305R98020 22 2009 NEPIS online PDF mja 05/22/09 single page tiff UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ? 3 OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Memoranda Posted on the Clean Air Act Applicability Determination Index John B. Rasnic, Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division Office of Compliance TO: See Attached List The reorganization of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) in 1994 expanded the authority for issuance of applicability determinations and monitoring revisions for the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) programs. The ensuing redelegations of authority removed limitations from the Regional Offices in the issuance of applicability determinations, and gave Regional Offices the lead in reviewing and responding to alternative monitoring requests. The reorganization also expanded the number of divisions in Headquarters with authority to issue applicability determinations.. To evaluate the quality and consistency of determinations issued since the reorganization, the Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division (METD) conducted a partial review of memoranda posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI). The METD review focused on NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI since the reorganization, and evaluated them for accuracy, clarity, and emerging policy trends. The attached report entitled, "Review of the Applicability Determination Index; NSPS Memoranda," summarizes our.method of performing the review, our findings, and recommendations. METD reviewed half (96/197) of the NSPS memoranda posted in the nearly two and a half year period covered by the study (September 1994 - March 1997). Varying levels of activity among Regional Offices Internal Address (URL) * http://www.spa.gov Recycied/Recyciabi* • Printed with Vegetable OK Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumeo image: ------- proximately ha ^ o^t-nTm ^" -° °V6r °ne h^ndred. Plicabilit-i: *;; ^u:*e,memoranda were related to < -oranda -<">"1 ) --h i i , *- • "'^"i^iduud were relate- r^: "^ tne °ther half Addressed monitorl ng or testing memorandum accurate and adeq providi"9 he nrusion in the delea^r' - '-^nouj. uacio issuing determi"fl*-inn- "- ° authority and as drafting LtLll w "Xemplar^ drafting ^^^iiy PJ-Liaili-i WPrs> n/^f-^^i ^_ ^vjouiii^ UfciLe practices as well as draftina mt-f^ii ' " .;^Tp has drafted separate guidance on"^^? n°ted* As a result, Applicability Determinations Development of "or the NSPS^and NESHAP °Thiand A^ternative Monitoring Responses ^legations of authority clarifies^! leS'o?^5 ^ r::!;:^n!!10^;n«^«ndSiConsultation procedures^'and" 1SSUlng r-.'e^er'^!,!^ ... . ' ±:yy't co air manaaprs ~^ ^' - ;• - image: ------- 3 Accurate responses to applicability and hps nnr i r- *-, .c , •-^ r ..e ADI in time for the quarterly ADI system updates Pr°vlde Attachment: image: ------- Addressees: Elaine G. Stanley, Director Office of Compliance Bruce R. Weddle, Deputy Director Cffice of Compliance Eric V. Schaeffer, Director Office of Regulatory Enforcement Linda M. Murphy, Director Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I Michael P. Kenyon, Air Policy Associate Director Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I Ira Leighton, Acting Director Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region I Gregory Roscoe, Technical Air Manager ffice of Ecosystem Protection, Region I o Conrad S. Simon, Director Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Region II Kenneth Eng, Chief Air Compliance Branch, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Region II Kathleen C. Callahan, Director Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region II Judith Katz/ Director Air Protection Division, Region III Bernard E. Turlinski, Enforcement Cluster Associate Director Air Protection Division, Region III John Ruggero, Chief Toxics Enforcement Section, Air Protection Division, Region III David McGuigan, CAA Enforcement Section, Air Protection Division, Region II , _ Winston A. Smith, Director Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV image: ------- Beverly Spagg, Chief Air and EPCRA Enforcement Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV David A. Kee, Director Air and Radiation Division, Region V George Czerniak, Chief Air Enforcement Branch, Region V Robert Hannesschlager, Acting Director Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI William Luthans, Associate Director Air, Pesticides, and Toxics, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI Samuel J. Coleman, Director Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Region VI John R. Hepola, Chief Air/Toxics and Inspection Coordination Branch Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Region VI William A.J. Spratlin, Director Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, Region VII Don Toensing, Chief Air Permitting and Compliance' Branch, Region VII Leo Alderman, Director Environmental Services Division, Region VII Mary Tietjen-Mindrup, Chief Air and RCRA Compliance Branch, Environmental Services Division, Region Vll' Dick Long, Air Program Director Office of Pollution Prevention, State, and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII Martin Hestmark, Program Director Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice, Region VIII. David Howekamp, Director Air Division, Region IX Barbara Gross, Enforcement Office Air Division, Region IX image: ------- Anita Frankel, Director Office of Air Quality, Region X Gil Haselberger, Manager Air Enforcement and Program Support Unit, Of fire ^f £ir .^na' Region X * Bruce Jordan, Director Emission Standards Division, OAQPS Jack Edwardson, Associate Director Emission Standards Division, OAQPS Susan Wyatt, Leader Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, OAQPS William Hunt, Director Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPS Tom Curran, Director Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, OAQPS Fred Dimmick, Leader Program Review Group, ITPID, OAQPS Karen Blanchard, Leader Integrated Implementation Group, ITPID, OAQPS Richard Colbert, Director Agriculture and Ecosystem Division, OC Elliott Gilberg, Director Chemical, Commercial Services, and Municipal Division, OC Reggie Cheatham, Chief Chemical Industry Branch, CCSMD, OC Kate Anderson, Chief Commercial Services and Municipal Branch, CCSMD, OC Bruce Buckheit, Director Air Enforcement Division, ORE Rich Biondi, Associate Director Air Enforcement Division, ORE Gregory Jaffe, Acting Chief Stationary Source Enforcement Branch, AED, ORE image: ------- image: ------- Review of the Applicability Determination Index; NSPS Memoranda Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division Office of Compliance July, 1998 The reorganization of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) in 1994, resulted in several important changes to the process for making applicability determinations and monitoring revisions in the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) programs. The delegations of authority related to applicability and monitoring issues were revised to reflect the new divisional structure within Headquarters, and, in response to Regional requests, the delegated authorities for the Regional Offices were expanded. The principal changes are as follows: » Regional Offices are expected to take on a greater role in issuing applicability determinations. Previous restrictions on the Regions' delegated authority for multi-Regional applicability determinations and issues of national significance were removed, as was the requirement-for consultation with Headquarters. • Headquarters' authority to issue applicability determinations resides with three sector-based divisions in the Office of Compliance (OC)1, and one division in the Office of Regulatory .Enforcement (ORE)2. Headquarters determinations were previously issued from one centralized division in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). 'The Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division (METD); the Chemical, Commercial Services, and Municipal Division (CCSMD); and the Agriculture and Ecosystem Division (AgED), all within the Office of Compliance. 2The Air Enforcement Division (AED) in the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. image: ------- Regional Offices have the authority to issue alternative monitoring methods and major changes in monitoring (see 40 CFR sections 60,13, 61.14, and 63.8). Regional authority for monitoring revisions was previously limited to only minor changes in monitoring methodology. Headquarters is no longer delegated the authority to issue alternative monitoring methods, nor to make monitoring revisions. Applicability determinations and alternative monitoring responses may be issued from the branch chief level. Previously this authority was delegable only to the division director level. Given these changes in the implementation of the NSPS and NESHAP programs, the Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division (METD) in OC conducted a review of memoranda posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) to evaluate the memoranda for national consistency. METD first determined the number and type of issues addressed by each Regional Office and division in Headquarters since the OECA reorganization, and then reviewed a sampling of the memoranda for quality. The quality review consisted of an analysis of the accuracy (was the incoming question answered correctly), the clarity (did the response serve well as guidance), and any emerging policy trends. This initial review of memoranda was restricted to the NSPS program. This report summarizes this review of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI, as follows: Section 1: Evaluation Method. • Section 2: Findings. 2.1: Quantity of memoranda posted; 2.2: Type of memoranda posted (the general topic of the memoranda); 2.3: Quality of memoranda reviewed. • Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations. The subsection on the quality of memoranda contains the bulk of the findings. It separately discusses the accuracy and clarity of responses, and presents additional findings and policy trends identified in the quality review. image: ------- Section 1: Evaluation Method METD initiated the review of ADI memoranda in the Spring of 1997. The review represents memoranda issued since the reorganization of OECA; any NSPS memoranda dated from September 1, 1994 through March 30, 1997 and posted on the. ADI as of April 1, 1997 were included in the study. Therefore, the study covers nearly a two and a half year time period. METD noted the number of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI from each Regional Office and division in Headquarters. In order to evaluate a significant sample of memoranda, METD elected to review at least 25% of the memoranda posted from each Regional Office or Headquarters division, but no fewer than 10 memoranda per Regional Office or Headquarters division. Memoranda were selected for review at random; however, some additional memoranda were selected by topic to ensure representation of a wide variety of issues. This selection process resulted in a review of 97 of the 196 NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI and dated within the study's time frame. The 97 memoranda reviewed were categorized as either applicability issues, or monitoring/testing issues. The few memoranda which did not deal with either of these topics were labeled as "other." , As memoranda were reviewed, the accuracy and clarity of responses, questions raised by the responses, and emerging policy trends were noted. METD consulted with sector, technical, and/or Regional leads as necessary to resolve any questions raised and any apparent discrepancies with prior Agency determinations. Resolution of the issues identified ranged from posting clarifying statements in the comment field of the ADI header for the memorandum, to simple confirmation that the memorandum correctly addressed the issue at hand. METD noted exemplary practices in the drafting of memoranda, as well as common drafting pitfalls. Throughout this prdcess, the quality of memoranda was evaluated in terms of both accuracy, L^, whether the Agency provided a correct answer to the inquiry, and clarity, Le,, whether the response stood alone well as future guidance. The clarity of memoranda was classified as either excellent-good, satisfactory, fair, or poor (see the discussion in Subsection 2.3, p. 9, entitled "Clarity of Memoranda" for a definition of these terms). image: ------- Section 2: Findings 2.1: Quantity of Memoranda Posted As illustrated in the first pie chart, the numbers of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI per Regional Office or Headquarters division for the nearly two and one half years reviewed varied substantially. The vast majority of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI were from Regional Offices; Regional Offices issued 80% of the memoranda posted, whereas Headquarters issued 20%. This distribution is consistent with the Regions' lead role in addressing revisions and alternatives to monitoring methods, arid their lead role in issuing applicability determinations. Chart 1, No. of NSPS Memoranda* Submitted to ADI per Office Dated September '94 - March '97 Region 1 (1) Region 2 (3) Region 3 (5) Region 4 (98) Region 5 (10) Region 6 (35) Region 7(1) Region 8 (4) Region 9 (0) Region 10(0) METD(21) CCSMD (4) AgED (2) AED/ORE(11) OAQPS(1) Total, 196 *Four (4) submittals consisted of headers only, with no memoranda attached. Submittals without memoranda are not included in the totals nor in the chart. Exploded portion of the pie represents memoranda issued by Headquarters. image: ------- Among the Regions, activity varied substantially. Region 4 issued 98 memoranda, constituting half of the NSPS entries in the study. The next most active office, Region 6, issued 35 memoranda, or 18% of the memos posted. Six Regions posted fewer than five memoranda, with two Regions posting no memoranda at all. A variety of factors may have contributed to this distribution, including differing state capabilities, levels of state delegations, Regional and state management philosophies, and interpretations of the types of memoranda which should be posted on the ADI. Within Headquarters, the majority of memoranda were issued by METD (54% of all Headquarters memoranda, 11% of all memoranda). Again, differing levels of activity between divisions in Headquarters may be attributed to different management philosophies, including different interpretations of when Headquarters versus the Regions should issue determinations. The organizational structure of OECA and the ensuing areas of responsibility also result in different numbers of determinations being issued by each division. For example, the only NSPS for which the Agriculture and Ecosystem Division (AgED) are responsible are those related to the farming sector, such as those for fertilizers. In contrast, the METD has responsibility for the majority of the manufacturing industries, which encompass over 45 NSPS. The Air Enforcement Division in ORE had the lead only when an enforcement action was involved. image: ------- 2.2: Type of Memoranda Posted Based on the review of 97 of 196 of the NSPS memoranda posted, approximately half of the determinations were related to applicability. The remaining memoranda involved the interpretation or revision of monitoring or testing requirements. A few memoranda (only 4 of the 97 reviewed) addressed other issues such as alternative means of emission limitation, information on where to send reports, and enforcement policy. These distributions are depicted in Chart 2 below. i Of the memoranda related to monitoring and testing, the Regions issued the vast majority, 84% of the memos; whereas, OECA issued 14%. The one remaining memoranda was issued by OAQPS. This distribution is consistent with the Regions' lead role in monitoring revisions. With respect to applicability issues, the Regions and Headquarters issued similar numbers of determinations; the Regions issued 52% of applicability-related memoranda; Headquarters issued 48%. Chart 2. Approximate* Types of NSPS Memoranda Posted Dated September '94 - March '97 D Applicability-Related I Monitoring or Testing • Other * Based on a review of 97/196 memoranda posted As indicated, these findings on the types of memoranda posted on the ADI are based on a review of approximately half of the memoranda posted. The full universe of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI after the OECA reorganization would therefore likely follow the same distribution. image: ------- 7 2.3: Quality of Memoranda The purpose of the quality-review portion of this study was to evaluate not only the accuracy of the determinations (i.e.. whether a correct response was provided), but also the clarity of determinations (i.e.. how well Agency explained the question, the answer, and the rationale). A memorandum can provide a correct response to the question posed, while lacking clarity on the rationale for the decision or the unique facts at hand. Such memoranda may satisfy the inquirer, who is familiar with the details of his or her situation, but may confuse or mislead other readers of the response. As such, a correct answer does not necessarily translate into adequate guidance for ' others, and may impede national consistency if clarity is lacking. Therefore, this discussion on quality separately addresses the accuracy and clarity of memoranda reviewed. Other findings identified in the review of these 97 memoranda, including emerging policy trends, are discussed separately at the end of this subsection. In interpreting the findings on quality which follow, it is important to be aware of factors which were outside of the scope of the study, but have a bearing on quality nonetheless. For example, the study did not evaluate the timeliness of response. Also, the study did not review whether or how many times the assignment to prepare a response shifted among staff, divisions or offices. Both of these have a bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency's work. Also, there were memoranda issued within the time frame of the study which were not posted on the ADI. The quality of these memoranda could not be reviewed, but their absence from the ADI has bearing on the utility of those memoranda as guidance, and could create problems with national consistency in the future. Nonetheless, the review addresses the accuracy and clarity of nearly half the NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI, which provides an ample sampling size and addresses the most critical factors affecting quality. image: ------- Accuracy of Memoranda The Agency provided the correct response to the specific question posed in virtually all cases reviewed, initially, it was difficult to distinguish between poorly drafted memoranda, and those which were incorrect. Through research and consultation with sector, technical, enforcement, and Regional leads, METD determined that only three of the 97 memoranda reviewed were erroneous. In all three cases where an erroneous memorandum was issued, the Agency 4 had already identified and resolved the error, prior to METD's completion of this study. In one case, the Agency issued a correction to the original, erroneous determination within two months; both the original memorandum and its correction were posted on the ADI. In another case, the Agency issued a no action assurance and amended the rule to clarify the regulation. As part of METD's review of the ADI, a note was posted in the header to that memorandum on the ADI, referencing the no action assurance and the impending rule revision. In the third case, it was discovered that the memorandum in question had never been signed or issued in final, and so the memorandum was removed from the ADI. Several other memoranda conflicted with prior determinations based on a reading of the memoranda alone. However, after researching the determinations and interviewing staff involved in the decisions, an adequate rationale for the responses became apparent. These memoranda were therefore deemed to be correct, although poorly drafted. These cases underscore the need for a clearly stated rationale in all Agency responses. image: ------- Clarity of Memoranda The clarity of a memorandum encompasses how well the question, answer, and rationale is explained in the Agency's response. To ensure a nationally consistent program, EPA builds from the source-specific determinations issued in the past. As indicated in the discussion on the previous page, a correct (accurate) answer if poorly explained can be easily misinterpreted, and hinder national consistency. Therefore, the clarity of memoranda was carefully considered in this quality review. ' The clarity classifications used in this analysis are defined as follows: * Excellent-Good memoranda not only provided a correct response, but were clear as to the question asked, and provided a concise answer and rationale. The excellent memoranda thoroughly cited relevant background information, and/or very clearly explained a complex issue. Satisfactory memoranda provided a correct response, but could have been written more clearly. Fair memoranda contained the correct decision, but contained statements that could easily be misinterpreted. These memoranda were characterized by a misleading statement. * Poor memoranda contained either substantive errors, or statements which contradicted previous policy and were not explained. image: ------- 10 Chart 3. Clarity of Memoranda* Posted on ADI Dated September '94 - March '97 Excellent-Good - 62% Fair- 10% Satisfactory -20% Poor - 8% Based on a review of 97/196 memoranda posted Excellent-good memoranda constituted the majority of memos reviewed (62%), These memoranda provided a clear, concise, and correct answer and rationale for the question asked of the Agency. The excellent memoranda were particularly thorough in citing relevant background information, and/or clearly explained a complex issue. The review did not attempt to parcel out the excellent from the good memoranda, since all the memoranda in the excellent-good category were of high quality and serve the Agency well in ensuring national consistency. Satisfactory memoranda (20%) alsd provided a correct response. However these memoranda could have been written more clearly in that they did not state the incoming question to the Agency, did not fully explain the rationale for the decision, or did not explicitly state what was being approved. These memoranda typically relied too heavily on access to information in the incoming materials which were not attached. These memoranda, although providing the requestor with a correct and appropriate decision, are not readily useful as future guidance for the Agency. There were simple, common drafting pitfalls identified in this group of memos, which if avoided, would have increased the quality of these memos to the good or excellent category. image: ------- 11 Memoranda in the fair category (10%) also appeared to contain the correct response; however, research was necessary for the reviewer to confirm this, and the memoranda contained statements that could be easily misinterpreted. Such statements could be taken out of context and misapplied, because the memoranda inadequately stated the rationale or the unusual circumstances of the case at hand. Therefore, although providing a correct answer to the basic question, these memoranda are misleading and could actually complicate future decisions or determinations. Memoranda which were rated as poor (8%) either contained substantive errors or contained statements which contradicted previous policy. In most of these cases,' the source or requestor was provided with the correct answer, but the rationale was deemed to be either wrong or contradictory. To address incorrect rationale, as part of this review of the ADI, clarifications were added to the comment fields of the headers of memoranda in question. In those few cases where the Agency provided an erroneous answer, the Agency had issued and posted a retraction and/or correction prior to our discovery of the problem. Absent retractions or clarifications, all the memoranda in this category would have been detrimental to the accuracy and consistency of future determinations. In analyzing the data used to develop Chart 3 on Clarity of Memoranda, it was noted that the distribution of excellent-good (62%), satisfactory (20%), fair (10%), and poor (8%) memoranda was similar for Headquarters and for the Regional Offices. Therefore, whether evaluating the quality of Headquarters memoranda alone, Regional Office memoranda alone, or the combination thereof as depicted in the pie chart, the quality of memoranda is about the same. It was further noted in the review that memoranda that were clearly coordinated with other offices tended to be in the excellent-good category. Therefore, within the necessary scope of this study, in the vast majority of cases (82%) the Agency drafted responses which were satisfactory or better. Requestors were provided with the correct answer for the facts presented in virtually all memoranda reviewed, even for some of those categorized as "poor". However, 38% of the memoranda (satisfactory, plus fair, plus poor memoranda) could not be readily utilized as the basis for future guidance, without research into the question asked and the rationale for the response. Further, due to misleading statements or lack of critical image: ------- 12 information, well over a tenth of the memoranda3 could lead to erroneous decisions in the future. Additional Findings & Policy Trends The review identified some minor misconceptions as to the proper type of memoranda to be posted on the ADI, the proper delegated authorities, trends in drafting, and emerging policies. For example, confusion as to the delegated authorities within EPA for issuing monitoring revisions, testing revisions, and alternative standards was apparent in several memoranda. There were also simple common drafting pitfalls identified which, if avoided, would have substantially improved the quality of memoranda. Also, as noted, memoranda which were clearly coordinated with other offices were some of the best memoranda issued. Several emerging policies were observed during the course of the review. In the area of boiler derating, the Agency has been expanding the existing policy on what criteria can be used to determine whether derating is accomplished through a permanent physical change. In the area of performance test waivers, the Agency has issued some waivers based on inherently low emission levels, rather than simply the representative performance of identical units. As a result of these findings, the Agency is drafting guidance on the procedures for developing applicability determinations and monitoring revisions. The guidance will address appropriate delegated authorities, lead offices, consultation procedures, and basic drafting principles. With respect to the emerging policy trends, OC is evaluating the rationale for these decisions, and these issues are being addressed in national and Region-specific meetings and conferences. The process of performing this study in itself has improved the quality of memoranda and information on the ADI. The increased staff-level communication necessary to clarify issues raised in the review of memoranda has resulted in improved consultations for memoranda under development. Numerable typographical errors and transmission errors were identified and corrected as a result of the review, and informal 3The number of fair plus poor memoranda actually constitutes 18% of those reviewed. However the Agency has already issued a number of corrections and clarifications to address possible misinterpretation of the most serious issues. image: ------- 13 staff-level correspondence from nondelegated authorities was removed from the ADI. METD also clarified potential misinterpretation of existing memoranda by working with lead offices to develop clarifying notes which have been posted in the ADI headers to the memoranda. image: ------- 14 Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations Providing timely, accurate and well explained determinations and responses to Regions, state agencies, and the regulated community is a basic form of compliance assistance and a core function of EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices. Clarity on how and why decisions are reached is critical, not only because the substance or validity of the determination may be challenged in an enforcement action, but also because these memoranda serve as the basis for future decisions. A clear record saves future resources on the research of related topics, and prevents future misinterpretation or misapplication of the decision. ' This review of the ADI has provided basic information on the Agency's role and responsiveness in applicability and monitoring inquiries, and has identified potential areas for improvement. Clarification of roles and responsibilities, consultation procedures, proper background research, and basic drafting practices, are simple and key elements which will assist in the development of high quality determinations. METD is developing guidance on the Development of Applicability Determinations and Alternative Monitoring Responses for the NSPS and NESHAP Programs, which will help improve the quality of these memoranda. This guidance will identify the common drafting pitfalls noted in this review, the delegated authorities, the lead offices, the proper consultation procedures, and the basic steps to developing and issuing applicability determinations and alternative monitoring responses. Adherence to the principles and procedures in the guidance should result in quality improvements and more timely responses. Using the ADI is critical for ensuring national consistency in the NSPS and NESHAP programs. METD has already facilitated use of the ADI through Internet access, providing expanded search capabilities, easier viewing of multiple abstracts, screens, and menus, and simpler printing commands. Posting memoranda on the ADI is the most essential element in facilitating national consistency. As such, quarterly updates to the ADI are a condition of the delegation of applicability determination authority to Regional Offices, and therefore, Regions as well as OC sector leads must continue to post issues related to NSPS and NESHAP monitoring requirements on the ADI, Sector leads should also periodically review new entries on the ADI pertaining to their sector. A complete and up-to-date compilation of memoranda on the ADI serves image: ------- 15 to provide compliance assistance to the regulated community, public access, and fair notice. A variety of other mechanisms are under consideration for improving the quality and facilitating the issuance of applicability determinations. These include: performing a similar review or sampling of the NESHAP memoranda posted on the ADI; providing a short training for EPA staff on how to prepare/handle applicability issues; reviewing accessibility to background documents; and using expert systems in the development of regulations to help simplify applicability. k With the growth of the air program and the expanding roles and responsibilities of the Regional Offices, providing means to facilitate national consistency is more important than ever. This review of the ADI has provided basic insight into the quality and nature of the Agency's work products. Thoughtful review of these findings and implementation of these recommendations should help to promote a nationally consistent program. image: -------