collecting,
processing,
and
storing
data
in
digital
formats
(
e.
g.,
digital
data
loggers
and
similar
devices).
Thus,
we
ask
for
comments
to
identify
standards
where
upgrades
to
reflect
such
new
technologies
or
other
developments
since
the
standards
were
promulgated
are
appropriate.

IV.
What
Are
We
Specifically
Seeking
Comment
On?

To
focus
analysis
and
comment
on
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
in
existing
Federal
and
State
rules,
we
provide
the
following
example
patternscategories
of
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
based
on
our
preliminary
review
of
certain
NSPS
and
NESHAP
rules:

°
No
monitoring
of
any
kind
is
required.

°
Monitoring
is
specified
for
certain
units,
but
no
monitoring
is
required
for
other
units.

°
Limits
on
both
PM
mass
and
opacity
are
specified,
but
only
monitoring
of
opacity
is
required
(
and
not
of
PM
mass).

°
Monitoring
is
specified
for
certain
control
devices
(
usually
e.
g.,
monitoring
of
pressure
drop),
but
no
monitoring
is
specified
for
other
control
devices.

°
Monitoring
method
is
specified,
but
no
monitoring
frequency
is
specified,
or
monitoring
is
required
only
when
directed
by
permitting
authority.
16
°
Infrequent
periodic
testing
required,
but
no
monitoring
of
the
control
device
is
specified
between
required
tests.

°
Monitoring
of
parameters
may
be
insufficient
to
assure
proper
operation
of
control
device.

°
Monitoring
of
parameters
required,
but
no
parameter
range
is
specified,
nor
is
a
procedure
for
setting
the
range
specified.

°
No
monitoring
or
recordkeeping
(
to
serve
as
monitoring)
is
specified
for
work
practices
(
such
as
keeping
covers
closed
at
all
time
except
during
transfer
of
materials).

To
help
us
gather
useful
information
to
decide
if
Federal
or
State
rules
may
need
to
be
revised,
we
ask
the
following
questions:

Question:
Identify
specific
pre­
1990
Federal
rules,
including
rules
in
the
categories
listed
above,
where
the
monitoring
is
inadequate.
Explain
why
the
existing
monitoring
is
inadequate
and
what
types
of
monitoring
would
be
adequate
for
the
specific
example
provided.

Question:
Are
there
other
patternscategories
of
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
in
Federal
rules?
Please
specify
the
monitoring
inadequacies,
including
citation
to
specific
rules
of
concern.
Are
there
other
ways
to
identify
inadequate
monitoring?
For
example,

would
identifying
inadequate
monitoring
by
source
category,
industry,
pollutant,
emission
limitation,
and/
or
pollution
control
device
be
more
useful?

Question:
What
kinds
of
revisions
or
improvements
would
you
suggest
be
made
to
enhance
improve
inadequate
monitoring
in
underlying
Federal
rules?
Types
of
revisions
or
17
improvements
that
could
be
made
through
rulemaking
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
(
1)

establishing
periodic
testing
or
monitoring
for
each
emission
limitation,
(
2)
more
frequent
monitoring
using
existing
monitoring
methods,
(
3)
the
collection
of
data
that
is
more
representative
of
control
device
operation
or
of
the
industrial
process,
(
4)
switching
from
monitoring
methods
that
provide
an
indication
of
compliance
to
those
that
measure
the
pollutant
of
interest
more
directly,
and
(
5)
a
combination
of
the
above.
In
your
comments,

please
provide
any
available
information
about
cost,
accuracy,
feasability,
or
any
other
factors
that
you
consider
relevant
to
the
revised
or
improved
monitoring.

Question:
What
kinds
of
programmatic
or
other
changes
would
you
suggest
be
used
to
make
changes
to
enhance
improve
inadequate
monitoring?
Options
include
conducting
rulemaking
to
revise
emissions
standards,
issuing
guidance
or
policy,
or
other
approaches.
Please
be
specific
on
which
option(
s)
you
prefer
and
provide
reasons
for
your
preference(
s).

Question:
Do
the
patternscategories
of
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
identified
above
also
appear
in
SIP
rules,
and
if
so,
which
ones
contain
such
that
the
monitoring
that
is
inadequate?
If
so,
identify
such
SIP
rules.
Are
there
other
patternscategories
of
inadequate
monitoring
in
SIP's,
and
if
so,
what
are
they?
How
would
you
suggest
we
go
about
identifying
the
specific
standards
or
rules
in
specific
implementation
plans
that
contain
potential
monitoring
inadequacies?
Please
specify
the
standards,
the
inadequate
monitoring,
and
the
type(
s)
of
improvements
necessary
to
correct
any
potential
inadequacies
you
identify.
What
programmatic
changes
would
be
best
to
effect
these
changes
(
e.
g.,
EPA
or
State
rulemaking,
SIP
calls,
voluntary
programs,
issuing
guidance
or
18
policy,
or
other
means)?

Question:
Is
opacity
an
effective
means
of
determining
compliance
with
PM
limits
in
pre­
1990
applicable
requirements
such
as
NSPS
and
NESHAP?
Are
other
monitoring
technologies
more
effective
in
assuring
compliance
with
PM
limits?
Please
specify
situations
where
other
monitoring
approaches
are
more
appropriate
and
effective
as
indicators
of
compliance
with
PM
limits.
What
new
technologies
may
serve
as
costeffective
and
reliable
means
of
determining
compliance
with
those
PM
limits
(
e.
g.,
bag
leak
detectors
which
detect
problems
that
may
lead
to
a
deviation
or
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems
that
directly
monitor
PM
emissions)?
Please
specify
when
such
new
technologies
may
be
warranted,
including
the
standards,
the
current
monitoring,
and
the
more
appropriate
monitoring
technology.

In
this
ANPR
we
are
only
seeking
comments
to
identify
potential
monitoring
inadequacies
in
the
Federal
rules
identified
in
section
III
of
this
ANPR
(
i.
e.,
NSPS
under
40
CFR
part
60
and
NESHAP
under
40
CFR
part
61
promulgated
prior
to
1990)
and
SIP
rules,
and
to
suggest
ways
to
correct
any
such
inadequacies
we
may
later
determine
to
exist
with
respect
to
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
and
the
monitoring
requirements
in
title
V
of
the
Act.
We
have
not
opened
for
comment
any
provisions
of
the
operating
permits
program
rules
in
40
CFR
parts
70
and
71,
the
CAM
rule
in
40
CFR
part
64,
any
post­
1990
NESHAP
or
any
other
post­
1990
Federal
rules
or
any
issues
related
to
State,
local,
tribal,

or
EPA
implementation
of
permitting
programs
approved
under
or
based
on
those
rules.

What
Additional
Steps
Are
Expected
After
EPA
Reviews
Comments
Received?

Once
EPA
receives
comments
on
our
preliminary
analysis
of
potential
monitoring
19
inadequacies
and
suggestions
on
methods
to
correct
such
inadequacies,
we
will
determine
the
appropriate
next
steps.
The
EPA
believes,
at
this
time,
the
next
steps
will
likely
include
rulemakings
to
improve
monitoring
requirements
in
some
Federal
rules.
We
are
open
to
comments
and
have
made
no
decisions
as
to
which
Federal
rules
have
inadequate
monitoring,
nor
on
how
to
proceed
to
correct
any
such
monitoring.
Any
rulemakings
we
may
decide
to
undertake
in
the
future
will
be
conducted
using
notice
and
comment
procedures.
In
addition,
prior
to
finalizing
any
changes
to
Federal
rules,
we
will
consider
all
specific
facts
associated
with
the
upgrades
we
propose
for
each
standard
and
conduct
any
required
analyses
of
burdens,
including
economic
impacts,
necessary
to
satisfy
statutory
and
other
requirements.

_________________________________
Date
_________________________________
Stephen
L.
Johnson,
Acting
Administrator