-------
»e»- J
- - J. **** / •»•
Baaed oo the then current scientific
MniimcnC the Administrator •proposed
in IBM to select ttn •••""'•i irtiit^^d
level from • tange of SO to 66 p*/m'. la
^n rrnintsei the Administraicf favored
t standard in the iowarportiaairfJbe •
range. Toe mon recent evidence.
although nbjtct to aabctantial
uncertainty, serves IB ninracw this
mdmatian, In tight of the updated
assessment and in accordance with the
recommendation of CASAC the .
ttar has decided to set the
standards focuses primarily
tions that w«n most
level of the aimual standard at the lower
boand of the original range, SO pc/m*.
expected n****i^ uithoctic TMMH This
standard provide* a reasonable margin
of safety against the serious effect of
long-term degradation in long function,
which has been lodged likely at
estimated PM* levels above 80-90 pg/
m» and for which there is some evidence
at FM» levels •ben 00 to « laj/m*.
Such a standard also provides
reasonable protection against the leas
serious symptomatic effects for which
some studies provide evidence at PMw
levels down to 50 pg/m*. Although some
imaO risk of increased respiratory
symptoms may exist at this
concentration, the available
-------
g
In developing a range of levels for the
itcondsrj standard. EPA found Hut the
available data base provide* compelli
evidence that elevated levels of
particulate nutter out produce advene
welfare effect*, but provide* little .
quantitative information tin
concentratioiMfiacaRMtfonshipa,
Physical damage amUconomic stedie
to show iio obvious, welfare effects
thresholds- for soffinf, With time -
paniculate B*^**IT Bay accumulate on
surfaces even at low concentrations. At
very low concentrations. however, the
amounts of particulate matter may be
virtually invisible to the human eye or
be so slight as to be ignored by most
people (Carey. ISSfc Hancock et aL.
1878). Up to a point, the buildup of
particles on surfaces may not be .
generally regarded as a aodal pi ubkui
because it is removed by rain or routine
deaninc •«»«< •»•<»»«»«.•««•* I«»HM»
M1tta««titl«l a.. ..jju.latbm ttmm ji_v.._
Moreover, even if an accumulation la
large enough to be noticed, it is not
necessarily considered to be a problem.
Thus. the critical judgment for selecting
a standard level is to determine a
particulate matter concentration at or
above which the soiling effect becomes
important yn^twfc tfut ft should be
U.S. dties (CD. p. 10-73). During the
public comment period, one of the
authon of the analyst* that formed the
baaia lor these estimate* submittad a
man recent analysis which called ***T
earlier analyst* mto question (Watson
^fwj j«irmf4» 2904). The author claimed
that estimates of benefits from reduced
TSP concentrations wen significantly
overstated because they did not take
publk could percefv
^associated with radt
improvements
tration.
regarded as an "advene" affect under
section l»(b)(Z] of the Act
Toe available information suggests
that the public does make a distinction
between concentrations at which .
particulate pollution is merely
noticeable and higher levels at which it
is considered a nuisance, A study of the
response of a paael of human subjects to
dust on surface* concluded that the
level of dustiness that is found to be
objectionable is higher than the level
that can be perceived or discriminated
(Hancock et aL. 1978). It is not. however.
possible to derive unique ambient
concentration thresholds for advene ..
effects from this Idad of study. A more .
direct study of perception of air -
pollution as a rniifinrr (CD. p. 9«fl7j •
suggested that people considered air •
pollution a nuisance in areas where . . '
annual levels were at or somewhat
above the level of the current annual •
primary TSP standard (75 pg/m*. annual
geometric mean). The upper bound of
the proposed range of interest (90 pg/m'
TSP). expected annual arithmetic ;
was derived by taking that level and
ma In fig appropriate conversions 16
account for the expected arithmetic
today would permit few. if any. areas to
eustam TSP levels above 90-100 pg/m*.
On the baajs of these determinations.
the Administrator conclude* that a
secondary standard different from the
primary standards is not requisite to
protect the pubttewelfare against soiling
and noisaoce. This condusionli
sappoctad by the CASAC* •
ttuit there is no scientific
Other pn"v>nt^n Indicated that the
anderiying experimental data suggested
a threshold for economic soiling effects
at an annual TSP level of about ISO jcg/
m*.
_ EPA staff examined the underlying
experimental data used in the original
analysis. This staff examination
(Hames. 1987] has been placed m the
nlemaldng docket The staff bund that
of 7 household cleaning activity
categories examined in the underlying
experiment (Boos. Allen. Hamilton.
1970). 6 (5 outdoor) were statistically
significantly associated with particulate
matter across some concentration
gradient. In further comparing areas
with differing concentrations of in TSP.
it was found that the Dumber of
significant associations decreased with
decreasing TSP.levtls. The staff
concluded that these data provide no
convincing evidence to support
estimates of significant economic
benefits from reducing PM levels below
90 to 100 jig/m*.
fallowing the original inclination of
the Administrator and the more recent
findings, an annual TSP level of 90 pg/
m* was used as a benchmark in an
analysis to determine whether the
primary particulate matter NAAQS
would protect against soiling and
nuisance (SP. Table 2-1). An earlier
version of these results was presented at
the December 16. 1985 CASAC meeting.
The analytical approach, assumptions.
and limitations of the methodology used
m the analysis are discussed in a
separata report which has been placed
hi tfn TO^^t*1*^?*^ ^fa^frfff fPace et aL
19B6L The results indicated that the
combined implementation of the primary
M hOPf ••«!
The lower bound of the propoeee.
range (70 pg/m*) was supported by a .-
rough analysis of economic benefits of :
reduced outdoor sotting that aright be •
aasodated with densaud-TSP level* Ja.
announ
ced above would substantially
reduce TSP levels to the extent that only
6 counties nationwide wodd experience
annual mean TSP levels in excess of 90
pg/m* and none woold exceed 100 pg/
«*. • . -.--.- •
In short EPA has determined that
there is no coarinting evidence of •
f»«M>flf«»i^ adverse yrflfru •**i nuisance
at TSP levels below 90-100 «/m«. and
that the primary standards mumolge ted
support tor a TSP-based secondary
standard. (Transcript of December 11
19BS. CASAC meeting, p. 71: Docket Na
A-C-37> Therefore, the Administrator
has decided to set 24-hour and annual
secondary PMi* standards that are eqrs!
m aC rcapeft te the primary sucdarc:.
B. Oth*r Wilfan Effttca
The other welf axe effects of
particulate matter of principal interest
an impairment of visibility, potential
*tr*toRi-*tifiti of climate, it**i
eontribution to addic deposition. AH
three of these effects are believed to be
related to regional-scale levels of fine
particles, and control programs designed
to ameliorate them would likely involve
region-wide reductions in emissions of
sulfur oxide (SP. p. 147; Friedlande?.
1982).
Because of the likely overlap between
control measures oastgned to protect
visibility and control measures designed
to address acidic deposition. EPA. in its
March 20, 1984. notice of proposed
ntlemaJdng on the perticulate Tflt^ff
standards, did not propose a secondary
standard designed. to protect visibility.
Instead, the Agency decided to defer
action pending development of
compatible strategies to address both of
these related regional air quality
problems.
Since publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking. EPA has
continued to gather information on
acidic deposition and on visibility, and
to analyse the potential impact on
visibility of strategies designed to
control acidic deposition, a particular.
EPA has received the report of an
Interagency Task Force on VUibtlity. In
fight of the Task Force's .
recommendation* as well as other
information gathered by the Agency.
EPA la now •*-«y»w''^g Its position with*
regard to consideration of a secondary •
fine particle standard for visibility. In
particular, the Agency la considering
whether, given the tune that would be
required to develop, propose, • -
promulgate, and implement a visibility
based standard, it would now be •
eaa%s^aMM*arf *< • AM — ~— --- ^ ^*^e)&V
appropnaie n proceed wttn
consideration of f Visibility based • -
standard m panUef with work on acfd
deposition, so thaf eoopetfble strategies
-------
/ vol. AU no. ia> / yveoneaoay. juiy i. 1967 / Rules and Regulations 2&W.
for dealing with the two problem can
be developed at the implementation
stage.
Accordingly. EPA I* publishing
elsewhere in today's Federal Register
an advance notice of proposed
lk. i^»»— t
the approptiateaess of a separata
secondary fine particle standard
designed to protect visibility, and on a
>er of issue* that would have to be
resolved in proposing such • standard.
the staff suggestions that a separate
secondary particle tt^THtrrf is not
needed to protect vegetation or to
prevent advene effects on personal
comfort and wdl-being (SP. pp. 143-144).
A Specific Outage* to Appendix J
Section 10 has been revised to specify
that afl samplers ahonld be capable of
measuring 24-hour PM«« mass
concentrations of at least 300 jig/m*
operating flow
gravunetnc<
^ . r.Bubstfin§. The particle
size'discrimination characteristics of
reference method samplers (or sampler
inlets) are prescribed as performance
specifications in amendments to 40 GFR
Part S3, promulgated elsewhere in
today's Federal Registar.
The requirements m Appendix T are
generally prescribed as functional or
performance specifications in order to
allow sampler manufacturers flexibility
in designing or configuring their PMw
samplers. Sampler shape, inlet
geometry, operational flow rate, degree
of automation, and other sampler
characteristics or features are specified
onJy m terms of required function or '
performance.
While most of the comments received
on Appendix J generally supported the
performance-based approach to
specifying PM» reference methods.
many commentors felt that the sampler
performance specifications in (he
proposed Appendix I and 40 CTR Part S3
were not adequate to ensure accurate
eoOeetfon of PM» under afl CTfvtitiwt
of ambient sampling In response to such
comments, the sampler performance
specifications in Part S3 and the
corresponding references to such
requirements in Appendix J nave been
revised. Other comme&te were received
on various requirements of Appendix J
such as flow calibration and
measurement flew regulation, filter
media, filter equilibration, and sampler
' TxatntenaHcSi Specific changes to
Appendix J resulting from these
comments and from isview of other
pertinent information are discussed
Wow. - .. • . ..
rate within specified limits.
fa Section 4J) the term
*^epiixrecfbinty" baa been changed to
"precision" and the specification for
PM» samplers has been rhsnged from
13 percent or better to 7 percent or 3 jig/
n*. whichever is higher; The particle •
size for SO percent sampling
effectiveness in Section iO has been
changed from 10± 1 micrometers to
10±O5 micrometers. These changes are
a result of corresponding changes in the
PMw fsrnplff prrfifiuisnfT
specifications in 40 CFR Part 53,
promalgatad elaewhere in today's
Federal JUgistac. Refer to the Part 53
mi ii
-------
and 45 percent RH. provided that the
humidity is controlled to within «
percent RH. Language ha* also been
added to Section M to reqnin that tbe
Mm* temperature and humidity
condition* be used far both pn- aad
post-sampling filter equflioratiae,
Tfaeceiih
procedures far PMicaaBplen vary •
caneiderably depending OB the type of
sampler (e4. high-volume, Bediua- *
volume, low-volume) ad the type of
flow oootnl and flow i
devices employed in the sampler.
Accordingly, tut caubratioo end
procedure Mctioas of Appendix J
(Sections &£ and &0| have been revised
substantially to be more general io
nature. The revised procedures Mm to
illustrate the tups involved to the
f**^ OMtatilBl of • PNfM
sampler, and place
the sampler
ip*rnnl and the-Quality
A new section OB sampler
maintenance has bees incorporated into
Appendix f to explicitly require that
PMi« samplers be maintained in strict
accordance trim die procedures
provided in the sampler manufacturer's
instruction manual. The performance of
some PMi» samplers may be adversely
Quantities ot ocn-n&f particaiata
natter within the sampler inlet. Soch
samplers may require periodic rleenirn
and otber maintenance to i
accurate collection of PM^partiealate
Batter: This new section has been
added as Section 2OQ, ad the '
calculations and references sections
havt been renumbered accordingly.
When temperature and pressure
corrections to samoler flow indicator
readings are required, corrections baaed
on existing temperature and pressure at
the time dote readings an taken (or daily
average values during tbe sampling
period in some cases) are preferable.
However, incorporation of aita or
seasonal average temperaturea and
oerometnc pressures into the. eanpieT
calibration to avoid daily temperature
and pressure corractiona is also
allowed. When temperature and
pressure corrections to flow indicator
readings are required. T«Tf«"*g
temperature and pmsate at the time the
readings are takeo [or daily arena*
values during the sampling period fa .
some cases) n&ut be uaed. Likewise, the
calculations section has been changed
to require that the avenge barometric
pressure and eteiage aaiotent •
temperature durirtf tnt tatapnitffntoei
be used to calculate Q^SUt or
aeaaooal average vaioee for 1
end barometric pressure may be
required Jo the adjustment of the set-
point of certain type* of flow control
devices (a*. mass flow controQen). Site
or seasonal average values for
temperature and pressure an used in
these cases to easar* that the deviations
la actual volumetric flow rate*. resulting
from daily changes la temperature and
preaaore at tfaa aonitoriag site, are
centered about the aampler inlai'j
design flow tate.
. Otbar minor wording changes have
been made throughout Appendix J to '
clarify the requirements.
& Dftignatiaa effffmaef Method* for
PM*
Before a Betfaod for PMw ia approved
as • PMw reference method. H Bust
Beet tbe requlf ementa of Appeadfac J
and be tested and designated as a
reference method in accordance with
tfaepreviaiona of 40 CFRPtitSl Testing
of candidate rm^mnrtftt rntthffdt wfll
generally be conducted by the aampler
manufacturers. A notice will be
published in the Federal Register in
accordance with Part S3 whenever an
application for a PMu reference method
determination is received by EPA.
Likewise, a notice of designation and
other information pertinent to the
-------
adicator derived from these data.
Zxtension of the Swlfl and Proctor
uialysis itself suggest* that
ipproximately 10 to 20% of 10 fun
particles amid penetrate to the thoracic
than the 0% penetration
a TV at 10 pou
The Swift and Praetor analysis aa wefl
MM several more recent analyse* and
experimental studies of particle _
deposition are reviewed fa the criteria
«^x mmnt fmj| staff paper addendum,
The more recent assessment* tend to*
support the original pnpotal of PMw.
The criteria document addendum
comperes the work of Miller et aL (1998).
wring the more recent deposition data.
with the Swift and Praetor analysis and
f*ffififm« that the latter understates
deposition oY particles larger than 6 pa
m individuals who habitually breathe
thruugh the mouth.
The more recant data alao show sooe
traction of partidas of 10 pa and lar|er
can penetrate as far as the alveolar
region (CDA. Figure 2-1). The risk
associated with deposition of insoluble
coane particles in this region is of
particular concern because of slow
clearance time (CDA. p. 2-4). Although
removal in the tracheobroBdual region
te mart rapid, deposition of coane
particles m the tnchcobzonchial region
nay be associated with
bronchoconstriction and alteration of
clearance mechanisms (SP, Table 5-2). -
1 1982 staff paper took these factors
(account In the original
aendation for a 10 pa indicator
that included aft of the fine and a
portion of the coane fraction.
After considering these updated
assessments, the -EPA tuff reaffirmed
its original recommendation of PMw as
an indicator for the standards (SP. p. 32).
In reviews of the March 20, 1984
proposal and of the criteria document
and staff paper addenda, the CASAC
also reaffirmed its recommendation for
PMw as an indicator [Uppmann 1988
ax). The mafority of public comments on
this issue also favored PM*.
in summary, EPA finds that the
presently available record dearly favors
the PM» indicator over the alternative
PM* indicator.
Comments? Some commenters
suggested that while PM»» represents an
improvement over TSP. the fine traction
(
-------
me various criticisms oi
them submitted as commenlts on the
piupossL In ofuei to icspuud fuuy to
these eritideme. EPA conducted more
sophisticated reeaalyses of the original
London data to farther determine the
degree of reliance that cut be placed on
the published results (Schwartz and
Marau.lflte.aDA, Appendix A). Each
of these studies doca suffer froa
limitation* and uncertainties delineated
in EPA'* mpdated assessment (SPA pp.
17-23:39-44): these limitations predude
definitive coodusiaas with respect to
causality as wdl as identification of
dear "no observed effects" level*.
Nevertheless. EPA maintain* its original
interpretation, supported by its external
science advisors, that these data at least
suggest the possibility of effects of
perticaiate matter at BS levels aa low ae
ISO pg/m* and possibly •wen towee.
Nona of the difficulties to statistical
methodology or alternative aiedianissu
died by commenten provide an
adequate explanation for the consistent
finding of association between
paniculate pollution and mortality at
levels below 500 p.g/m*3 (at 35]. The
association was found for the majority
of 14 winters (analyzed individually)
spanning a period when poQatioo in
London and hidftof beating practices
showed aurked changes, and ^V^jirf,
winters in which BS levels did Mt
exceed 2SOjig/m*.The relative .
consistency of the results froa year-to-
year despite these duoge* suggests that
the observed effect is not explained by
Indoor air pollution or by tang-term
demographic shifts m the population.
The findings were consistent among
different invesbgutorc. and persisted
after taking SOi. temperature, and other
weather variables into account, and
after correcting for autocorrelation
structure. .
The principal arguments for the
suggestion by tome (inrinding
Maziimdar et aL, 1962} that aiaoka aaay
be acting as a surrogate for some more
toxic pollutant or related non-pollution
variable are: (1) The coefficients bi the
regression equations appear to increase
with decreasing pollution across the 14
winters, [2] surrogate behavior is
commonly observed in t'l'iffatl
analyses, (3) the work of Lawther
suggests a threshold tor morbidity at
around 2SOjig/m'a*BS: hence .
mortality would not be expected at
lower levels. While the pouJbiity el
surrogate behavior r^"*'"^ the above
arguments do not demonstrate that
smoke acts as a surrogate for BOB-
utioo variables, Tb» trend toward
igher coeflVieiUa with lower poflmtieev
•Mazamdar and Ostra regressions. The
yean, however, prompted these authon
to suggest some plausible alternative to
non-pollution surrogates, buJ"J
-------
•rester ....** EPA therefore believes
that the use of ratios characteristic of
industrialized anas with high particle
concentrations is fastified and does not
contribute to any excess margin of
safety in the estimated effects levels.
Tbe Bouhuys et aL (1878) atudy (see
2 above) was used to set the
bound lor the proposed standard.
range, which is the level at whiduhe
fin«| standard is Wing prffn"ilg**^d. The
study found a difference in three of five
respiratory symptoms but no differences
in lung functions between two
Connecticut towns (Ansonia and
Lebanon) that had a historically large
(but currently small) difference m levels
of particulate .matter. Although the
author* believed thet air pollution did
not play a role in the observed
differences in symptoms, the date
presented do not demonstrate that the
differences wen doe eolaiy to other
factors associated with the conduct of
the study. Moreover, the finding of
excess respiratory symptoms
unaccompanied by a persistent change
in lung function is not unique. ffitgjlar
findings wen also obtained in tbe Ferris
(1.973) follow up study and the more
recent six city study results (Wan et aL,
1966).
Some commenten argued that the
estimated TSP levels derived for the
Bouhuys study were too low. EPA
disagrees. The staff took the median
TSP values reported by Bouhuys et aL
cr the previous several yean aa tbe
'ant exposure level for this study
iuse (1) the current gradient a
pollution appeared to be too small to
result in such effect*, and (2) it is
unreasonable to attribute all of the
observed gradient in effects among
urban and rural residents, ss measured
in 1973. to the '"••«1n"tt» historical
concentntions reported 8 to 10 yean
prior to that tune, EPA'a positioa M
supported by the observations of Ferris
et aL (1973,1976). which show an
apparent measurable reduction In
symptoms and improved lung function
after only a five to six year decline ia
pollution. This decline suggests that any
gradient in effects due to pollution eight
to ten yean ago would be diminished
relative to affects that may be
associated with the more recent past
The median value used by EPA for the
Bouhuys study is. in fact also relatively
dose to the weighted avenge of all TSP
observation* reported for Ansonia for
the seven yean preceding the Bouhuys
et si, (1978) measurements, which wen
taken m 1973 (Lounsbury. 1966).
The approach need to convert the TSP
measurements in this study to PMw
equivalents waa also questioned. The
staff rejected use of the limited (IS days)
partide size date for Ansonia as
unrepresentative because of questions
concerning their quality and because
they wen taken m 1973, after
particulate matter concentntions had -
been reduced to lower levels (SP. p. 62).
Absent reliable site-specific partide size
data, tbe staff used the median PK./
TSP ratio seen at other sites m the
•astern ILS. with higher than average
PMt* levels. Because tbe long-term ntio
can vary between OJ and OifiS among
such sites, such estimates are
admittedly uncertain. Nevertheless, the
staff examination of historical air
quality and source data associated with
the Bouhuys et aL study found no
factors that would make the ratio
BomsuaQy high or low relative to other
nigh concentration sites in the eastern
US. The analysis by SpengieretaL
(1966) of trends fa particle saw ntios
from the IflTgaJo the present fa six
eastern dties suggests that the ntio of
PM» to TSP in early yean with higher
TSP levels tends to be comparable to or
somewhat lower than the current ratios.
The basis for the final ambient
standard ia considerably strengthened
by the recent results from the six-cities
study (Wan et aL. 19661 This work also
suggests an increased risk of respintory
ind symptoms* but DO diffe
m lung function, m children across a
gradient of pollution that f*nfo to
concentntipna below those observed in
the previous studies. The results an
therefore qualitatively consistent with
both of the earlier studies. In addition.
the assodsted aerometry permits
substantially better estimates of
historical PVU data. Taken together.
these studies provide substantial
support for an ""PM*! standard of 50 jig/
3. Margin of Safety .
Commenoc The Agency has
incorporated an unrecognized three-fold
margin of safety in the 24-hour
standards through the means used to
convert British Smoke measurements
tntoPVtt.
Ageacy Response: British Smoke
measurements collect particles
than about 4J microns ia diameter
(PM,j) on a substrate and then measure
their absorption of light Because the
measurement depends on light
absorption, it ia sensitive only to the *
dark, "sooty component of the
particulate matter. EPA has relied on
gravimetric calibrations, performed
during the earlier yean of the mortality
and morbidity studies, that related tbe
British Smoke meaaateacnni to
particulate mass concentntions that
included Ught-colond as well as dark
partides.
The commenten note that the dark.
sooty component of tbe particulate
matter in London today constitutes only
40* as Urge a fraction of the total
particulate mass as it did during the
period of the studies on which EPA has
relied. They argue that the use of those
•todies to set standards for
contemporary particulate pollution
therefore introduces an error of a factor
of ZS (1/0.4). Multiplying this by a
typical ratio of PMw to PM«4 of 12
(Lodge. 1966). the commenten arrive a:
an alleged error of a factor of three
arising from tbe Agency's use of the
British S<"fffcf measurements.
The commenten rely on the unstated
assumption that it is only the dark
fraction of particulate pollution that
mffmf9» IttiuMfi itaalth Ami Ami mint** fh»
dark fraction has declined since the tine
of the studies, the particulate matter in
the atmosphere today is less dangerous
than that present at the time of tbe
studies. EPA disagrees with this
assumption and believes that a nor-
plausible and prudent assumption is the:
effects on health depend on the mass
•
-------
continuing •todies ia the coal
US. tad Europe have suggested 1
effects at PMt« levels below 250 pt/m*
(Dodtery et «L 1082: Ozkaynak sad
Spcngler. 1965: Dassen et aL 1986).
For tfaeae reasons, EPA condudes that
it is reasonable and pmdeat to as* the
Btration estimates derived
from historical British Smoke
for cuuent US. atmospheres miner the
assumption mat current US. particles
are equal ia toxidty to those found m
London at the time of those
measurements. Any inarms of safety
inherent in the British Smoke/PMi*
conversion for the earlier yean when
. gravimetric calibrations were available
is more likely to be on the order of a
factor of 12 (the ratio of PMu to PM»
estimated by Lodge, 1988) rather than
the factor of three suggested by the
commenten. For particalata levels lower
than those observed m the earlier yean.
EPA has supplemented the London
studies with the more contemporary
American and European studies using
direct gravimetric measurements.
Comments; Several commenten
expressed concerns that the margin of
safety for the range of levels proposed
for the 24-hour standard is *"«"^rJTTit.'
Commenten based these concerns OK
(•1 Calculations suggesting that even the
lower bound may be leas stringent than
the current standards, (b) evidence from
the more recent studies of tang function
decrements In children and the analyses
of London mortality data, and (c) *
various studies found to be mainly of
qualitative value. In general such
commenten'felt that in view of the
svailable evidence, the standard should
be set at levels at or below the lower
bound of the proposed ranges.
Agency Response: The overriding
consideration in selecting a standard is
how well it protects public health, not
its relative stringency as compared to
the previous standard. EPA believes that
standards chosen provide an adequate
margin of safety irrespective of the •
relationship to the format TSP
standards. Nevertheless. EPA has
compared the stringency of the revised
standards with that of the existing
standards by estimating the number of
areas that would be expected not to
attain each set of standards. By this
measure, the new PMw standards are
" equivalent to or somewhat more
stringent than the TSP rtandards-(SP. •
Table 2-1). Commenten who calculated
or asserted otherwise often did not take
«Q of the aspects of the standards into
account The margin of safety ia •
function not only of levaL but also of the
indicator and form of the standards. The
• revised form, to part
comparison of the relative i
mupuasJ range with the currant TSP
standard inappropriate.
EPA agrees that the analyses of
Mortality to London Justify caution to
seUrTlnf a Ti hnnr standard leral snrl
that the recent studies of hag function
provide • useful basis for selecting the
kveL EPA does not. however, believe
mat these stadia* compel a standard
men stringent than the one chosen. As
uncertainties in estimating PfcU
equivalents of low Britffh Sfftftkf
concentrations in the later yean of the
London studies make it difficult to use
the studies to set a precise level for a
PKt, standard Therefore, tt is important
•todies of bag function that permit a
more direct estimation of Fftfe effects
levels. In considering these studies m
eanfuBcrJoB with the London mortality
— taoVother relevant health studies. EPA
finds that a 24-hour standard of ISO ug/
m4 provides an adequate margin of
safety. EPA does not agree with
commenten suggestions that it is
necessary to prevent any detectable
changes in 1""B frirtlTi At discussed
fa Section IHCl. a standard of ISO jtg/
tr win dearly prevent hug function
decmments mat might be considered to
be indicative of adverse effects to weQ
over 85% of children exposed: m fact the
evidence suggests that even reversible
changes (FEVVa) in
of 10% art unlikely at this levaL EPA
therefore believes that the standard
provides an adequate margin of safety.
Some commenten favoring standards
below the lower bounds of the proposed
ranges relied on studies or analyses
found by EPA and CASAC to be of little
quantitative value for establishing
ranges of concern. EPA considered a
number of such studies to selecting a
margin of safety (*-8-> SPA ST—*&_ SP
108-111). but in EPA's Judgment they do
. not provide a sufficient basis for
establishing standards at levels below
mose derived from me more
quantitative studies summarized in
Tables 1 and 2 above,
CommeatK Some commenten argued
mat in selfrtiiiB •««*"^1 standards B**vrH
greater weight be given to the results of
Ware et aL (1988). which suggest a
possible gradient of effects at
concentrations extending to the lowest
levels observed in the six dties studied
ievcu. Moreover. UM IACK 01 coa>i»iency
for "within dty" effects to this study
argue against pladng undue reliance on
the suggestion of effects at levels
outside of the range suggested by the
other long-term sVndies of interest
(Ferris et aL. 1973.1978. Bouhuys et aL
' W78J. In addition, the 24-hour standard
provides an increased margin of safety
againat annual exposures at levels
below 90 jif/B*. m areas where long-
term exposures are dominated by
rspsatsdl shcrt-tsrs pssks (Frsss. 15
& SfCOOOOtf StOOOOTta •
fnA Viiiisno*
Comments? The Agency should
maintain a secondary TSP standard.
Some Tf"f •***••• felt mat the proposed
secondary annual TSP standard is
inadequate, and mat the current 24-hour
TSP standard should be retained.
Agency Rupoet*: AM discussed in
Section IV A. above, the CASAC found
little scientific support for maintaining t
secondary TSP standard. It follows that
little data exist to support maintaining
the present level or an alternative level
for a 24-hour standard designed to
protect against soiling and nuisance
Nevertheless, the changes made in me
jlt fa hntfi a 24-hoUT
Afeacr Atsponsa? EPA disagrees.
EPA stiff found mat the pollution and
effects gradient in the three daanest
dties to be toe smafl to provide any
atioug suggestion of effect! at auo
s
-------
anu <\egu*auons
C. Artragiag Tito» and Foaa of the
fftmrinrrlr
1. Expected Exceedancee Cor the 24-hour
opposed to the proposed atatfsucal form
and either favored the current simpler
deterministic form or preferred a
multiple exceedaace or perceatUe form
of the 24-hour standard. Others ~
supported the proposal to adopt a
expected exceedance statistical form.
Many of the opposing cotnmenters were
concerned that the adjustment for
incomplete sampling could cause areas)
with less than one actual exceedaace
per year to be misdassified as
aoaattaiameat aad that the method Is
sensitive to spurious high •
concentrations. Those m favor of
adopting a single eauaedance statistical
fonn recognized the need to account for
missing data and argued that this farm
provides proper health protsjctiO&.
Agency Response: EPA has carefully
reviewed these comments and has
decided to maintain the basic proposed
statistical form for the 24-hour standard
but has made some technical changes
and clarifications in ffipnnu to
reviewers comments. The Agency
believes that a single exceedance fonn
far the primary standards aad the
proposed adjustments for incomplete
• sampling appropriately reflect the health
basis for the standard. When ««nipH«g
is performed less frequently than every
day. the number of observed
exceedances of the standard level wffl
obviously be. m general fewer than the
actual number of exceedances. If. for
example, sampling is performed only
every sixth day, as is permitted by the
Air Quality Surveillance regulations (40
CFR Part 58) being promulgated today,
then, on average, the number of
observed exceedances will only be one-
sixth of the actual number of • ••-
exceedances. To fail to correct for this
effect would be irrational and would
seriously degrade the health protection
afforded by the standards. The Agency
believes that adequate procedures for
handling spurious h<»h
ere provided in the "Guideline on the
Identification and (Use of Ah- Quality
Data Affected by Exceptional Events",
EPA-450/4-aS-007. Moreover, single
high concentrations will not necessarily
cause a location to fail the teat for
attainment Appendix K hat been
modified so that the first observed
exceedance is not adjusted far
incomplete sampling, tf the sampling
frequency is promptly increased to
every day in accordance with 40 CFR'.
Part 5&13. Accordingly, sites sampling
once in six days must observe at least '
two exceedancee ia order to fail ihe teat
for attainment. Sites sampling every
other day or every day must record ' ..
three or four exceedances over a three-
year period in order to fail the teat. This
change reduces the chances for
misdassifyiag a site aa aoaattaiameat
Although a multiple exceedaace fa*"1
of the 24-hour standard could redace
would reduce tat level of health
protection by allowing particulate levels
to exceed, on multiple days, the levels
that the Administrator has determined
to pose an unacceptable health risk. An
analysis of alternative numbers of
exceedances found thai, ia the long mo.
the single exceedance form provided
much more consistent health protection
than did the percentile form
recommended by some comi
uteri
(Baler. 1964:1868). __,_,_
In response to comments regarding
the iMrt*tlti<* for fM*Tiil variation fax
partic&late matter f^w^n****"****. as
well as possible intrayear changes in
sampling frequency as described in Part
58 of this Chapter, the Agency has
decided to require that adjustments for
incomplete sampling be performed on a
quarterly basis instead of a yearly basis.
t Expected Arithmetic Mean for the
Annual Standard
Comment Many commenten favored
retaining the geometric mean to describe
annual average particalata matter
concentrations but several supported
the proposed use of the arithmetic mean.
Those opposed to the proposed method
noted that the geometric mean is a more
stable statistic and is less sensitive to
occasional high readings. In addition.
opposing commenten were concerned
that a change to an arithmetic mean
increases the stringency of the annual
standard mr"^ that the arithmetic mean
does not properly relate to health
Response As discussed above. EPA
has decided to adopt annual primary
and secondary standards in terms of
expected annual arithmetic mean PM».
The Agency believe* that the annual
arithmetic mean is a more appropriate
indicator for a long-term primary air
quality standard than is the geometric
meaa. It provides a better estimate of
total exposure and. with its multiple-
year averaging, more appropriately
takes into account year-to-year
fluctuations m meteorology. As
discussed m the rationale, the effect of
averaging multiple years of data m order
to estimate tin expected f*fflml value
as well as the use of the arithmetic .
awan were both considered a aettiaf
the concentration ksvel of the standard.
The use of the arithmetic mean does not
necessarily increase the stringency of
the standard level; the stringency
depends at the combination of the form. .
Indicator, and level Holding all else
equal however, the arithmetic form is
relatively more protective to areas
subject to multiple elevations in 24-hour
concentrations. EPA views this as a
desirable characteristic.
VIL Regulatory and Environmental
tepee**
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is a
"major" regulation for which a
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is
required. At the time of the proposal the
Agency judged the proposed revisions tc
the particulate matter NAAQS to be s
major action, aad made available to the
public a draft analysis entitled;
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Paniculate Matter— Draft (EPA.
1963). The draft RIA was based on
information developed by several £?A
contractors (inter alia. Argonne, iSoj;
Mathtech. 1883) and provided estimates
of coats, benefits, and net benefits
associated with alternative standards
In announcing the availability of the
draft RIA. the Agency stated that
neither the RIA nor the contractors'
reports were considered ia developing
the proposed revisions. Subsequent to
the release of the draft RIA. the public
and other governmental agencies raised
a number of questions regarding the
underlying data base* and analyses
discussed in the draft RIA. In response
to these questioos. the Agency modified
the cost model used and made other.
more limited, changes to the benefits
analyses. The number and extent of the
changes were constrained, however, by
the underlying model structure and the
available data. The Agency has
carefully evaluated the revised analysis
and has concluded that despite the
significant improvement made.
fundamental questions remain with
regard to certain aspects of the
methodology used, particularly with
respect to the emission reduction/air
quality improvement relationship which
affects the subsequent cost and benefit
calculations. Consistent with its past
practice, the Agency has not considered
the final Regulatory Impact Analysis of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter (EPA. 1986c) in
teaching decisions on the final
The final RIA has been submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
-------
w*wu ii i •*. >«iiiimcaut tram OMJB ana •
EPA'* responses to tboM enmuaU • ,•
.have been pUoed in the docket
Reporting Keouiremeflts
This final nit does ao( contain any
information collection requirements
•object to OMB review-voder the
Paperwork Reduction Act of IflBO tt&C
JJst of Subjecta as 49 GFX Part«
'Ah*pollution control Carbon.
'nonoxide. Ozone. Sulfur oxides.
Particulate matter. Nitrogen dioxide.
Lsad . •
Date* )«ao 11887. . .
LMM.I
JL Impact on
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act I
U.S.C 000-61Z EPA-must prepare initial .
and final regulatory flexibility analyses
that asses* the impact a proposed or
final rale will have on small enffie*.
which include tin*B businesses,
not-for-profit
governmental
tiaa Paper
rp
tities with psisdiction
over populations of less than
' eaftotld* Sin
Congress, Waahinftoa. DC faae 17. 1982.
Docket *A-?9-a8. 0-O-8U.
Arpsm (U83). Casts end Air Quality
Impacts of Alternative Matfoaal Aaibieat
Air Quality Suadards lor Psrttauate
Matter. TechataBi Support OocasMst
ptepand far OS. EPA. Asjbieat SUadardi
.lUMercalriaaeiePux.NC
requirement of preparing each an
analysis if waived. howWettf the
Administrator i^^ft* th^* the rale wfll "
on a substantial number of small
entities.
The national ambient air quality
standards do not have a direct impact
on small businesses or enterprises
. because the standards themselves do
not contain emission Baits or other
jK^lutifta tamtrult Rather, such controls
are contained in State implementation
plans promulgated outer section 110 of
the Act 42 UJ5.C, i 7410. The Slates are
given considerable discretion m •
selecting a mix of controls to attain and .
maintain the ambient standards. mrtl^ the '
fanpact on small entities depends on •
how the States choose to exercise their
discretion.
Nonetheless. EPA conducted an
analysis of the impact of s hypothetical
control strategy, designed to minimi?/.
costs, on entities in the industries that
would be most affected under that
hypothetical control strategy. That
analysis, discussed in the notice of
proposed ruiemaking, 49 FR at 10422.
indicated that less than 20% of the
entities in those industries would be
affected by the proposed standards.
During the public «"•*•"* period,
EPA received no comments oa the-'
regulatory flexibility analysis. On the
basis of mat analysis, the Administrator
certifies that the revisionrbeing
promulgated today wiB a»t have a
significant impact on a substantial
_ Bomber of small entities.
VHL Other Review* . . . '
This final rule was aabanttad ta the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. Comments Cram OMB
and EPA's responses to these
have been placed lathe docket,
BOUc. WJ. (UM). bvcstfeatiea of FU.
Katfeaal AeAieat Air Qeatttr SUadatds
Bassd ea UnlttpU FTnsedsnras f>epend
fcr Stratsgies aad Air Standards Otviakn.
Offlee of Air Quality rlanmaf sad
Standards. US. Eavtraameatal Pretectloa
A|t&cy. ReMcreaTrisntie Pux. NO
eootrmct tto. 68-OZ-387S. Docket »A-B-37.
IV-A-2.
BUler. WJ». (I960). Utter to Henry C
TBOOMS. US. EPA. Office of Air Quality
naacoBi aad Staadaraa. RB Maniple
exoMOaaot PM Staadards. Owtabar U.
IMS. Docket *A-«-V. HMJ-944.
aVtoa. AIW aad Haedlae, lac (1001. Stady
•%a Oeteniae Resldeaoal Sotunf Costs of
. rer&adataAu-PoOuttoa.APID-aTU.UJB.-
OvptftBMBt of Health. Edaesttea aad
. WeUar«.rtatiaaal Air Potato Oatfnl •
AdmiaistrauoB, Kaieist. NC
Boolrays, A, OJ. BKX, and J3. Scboeab««
turn Do prMeot levels of sir pouvoaa
eotdoon afisct nspirstafy health? Nstan
278:486-471.
Carry. W J. (1959). AtmiMphthe depotiti is
Britain: A study of din^ineM. Int. J. Air PoO.
3A-3A.
D*Mea. W. B. BraaekmL C. Hoek. P.
Hofscanwier. B. StaatMn. R dtGraut E.
Bchootsa, sad X. BieniekarjUM). OteOut
air pouatioa fpttodt. J. Ait. PofiaL Coetrai
TiLlailril tafaemauoo-OAQPS Staff Paper.
Omet of Air Qvality PUaainf sad
Staadarris. BaMarch triaaak Pack. NC
CTA-4SO/S-O-O01.
EPA (IMZb). Air.QuaUty Criteria for
PaitfcaUt* Mitur and Sulfur Oxides.
Trrlrrnimmtil CriterU aad Amiim«nt
Offif*. lenarch Trlaogle Park. NC EPA-
EPA (11B). Bafsktory Impact Analysis oo
the Netfeaai Ambient Air Quality
ttaedafds forartfcuUta Matter. Office of
' AirQaaBtrPlaastiataadSuadafds.
DHEW [OS. Deparaaeat of Health.
•dueatfoa. aed Welfare] (1888). Atr Quality
Criteria for Partcalate Matter. OS.
GoWaWaaaaMBt RiottU OuKMU WettuBsltOB*
DCAP-sa.
DHEW (1873J. Prevalence of Selected Chronic
Reepirstory Conditions. United State*.lB7u.
DWEW PttbUcatfoB No. (HRA) 74-19U,
Series m Number K RockviUa. MD.
Docksry. D.W, pi Warn &C Ferris, fc. Fi
Speteer. NJL Cook, and SM. Hsmaa
(jtBZJ. Chaaie to pelaMoary fuacaoa ta
dOIdrea associated with air potottoa - .
epiaodes. J. Air Poflut Cantri. Assoc.
EPA (196S). Oertlopiai Loof-lera Stnttjiw
for lUpoaal Hasc Findings sad
Bacoeneadsaoas of the Visibility T«*k
Fans.XeMaica Triangle Paix. NC
EPA (MM*). Second Addendum to Air
Quality Criuris for Paniculate Matter and
Svifar Oxides (UK* Assesraeat of Newly
AvauaUe Health EOects Intematioa.
gaiUoaiMuul Criteria aad Ajunment
Oflka. lUiitfcfa Tnaaale Park. NC EPA
aTA(lB«b).]U«wwafmeNstkMalAmbMnt
AST Qeattty Staadatds far Partouata
MettsR wpdaisd AsMeaaMBt of Scie&unc
aad Tecbaictl bforoiatioa. Office of Air
Quality PUaniag aad SUndwtU. Research
Trianti* Psrk, NC EPA^450/S-a6-01Z
EPA (19Mc). RcjuUcory lmp«ct Analvsu of
the National Ambical Air Quality
Standards for Psrticulate Matter. Second
Addeadna. Office of Air Quality Planaiai
.•aad Staadaraa. Keaearch Trianjie Park.
rtC
Petris, ML, Jr. wd OJO. Aodenoa fMBZL Tbe
- •revalcnce of chronic respiratory diMMe
la a New Hamp«airt town. Am. Rev.
Re«pir.DU. 88: 165-177. .
Fenia. &C. Jr, LT.T. Hggins. M.VY. M&a*.
aad JJ4. Peters HB73). Coroaic noo-tpacific
feepirstoiy dUMse m BeriiB. New
ffaastain. 1901-1887. A tottow-up study.
Am. Rev. Iteipir. Dim. 107:110-122.
Ferrts. B-C, Jr. H. Chen. S. Puiea. and RiH.
Murphy. Jr. (1978). Chronic noo-€ptelfic
respiratory dicease in Berlin. New
Haiapthire. 1967-1973. A further follow-up
Study. Am. Rev. Respir. DU. 113:475-485.
Freaa. W. (1988). Summary of PM«.
Probability Simla ooa Results.
MencraouuB to Joon Beczu&ao&. A0oiefit
SUaoardt Branca. Oeceober ia 1981
Docket * A-B-37. IV-«-13.
Friedlaaaer. SX (1982). CASAC Review aad
Ooeore of the Staff Paper toe Parnculate
Matter. Meaorandum to EPA
Administrator Anne M. Cornea. Isausry
1882. Appendix Z ia Docket Hea A-TV-a.
Haiaea. Pi (198T]. Reeaalysis of the Boos.
Allen, aad Hamilton Soiling Data.
Maiuorsudum ta John Bacfaaiaaa, Ambient
Standard* Branca. Jan. 8. 1987. Docket »A-
fl982aj. Review of the Nettoaai
Aa-QeaU^StaadscdsBvParlteslata
Haacock. RJ. NA. Esmea. aad CP. Furber
(18781. Vtaul ncpoaae to dusttaem. J. Air
PoUvttoo Coat** Aaeodatfaa 2454-57.
Hausoaa. fj*. BJL Ostra. aad DA. Wlae
.(MWJ. Air PoUatfoa ead Lost Work.
Cambridge. MA: National Bonea of
looooeric Imatch. NBEX WaAag Paper
-------
-various
Afo/or Scientific Issaa and CAS3C
Condutiont if th» SQJPMCriUria
chapter tn
general. VM iwwed Graft cxecsnve
TTTTtntlpTVS aiHi
of p"H"«»«*« io the •nib*''*1* air which
these .measunments yield. Ine chapter
correctly .notes thai .Bciiiah Saiaka IBS).
CeaStieat aTHaza (COHSJ. aad Tafai -
Suspended Particala* (ISP)
do not aBVsajaatary fWUct
kgypfayiteri
preeent criteria docamenfChapter 7
provides aa abbreviated tet adequate
•QiB&ary tX Ihe cantribofioo of sulfur
oxides and pAHonlatas to ^hr formation.
transport anri affects af acidic
depeeatioa. Ibe Cscaaiittae haa
coaciaded that Chaptar 7 is a
edenrtfically adequate saaauaiy with
scientific data, studies. aadJe
coojisieslsvu^ those presented taaecB
chapter. Relationships among iadividaal
chapters andeariytlefiBad:
redundancies that do appear are
reasonable given the complexity efoW
subject
The quality of th« becstiv* Sonmary
would la* further • apr m» j if a
•ifir .«-t-i»M« «
™ partuaUta nutter utha contemporary la preparinf a Oftical Assessment
Docancot for AdoJc Deposition for its
atviaw thai lecoanixea and ineorporatea
amoog units OTBS.COHS. aadTSPia
• not pofuMm. la Mm omtto* «if •
particnlaie ttandard BritUh Smoke Ji
applicable only to a "»ooty" tmoke
•croaoL ft Aay oot 3t k aUkelj
that BS eaa provide • eetuithrt Jadexef
added JD jdadftr «arta* npoctast
UftaBUawmAMai^BA 4UKAABAA •«•* euft ^•^MieJUWUi
lae mfllltjr of various models iadaariy
Atmr-ammmil mmi\ the It^f^WKJ *f
Chapter 3: Teckniqoea far (ha
Collectinn and AaalyaU «tSQJtS&
Tbe revised chapter praridasaa
*?>* j*****
axteapourt>oaa»»aiBtod oat Topics
which had been omitted from 4&e
prevtoM ^rafl of this enapter nave bees
added to ether t2aptBTS-wtth
overiapping content. Tna chapter la i
Oaplar 7: Addfc Dapoaioaa.
•^^^ XawfcMa li am a^i^^^aeWa^sa
bases lor afl of 4he Tarioas pollutants
relevant to acidic deposition. CASAC
baa been briefed several times by
Agency officials regarding the status of
. The Committee looks
faview.
qa Vegetation.
CASAC ^
pQofic cotBneots.
this chapter on vecetation effects has
DCCfi XPCKuT HBSTOV9u COBUMafBu lO
earlier .drafts reviewed by the
Committee. It now ywiiMJ,»« A sore
contise and interpretive cnocal
evaluation «f those Jew key srudies
yieldiiaj qaaafltetiva doee-egacl or
doae^aspaoeeiBfbflBatiaa«f Boat aee
for criteria i
setting purpoan. It also igasonably
incrodes tables m the appendices!
•ammarixe *^p*t|*f aT fiacticdalea ^117^
eoJfur AimAA* n^j^f^j acsetation T?*^^*
that are «f seas atflitjlorecUeria
development and standard settsna.
The CaaBBttaea ooocun with Chapter
• evaluatiaos wttch point te (he lack -of
dose respuoss data to estab&sh
quantftatrve evidence of deleterious
effects on negeUtion from j>a«iculaie»
at presently encountered ILS. ambieat
airconceairalions. m-contrast to
particulates. much dearer evidence
ejcaesure eject TeUtiopseips lor sulfur
dioxide affects on vegetation.
Laboratory opperiments mpaitlmlar
have damonstrated the jcsater felathr*
toxidtr to vegetation from high short-
term y^p^ty im ^>F ftt^fnf diocida. *TVJ« ^
especially important in view of the fact
that ambient air concantratians of j«tl£or
dioxide from pomljoureas often
fluctHBtewiddy and rasoitm high
fanamrittent short-term exposures of
plants te saifor dioxide concentrations
against a background of longer-teca but
much lower annual average suifar
an diSareaces in Ihe relative jeuin'vity
of vacioua pleat species 4o vutfir dioude
exposures. The degree of sensfebdty
-------
..,*..
NO. X» / Wednesday. July i. igar / Rules and Regulations 2465
•HoUaad. W.W, R£, Waller. aad A.V. Swan
(19U|. Lanes la Leeiar Gnat US. EPA.
Eittiiunmenul Criteria Asseeemeat Office.
July 14. 190. Docket «A-?*-a. O-D-106.
Holland. W.W, C Florey. P.J. Lewther. and
A.V. Swaa (1985). Utter to Joiui Heiaea.
US. EPA. Ofllcec* A* C^allty Planning
•ad Standards. May 21. UK. Docket » A-
ISO (Intatnatfaaal Standards OrgaatsaoJoaj •
(Un). Ste ddSnfltbm far pwiid*
MttpliiH.Am.lna.Hyy.AaMcJ.iT1M Ms.
Kenilae.P. fMBZj. Io quest of deen air far
Berlin. New Hampshire. Ui Department of
Health. Education aad Welfare. ILA, Tafl
Sanitary Engineering Center. ^T** f1**^^
Ohio.
Uwther.P.J,Ri Waller, and M. Henderson
(19701. Air pollution and exacerbations of
mxachitis. Thorax 2W2S-S39.
Lawiher. P.L (1982). Letter to John Barftmann.
US. EPA. Office of Air Quality PUaaisf
ami SUndards. February 28. 1982. Docket
•A-79-29.II-O-9V.
Lawtber. PJ. (19BSJ. Lattar to foba Bechmaaa,
UAIPA, Office of Air Quality Plaaaing
end Standards. August 22. IMA, Docks*
Uppmatm. M. (1986a). Letter from Mortoa
Lippmenn. CASAC Chairman, to EPA
Administrator Lee Thomas, {snuary 2. I960.
Deckel *A-«2-47. 1V-O-31S.
Uppmann. M. (1986b). Unar from Mortoa
Lippmana, CASAC Chairman. to EPA
Administrator Lie Taoeoes. December IS.
MS. Docket » A-O-47. fV-D-339.
Lippmana, M. (1986c). Ltttar froat Morton
Uopouaa. CASAC Otatomaa. to EPA
' Aditunif tnlor Lcc TTionv
1988. Docket CA-C-37. IV-D-33B. •
odim-JJ. (1086). A wtiojul basis for
•Mtiovul aUBbscot &tir ctAfidutis far
particuku soattar. Aarosol Sd. Taes. Vol I
analysis of 14 London winters.
»M/3ft-lsn/72. Area. Envtron. Health
VXO-33O.
MQiar. FJ. TB. Mertonca. MJd Meaac&e.
DM. Spektor. and M. Uppauan (1986).
huOnanai of breethinf node aad attivtty
bWoatiMrepaoaJdepoaitiaBefiahaled
parttd«s aad impllcatioaa faricfahlorjr
.uadards.Cainoridn.Uattsdiantoom:
kahaled pertteba Vfc aeospted far
Swift. OJ. and 0 J. Proctor (1982). Human
lespiralory depoaitioa of partdes dunnj
aroaaaa) bnataias> Atmos. Xaviron.
Oatro. BA (UM). A aeaieh far a taraabold in
the raUttoaaalp of air poQaooa to
•ortallty: • raanalysts of data oa London
winters. EHP Environ. Health PcnpecL 5ft
397-4B9.
Ostro. ED. (ia«7j. Air poOaaoa aad
jBorWdity rrnsiled: a seeciacatioo lest ).
EMroa. Ecoa. Maaage. 14(1}: <7-«8.
Oxkaynak, R aad [JX Spcaglcr (1985).
Analysis of health effects resatoini from
popuiatioB expoxires to acid pretipiiatioa
. EHP Euviruu. HaaUa Perspcct.
LouBsbnry. S. (1986). Long-term median TSP
values from Aaeonia. Cunoecticat
Memorandum to John Bachmaaa. Ambient
Standards Branch. December 31. I960.
Docket*A-«-37. IV-B-12.
Lunn. }X. J. Knowtlden. and A.J. Handyside
(1987). Psiteni* of respiratory illness in
Sheffield infant school children. Br. f, Prev.
Soc-Med, 21:7-16.
Martin. A£, and WJt Bradley (1980).
Mortality. log aad atmosphere pollution-.
an investigation during the winter of 1991-
1959. Mon, Bull Miaiat Health Lab. Serr.
1*56-71
Mathtech. (1983). Benefit and Nef Benefit
Analysis of Alternative National Ambient
Ah- Quality Standards far Partcalate ••
Matter. Volumes 1-4. Prcpered far •
Economics Analysts Breach. Strategies aad
Air Standards Division. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA.
Research Triangle Park, NX. Mathtech.
lac. Princeton, RL Docket »A-?»-aa. 0-
Pace, TC. US. ZPA, Moedtonaff ead Data
Aaalyais Dhriaioa flflM}. Tie Uaa of TSP
Data to Estfaaata PU.. OacagtratioBa.
TeuaieeJ Manwreaduai to Jooa Becataatta.
Ambient Standards Branca. Research
Triaatje Paric. N£. Docket »A-7»-a. 0-8-
18.
Pace. TC. EJ. Meyer. NJi Prank, and S J.
Steve (1966). Procedures for Estimating
Probability of Nonatuinment of a PMw
NAAQS Using total Suspended Paniculate
or PM. Data, OS. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Plaansng aad Standards, Keseareh
Trieagle Park. KC EPA-4SO/4-e8-017.
Padgett. L. VS. EPA, Strategies aad Air
Suiidards Division (1981). Letter to Dr. •
SbeWon Priedlander. Chairmaa. Qaaa Air
Scientific Advisory Conaaittae. October »
U81. Docket »A-79
C-4.
Poflack.AX.A-ttHudischew«kjandAJX
Taran (198S). Aa ffxsmlpaflon of M63-1983
Psrtcalsle Matter Ratios and Tbeir Use te
tbe Estiatatlaa of PMM NAAQS Attciamcat
Sutns. Systems Applies tion, Inc. San
RalseL CA, UJS. EPA. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC EPA-tta/4-«S~Oia.
Roih. RD, JLE. Wyxga. aad A4- Hayter
(1996J. Methods and Problems in Estimating
Health Risks from ParticaUtas to Aerosols.
fUX. Lea, T. Schneider. UJ. Great. P4.
Verkek. eda). Lewie Publishers. Cbekea.
Schwam. LH aad A. Mareas (1986).
Statistical Reaaalyeee of Data RaUttag
Mortality to Air PolhtloB Dnrteg L
Winters J95«-l«72. US.EPA,JUeearch
Triangle Park. RC
Shtnnway. JLH. JLT. Tai LP. TaL aad T.
Pawttan (1983). Statistical analysis of daily
London mortality aad associated weather
aad poHotioa effects. Secrtmenm. CA:
California Ah- Resources Board: contract
No.AI-154-n.
Maamidar. 8, K ScUmaMi:
(19*1). Dairy BXwtaBty. aaoke tad SOt to
London. England lflS9-t»n. Pmra«din
-------
Federal Register / Vol 52. No. ?.28 / Wednesday. July 1. 1987 / Rales and Regulations 24657
temperature and humidity level*, cod
plant water content Among studies
Judged to be most useful for quantitative
criteria development and standard
netting are thoae of Dreistnger (1905.
>1007) and Dnisinger and McGovern
(1970) which demonstrate visible injury
to white pine (a commercially important
apeciea in some UJS. anu) when
natural *tanda of the tree in eonthen
Canada wen expoaed for4 boors'to O30
ppm or for • hoars to
-------
i. *~o/ /
and Reguktions
Envirb
w«U written. jofetraiad Mid thoraitfb review
of rvcont relevant •aeatlficstudias.The
Cammittet unanimously concluded tat this
1866 AddaarfuBL aim* with *W t*S2 Criteria
BifarCA&AC
defensible SBBuaarjref 4s*
scientific literature m theae* ffrl
Snresal important issue* are discusMd 4a
the we Addends- -tecfc ** C«Basll»«-
betakes stmoM be empnaaned. These Inaes
ratted dunogvvr veview^f teoetit
iclrte yrioMrily to fuidMioe«<
Ihs tower bound* of me nnges lor the
standards. 7aea«««dies todade (be ram
reanalyzes of documents.
Qtairmon. Oean AirSueiHific
Commrtue.
A. IMM* BATDCS. Lester Out. Vun
BBJT %e Aw ^onteant iMMvreiRent
tflcruriqMS into Slates to nc&tare.
This *re» aisoaswd •( 2he December
1965 CASAC (Betting, with empbam on
the med to mov*1o automated and
coartma»«« BHmttoi HIJ for particle t. .
Tha prawfltaOoaisitSM chapter oo«M
be «xpa«4ad by clarifying the
. discussion coocerning the concept «f
imp«ir0d «ng* mat taetkpoaiUen thai
would occur there aa opposed to that in
normal subjects. Further. 4ie diaonsion
of brondio-umsUiUloa being protective
(Svartengren «t aL 1984) md the
discussion of other types of altered
breathing pattern cacdd be trade
clearer, perhaps by rcorgancEnif 4ris
SuaiBury *f Ma}or Scaaadfk luuex jud
CAS AC CoaduMoiu «a ike ISM
Addendum to tb« 1982 Pvtkulato
MadArr'Sttlfur OxkiM eBv2e.Obio{Doekery«t aL) and
ffmond, NedierUaas (Daxsen et ait
lending credence to reported effect! of a
mixture of PM and sulfur oxides fSOJ
on respiratory rancScn In cofldrefl-TXfj
is consistent inm the earfier work of
Stebbings. These aradies pravida a
relatively seasidve indication of
puuTbte jhort trun rAysiohjpcal
responses of uncertain heahh
significance 2o &A. The roles of
exposure Times and duration of
functional decrement .need befler
definition.
fZ] The London mortality studies.
inrWirtg aecent analysis by Agency
staff, provide strong evidence thai
partJculate matter Is more closely
aasotiated witt daily onrUEry Jhan
oiTf xoadc between "likely" and
Chapter 4: Controlled f-'.tzoaa £^s*ms
-
Allaough ibis chaptu- was wJ3 done,
the Committee auggests thain be
atrengthened by modifying Its tTdtf*"g
discussions and by addition of further
discussion and tabular material
concerning short term exposure effects
presented by Drs, Horstman and
Folinsbee at the October 1966 CASAC
meeting.
Tha 1MB Addaadum to the 1962 Air
Quality Criteria Document on PM/SO.
was prepared by ZPA at the request of
CASAC lor 4ha puqxue of upda ling the
knowledge «1 recent sdrntific studies
aad analyses. The Committee
commends the Agency staft lor fts
efforts ia preparing a coaclse and wefJ
wjittea dooimeflL lia Addendum
aummahtfs ley findings from the earlier
Honisiftits aad provides a reasonably
complete summary of newly available
inforautionoonceming paniculaie
matter and suUur oxides with ir.ajcr
emphasis on evaluation of htuaao health
studies published since 1S81. The
GommiUee unanimoucly concludes that
this 196* Addendum, svith the
"poccjble" *&?**** levels far ff f
• upper boonds.
(3) Tha Six-Qtif* stiury nas xepoctad
t^»^< CT^iigh 4md bnodiitit wt twice AS
pBuleotiaehildrealiviagiaciues with
FUM-io the range of 40-60 ^tg/m*. in
comparison tocUies with a range of 20-
above,represents a.
hakamd aad A»Csnaablr MmuBary of the
axtaraiiirtackjiUSc litarature on these
poUotantt. Thaae^ooiaents fulfill the
requireateatt under section 108 of the
Clean Air Act as amended, which
requires that the document! s) ". .. •siuH
accurately reflect the latest scientific
kaewledge useful in indicating the kind
and exteat of all jdeatifobJe effects oo
public health or aretfare. . ."Xram
paniculate «aUar and sulfur oxides in
the aaahseat aic.
AHdeoArm U—CAS AC Review and
Ooaun of tha 1982 OAQPS Staff Paper
for Parficnlate Mattar and Tba 19B6
i Iba Staff Paper
Sab^Kt CASAC ftevNB* mdl Owure afow
-
From: Sheldon 4C. fhedLvdec. Ouinnac.
Qe*n Air SoeotifK Advttorv Commtnec
To: Anae M.Oor»Mch. AAniiuctMiar
TbeOesa Ak Scientific Adrvory
Comminee (CASAC) «oceatry campieMd «U
svcood tod 6a*lie««ew<«f tie anntiM'nt
•MOW Aenew tftJ* tJotioaal Aa&ient Air
Quality Standftdt for farOcuJaJe MatUK
InfoanaMO. QAQpS Staff Paper. 1W
C«aalttae notes with satisTsctioa Ike
Improvameals made In (he scientific qualn>
and th« completeness of the Ttsff paper, tt
has been moidliEed in veeordance with The
neoameodatlMH made by CASAC ta July
and November tVBJ. Tim document 4s «JM
comistertl Ja afl significant reapects xrtfa the
scientific evidence presented and interpreted
faKha ooatiaaa'qiteria document for sutfur
oxides and paniculate autiee. It a*s
orgtmtmt Ihi ^au/elev»otte lac
esisblisbneat at paniculate prunary »~**
secoodary sasbient air quality «*nd*rd*« «
!ofic*l aad coapeUlrtf way. aad the
COOMB'-'- HeUavas that ft provides you with
taa • . . ^uuut of technical fndance
It** «rea«lo»afc«8OprepHrre ' '
C-— ^vC has prepared this closure
aemorandum to uu'onn you more tpecifically
of its major findings and conclusions
coocantiaf the various scientific issues and
attdi«« discussed ia taa- staff paper, to
eddUm. ctMGMyain**1* rvvtewoltfc*
Sdaa4inc avidaoca taadinf to the p>rncul«te
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 126 / Wednesday. July 1. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 2465'.
•taadaid Mvisioa lud* to • dbiamioa of iu
own role Mthc
•iandanL
acltufom and
RecoaunmdaUoiu on Afa/or Scientific
luuta and Studies Associated With the
Development pfAeruedttAAQS/br
1. B**ed upon the review of avuUbie
•dentific evidence. a sepenleffiierml
paniculate standard remains e
yyfr from bii* public bfal^fr policy choice.
2. CASAC reaffirms its initial
recommendation of July 1981 to
establish a 10 micrometer cat point be a
revised primary paniculate standard.
This recommendation is based upon a
recognition of the periodic, and
sometimes frequent tendency of both
healthy and sensitive populations to
breathe through their mouths and/or
orooasally. This practice facnase* the
amount of particulate natter that can
penetrate into the thorax because the
larger particles are not filtered in the
oronasa! passages. Deposition of
particulates into this region is of special.
concern to those individuals with pre-
existing respiratory problems and
children. In addition, the collection of
particles of less than 10 micrometer
diameter size more dosery resembles
particles passing into the thoracic region
of the human body than the collection of
larger sized particle*. Furthermore.
monitors equipped for a 10 micrometer
cut are kss wind dependent and can
provide a more accurate profile of the
contemporary ambient air than samplers
which measure fatal suspended
particles.
CASAC* recommended size cut is
also similar to proposals of other
scicntiBc associations. For example. 8M
of the national members of the Air
Quality Committee of the International
Standards Organization recently voted
for a particaiate cat point at 10
micrometers for sampling particles
which can deposit in the hings.
The CASAC recommendation is based
upon available scientific data. Other
individuals and groups have discussed
the possibility of establishing a revised
paniculate standard at a size cat
considerably less than 10 micrometers.
However, for the carrent revision of the
standard, the scientific data more
readily support a 10 micrometer size cad
3. CASAC reached several major
conclusions concerning the revision of
the 24-hour and animal particulate
standards. At the opperbooad of the
proposed ranges of 150-350 pg/o* far
the 24-hour and SS-110 pe/n* far the
annsai averages, detectable kaallh
effects ocor in the popdattooa
evaluated la the«pidefliloloaica! atadtes.
Since the uppei end of these ranges
contain little or no margin of safety, it
would be appropriate to consider lower
values for revising the 24-hour and
annual standards. In addition, the stated
ranges are baaed solely on quantitative
evidence reported in epidemiologieal
studies. A final decision OB a revised
standard should also incorporate
huionnatioa generated through
and from other lass quantitative
epidemiologieal studies discussed in the
criteria document.
There is an absence of a dearly
definable exposure-response
relationship for particles, as amply
discussed in the criteria document and
the staff paper. In addition, because
airborne particles arc heterogeneons in
composition, the potential toxic effects
of individual constituents T***nH b*
considered inaetting the standard. Thaa.
compared to margins of safety set for
pollutants such as ozone and carbon
monoxide, where exposure-response
relationships are better established and
small margins of safety are more
Justifiable. CASAC believes you should
consider a revised standard with a
wider margin of safety.
4. Toe fsiininitimm nachcd Mmml
agreement that the annual particalate
standard should consist of an arithmetic
mean. It is recommended that the 24-
hour standard Include a statistical form
and that the number of exceedances is
set in relation to the revised standard
level
1 During the past decade, the link
between visibility and fine pariide mass
concentrations has been convincingly
documented. Visibility is a sensitive
indicator of accumulated man-made
pollutant) in the ambient air. The public
cans about visibility and is willing to
pay something for dean air. However.
the quantitative basis for establishing a
psyuhulogicaL economic transportatioB
or any other welfare cost associated
with visibility impairment has not bees
established. In addition, controls
. required to achieve a given visibility
standard are not known due to the
complexities of pollutant transport aad
transformation.
Defining acceptable levels of visibility
is a social/policy judgment as well aa a
scientific decision, but science can
provide tome gaidance. The upper cod
of the 6-ZS pa./o»* range for fine
partides (those particles wiA a
diameter size of lass than ZS
ntoaaeters) woald lead to •"''"*•''" the
status quo for the eastern United States
and some »estem urban areas: bat
would permit air quality degradation far
large areas to the s»est utdading
.national parka. Also, it is highly
uncertain that the recommended
thoradc particle ranges for the primary
standard wfll protect visibility. The 8-^
jig/m4 range for fine partides suggested
for visibility protection is a seasonal
and spatial average, anlike peak value?
widen wifl be recommended for the
primary standard.
The strongest case for a visibility
related standard is HHH that Mr^f
ft**1""* of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide with the interrelated aspects of
acidic deposition, possible
dimatological effects, and visibility.
Each of these three air quality issues^*
related to the fine particles which
originate both as primary part-.c-j's!^
emissions and as secondan, aerosc.s
from atmospheric conversions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted aa
vapors. IB terms of a control strategy to
protect public welfare, it may be more
efficient to consider a common standard
linked to fine particles than to establish
a separate set of controls for each of
these problems and pollutants.
B. The Committee's evaluation of
scientific data and studies in the enter a
document and the staff paper lead ;: to
ctyndudf ttis* there is no scientific
justification tar the establishment of a
paniculate standard for the specific
protection of vegetation.
7. The Committee discussed what
effect elimination of a Total Suspended
Particulate (TSP) standard would have
oa the environment The soiling and
nuisance aspects of TSP are essentially
local air quality problems because such
coarse partides are not transported
great distance. This contrasts with
visibility or oxidant related problems
which are distinctly issues of long rar.e*
• pollution transport. Individuals who
serve on the Committee made various
recommendations regarding retention cr
elimination of a secondary standard for
TSP. bat no dear consensus evbrved.
The Process for Setting the Ambieat
Paniculate Standard
In its report of September 21.1S81,
CASAC made several major
recommendations relating to the process
for setting ambient air standards. The
Committee is aware that your staff is
analyzing its report and is awaiting a
response
A major underlying assumption of the
Committee's recommendations was the
need to make more explidt the
relationship between the scientific
evidence in the criteria ^ly^immi aad
the staff paper and the eventual
selection of a numerical level for
individual standards The Committee
strongly believes in the need to clarify
the standard setting process by
-------
identifying the key studies that will
•bap* the determination of a standard.
Intensive evaluation of such studies by
CASAC and the public will considerably
increase your ability to act a
scientifically supportable standard.
The Committee is greatly encouraged
by your decision to improve the format
and content of OAQPS scientific iacoe
ataff>apers. In the Draft Staff Paper for.
Paniculate Matter key etodies are
identified and their iaplicatiomi for
setting primary and secondary
standards are discussed. More
importantly, the inclusion of numerical
ranges and their supporting rationale
enable the Committee and the public to
critically examine the staffs proposed
use of the studies. This led to a narked
improvement in the quality of the public
dialogue ftw^i*""* thi? scientific b^tif
for revisiuf the standard. CASAC
Addendum arc contained in the attacked
report.
Thank y«i far the opportunity to present
me Committee'* vicwf oa this taporttnt
Stocerriy.
that aO staff papers developed for
anibient air standards contain numerical
ranges.
CASAC recognizes that your statutory
responsibility to set standards requires
public health policy judgments to
addition to determination of a strictly
scientific nature. While the Committee is
willing to further advise you on the
paniculate standard, we see no need, m
view of the already extensive comments
provideo* to review toe) proposed
partteulate standards prior to their
publication m the Federal ftspsta. la
this instance, the public comment period
wul provide sufficient opportunity for
the Committee to provide any adHltioaa?
comment or review that say be
necessary.
December la, tteft. . .
The Hononblc LM Tbomu.
Administrator. U-S. Environmental Protection
Aftaey. Washington. DC 20440.
Dear Mr. Thomer The dean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) .baa ccmudctsd
its review of the 1QB8 Addeixhn to &e 1MZ
Suff Piper oa PmrticttUte Matter (Rfritw of
tin NAAQSforPattiailat* Matter
Attrnrmmt of Scientific and Tfdiaioal
4>/bfBM0a0/pr*paf*d by the Agency's OOot
•f Air Quality PUnuinj tad Standards
(OAQPSV
The Cocaaitlee oMaimoesly oaeebdea
thai this docaotent is coocisieat-ia afl
ngnificut retpects with me scrimSc
•vidttot procatad and iatafpretad la the
combined Air Quality Criteria OoouMBt (or
FarHcalste Mstter/Solnr Oxides and its Utt
Addendum, on which the CASAC Mceatfy
Binned Its doran letter.Hie O«iminee
believes that this 6'ocumeflt provides yoe
with the kind sad unoont of technical
guidance that wul be needed to meke
appropriate nrisions to the standards. The
Caauuinaa'sjasjor findings and i
ujueaiaiag the various r^nlflt Ian
stadies diacassed fa the Staff Paper
ee A. ISSMS Banaa. Gerald Earisoa. Van
Newffl. loaa OCooBOt. Cnig Peder. Teny
Sommary of Major Scientific Issue* and
CASAC Coodusions oo the U6C Draft
Addendum to the 19C Partkulate
Matter Staff Paper
The Committee found the technical
discussions contained in the Staff Paper
Addendum to be acceptable with minor
revuio&a*
The CASAC reaffirms its January A
tterecoameodatioa mat a particle
(indicator that includes only those '
particles leu than or equal to a nominal
•10 um aerodynamic diameter, termed
PMi*. is appropriate for regulation of
paniculate concentrations. This
judgment is based on analysis of the
earlier available data, and the analysis
of the recent scientific studies discussed
in the 1886 Addendum to the Air Quality
Criteria for Partculate Matter/Sulfur
Oxides and the I960 Addendum to the
Partculate Matter Staff Paper.
Implication* of London Mortality .
Studies
Further analyses of the London
mortality studies. frdii'Mng recent
analysis by Agency staff, suggest that •
(1) the data provide no evidence for a
threshold for the association between
airborne particles and daily mortality or
a change of coefficient with changes in
particle composition:
(2) mortality effects can be asson'stad
with PM alone (with or without sulfur
oxides):
(3) there Is no reliable quantitative
basis for "•""•'•iPt British Smoke (BS]
readings to PMx gravimetric mass at
. low (<100-OX) pg/m*) BS levels, and
hence the mortality data are not readily
useful for establishing a lower bound for
M-bour PMi* NAAQSA. although the
suggestion of mortality at relatively low
PM levels must be given serious
consideration in selecting a margin of
safety.
bttapntatian of Lung Function Stadia
far 24-koor Standard
Although the lung fu/mthin
decrements observed in children during
and after air pollution epiaodes are of
im^aHefai W».ltK ^yrif^M^ ftw. »—,
episodic hmg finiction studies fDocl;erj-
et aL 1988: Oaaeen et aL. 1988) are
consistent with each other and the
earlier work of Stebbings. They provide
a relatively sensitive indication of
possible short tans physiological
responses. Oven the difficulty in
deriving • lower limit from the mortality
atedias, these htng function studies can
be useful la determining tower bounds
for • 24-hour PM* standard.
Int*rpntatioeofth*Six Cities Study for
A ttfivftf ffiflnrfffmf
b general, the Committee felt that the
six dties data are useful in establishing
tee lower bound of the range for the
annual standard. In addition, the
following are suggested by the data:
(1) Cough and bronchitis, as defined in
this study, are about twice as prevalent
m children living m dties with PM« in
the range of 40-aOftg/m* in comparison
to does with 20-30 «/m »-.
(2) Because factors other than
paniculate matter may affect the inter-
city differences, it is difficult to
determine whether these associations
should be designated as "likely" health
effects:
(3) The results are consistent with the
Oatro studies in terms of morbidity
responses at long-term average
particulate matter cxpoames within
current particntate ambient air quality
standards: and
(4) The results are consistent with the
Bouhuys study in terms of symptoms
without changes in pulmonary function.
Raagct for 24-hour and AjuracJ
Standard* for PM»
In its January 2.1986 letter to the
Administrator, the CASAC noted that iU
preliminary analyses of the more recent
data do not indicate the need for
fundamental changes in the structure of
the proposed particle standards;
however, the Committee pointed out
that these new data suggest the need to
focus consideration on standards at or
pernapa below the low ends of the.
ranges proposed in the March 20.1984
Federal Register Notice. The ranges of
interest then proposed were 150-250 pg/
m4 for 24-hour standard, and 50-65 pg/
• s nr annual standard.
Since then. EPA staff have proposed
updated ranges of interest for both the
24-hour standard (140-250 pg/a •). and
the annual standard (40-65 pg/m *).
based oo «aorMerm and long-term
epidemiological data, respectively. The
Committee finds these ranges of interest
reasonable, given the scientific data and
related uncertainties: however, a final
. dedsion should also weigh evidence
from dinical and lexicological studies
-------
Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 126 / Wednesday. fury 1.1967 / kules «nd Regulation* 24661
as welL The Committee agrees with EPA
staff that selection of final standards
must indude consideration of the
combined protection afforded by the 24-
hour and aoaual standards taken
together.
The Committee recommends that you
consider setting the revised standards at
the lower ends of the proposed ranges
for both the 24-bour and annual -
standards. The Committee recognizes
that the exact levels to be chosen for.the
24-hour and annual standards represent
a policy choice, influenced by the need
to indude a margin of safety. Given the
uncertainty in the supporting scientific
data, the Committee cannot distinguish
the health effects that may be observed
at different levels near the lower bound,
such as the health significance of setting
the 24-hour standard at 1« jtf/a •
compared Jo ISO jic/a*. '
Aadttdmnm-«xscadv«S«om»aryof
the 1988 Addendum to the Staff Piper
Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Paniculate
Matter: Updated A*"**"^*"1 of
Scientific and Technical Information—
Addendum to the 19B2 OAQPS Staff
Piper (EPA. 19886).
Partiailat* matter represents a broad
class of chemically and physically
diverse mbtttrTirs that exist as discrete
particles (liquid droplets or solids)
ranging is sits from molecular dusters
OI1UXJ9 BBCTvOMlKX* (JI^Bf *B ^D^JVP
parades on the order of 1000 jun. The
SMJor chemical and physical propcrtios
of particuiate matter vary greatly with
time, region, meteorology aad source
category, complicating the assessment
of health and welfare effects as related
to various indicators of parnculate
pollution. The original measurement
method for the paniculate matter
NAAQS was the "hi volume" sampler.
which collects particles of sizes up to a
nominal 2S-4S unx (so-called Total •
Suspended Particuiate" or TSP). EPA
has proposed to replace this parnculate
Btftttf *
This paper evaluates mad interprets
the updated scientific aad technical
information that the EPA staff believes
is most relevant to decision making on
. revised primary (health) national
ambient sir quality standards (NAAQS)
for particuiate natter aad Is aa
addendum to the 1962 parttealata matter
staff paper. The peper assesses the
factors the staff believes should be
considered in selecting the pollutant
indicator and level for the primary
particuiate matter standards, updating
and supplementing previous staff
condusrons and recommendations m
these areas to Incorporate more recant
information. Tats assessment is
intended to betp bridge the gap between
the scientific review contained in the
EPA criteria document addendum
"Second Addendum to AirQwUty
Criteria far Parttculale Matter and
Sulfur Oxides (1962 J: Assessment of
Newly Available Health Effects
Information" and the judgments
required of the Administrator m making
final decisions on revisions to the
primary NAAQS for particuiate matter
that were proposed in March 1984 (49 FR
10408). The staff paper and this
addendum are. therefore. Important
elements in the standards review
process and provide an opportunity for
public comment on proposed staff
recommendations before they an
presented to the Administrator.
omly particles with aerodynamic
diameters smaller than • nominal 10 pa.
termed "PMi»". Although • large number
of PM» monitors are now IB place.
reliable and consistent data are, at
present limited. Data from 39 sites in
EPA's IP network show long-term urban
PMw levels range between S and 75 jig/
m' and maximum 24-hour values range
from SO to ITS jisj/m*. Higher values an
Ukaly aa more data become available.
Both fine «£S sun) and coarse (>2J
wn) particles are substantial
components of PMu mass, win a
tendency for higher coarse contributions
m western US. iocatfons with higher
deposition far children relative to adults
provides an additional reason for an
indicator that includes parttdes capable
of such penetration. Given these
considerations and Its earlier
condtwons. the staff reaffirms its
recommendation to replace TSP as the
particle indicator for the primary
standards with a new indicator that
includes only those parndes smaller
than a nominal 10 fun in aerodynamic
diameter (PM«). The previously
developed effectiveness criteria for
samplers are acceptable for regulator/
purposes.
Level of Standards
The major scientific basis for selecun*.1
PVf standards that have an adequate
aaargin of safety remains community
•pidcmiobgical research, with
mechanistic support from toxicological
lled twta
-------
negater / VoL S2. No. 128 / Wednesday. |ujy i. J9g7 / Rules and Regulations
This if particularly true for the
statistical analyses of daily mortality in
London. Substantial agreement exists
that wintertime pollutioa tpisodes
produced premature mortality in elderly
and ill populations, bat (be range and
nature of association provide no dear
. bub for distfflgmshingaiiy particular
lowest "effects likely" levels or for
defining a concentration below which
BO association rnnains. The recent long
niiH.tJuu studies m children f^mtiT that
effects an possible in the range listed in
Table 1. but the relationships are not
certain enough to denve "effects likely"
levels'for PM*. They do suggest levels
below •which detectable functional
changes are unlikely to occur.
:TaUel. Updated Staff
of Short-Tana Fpidemiolnpeal Stadia
EOects/stady
Eff
Elf
No
mi I jkrry ... .....
fOi PottiHt . - _...
Significant ETFcrt* M^«H
flsasauJ British smoke levela (aa M/m •)
(24-hr, an-)
Diulv mortality
uloadoa'
1000
T
Apjnvaaoaof
fcmchitU*
2SO--400*
Combined
rante
250-300
<2SO
Maaaured TSP lavela Qn/m •
(Z4-hr.avf.)
Equivalent PM,.
levels Uf/m ')
SmaH reversible dediaea in i Combined
fang funcnoa in children «•' : rante •
220*-420 *— 200-250 <
125* «-ieo *
350-600
140-350
* Indicate! levela «aad for epper sad lower boond of rant*.
'Various analyse* of dafly mortality encompaasing tba London wmter of IKt 88.14 winters bom MS8-7Z, in atxreeate ud iadividuailv.
Early winten dominated by kufh smoke sad SO, from oaal eombwtioa with freqesat fog*. From 1982CO: Martm end Bradley (1980): Ware it
aL. (WII; Mazumdar at aL (iflslL From 19M CD Addenda* Mewmdar et si. (18*2): Ortro {IBM); Caemi»si el ak (un): Schwam and
~ ~ * nka, with sa cWar drthisstioB ef -HkeJy- effacu
Marco* (19881. Later stadias show
or threshold of
of flymptons reported by braacnos patients m Londoa, add-MTa te eariy TTs: Ltwtber et aL (1170).
1 Study of pollution "episode*" m SJeubenvaie. Ohio. 1978-aO: Oockery et aL I19B2).
4 Study of 1985 pollution episode ia Ijmond The Netherlands: Dasacn et ai (1986).
• (a) Conversion of BS readings to PM* /pvc/ir Aatume* for London conditions and BS readings in the range 100-500 Mt/m '. SS
TSP Precise conversion* are not powible. Unearutnty in meatur«nenu of BS and conversion relationships preclude quantitative eatunati»5 o:
range for lower BS levels. The upper bound assumption (PMW • TSP •* BS -r 100 MC/ma] overestunaiea PM« levels.
(b) Conversion of TSP to PM* for Docker? et aL results: Based on analysis of particle size fraction relationships in Sieubenviile
(Soentler et aL 198S) The lower bound TSP of 220 M/m* was the peak reported for the Soring 1980 study. A PMu/TSP rauo of about 0-e
" r w , t * J •• -• • • •• • • • 1 •
-------
^ ••.
chfldrea'
reoacttoa in
hat
fttBCfkMUi
adaile*
Measured TSP Level* (M(/a*l
rosBirstofy
sytttptoais
4«MO
eo-180
;'
m'). 24-hour average concentration. The
standard* are attained when the
expected number ot days per caienoar
year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 ftg/m*. a*
determined in accordance with
Appendix K to this part is equal to or
less than one.
(b) The level of the national primary
•i^rj secondary annual standards for
paniculate matter is SO micrograms per
cubic meter (pg/m*]. annual arithmetic
mean. The standards are attained when
the expected annual-arithmetic mean
concentration, as determined in
accordance with Appendix 1C to this
part is less than or equal to 50 pg/m*.
(c) For the purpose of determining
attainment of the primary and
secondary standards, paniculate matter
shall be measured in the ambient air as
(particles with an aerodynamic
-------
diameter lex than or equal to « nominal
10 micrometen) by:
(1) A reference method based oa
Appendix J aad designated in
accordance with Part S3 of this chapter.
or
(2) An equivalent method designated
{aaccordaace with Part 53 of this
chapter. ' .
ndm
e corrected
i iflflar «nh«t«nf1«flY
40
4T
tsofEmr.
. Volstae parfdes
. icebicanter).paiticalariyathigh
e)evanona.Afihoagh not required, the actual
FU» eonceatratioo can be csknhrtsd from
SSi*
r daring the sampling period.
U AawthodbaaadontaaiBriarajlawffl
HOLT
3. Section SO7 it removed anc
4. In Appendix C. reference 10 is
removed and reserved and section S.U
is revised to read as follows:
SJJ High-VohaM Sampler. Use tad
calibrate UM (ampler a* described ia
Appendix B to this Part
5. Appendix I U added and reserved,
I (Ra-erved]
i to tat a ef this caaptac.
.and (bj the method has beea designated as a
rsfetancs method ia accordion with Part S3
of IBM chapter.
ID Jlonje.
XI The lower
IfeW of the
ft. Appendix J is added to read as
faOowc
repeatability of filter tare weights,
the nominal air sample vomme Car the
t**"[Jt* Far sa
flner-changittg laartunianv thin aiy he ao
rDait For samplers that do act have aa
IB Applicability.
U This method provides for the
measurement of the mats concentration of
parbcnlaie matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equl to a nominal 10
micrometers (PMi«J hi ambient air over a 2t-
hour period for purposes efdetemuaaag
ettaiament •• ug/m*. as raqoired by Part S of this
chapter, which prescribes a <
eoflected aa Share are often lost during
aUpmeat and/or storaae of the fibers prior to
Ihe post ismpllin TTsiihint' Allhnmh
t or storeee of loaded IQien is
i auevftidabla. flllen should be
i as pracacei ts minimize
iaPM»
i auy teeult from
i epedes on filter* » *.
• the fetemton of vatfar
dioxide and nrtric acid. Retention ef eolhir
dioxide on fitters, followed by oxidation to
soifate. is referred to aa artifact sulfatc
(ormsuon. a phenomenon which increases
with mcfeeainf filter afluiliaity'. Uttle or no
artifact aanate formation should occur vatng
niters that meet the alkalinity specification in
•action Tit. AroXact nitrate ibnaaben.
resiiltlni priaiirily froai rstsntiim at nitrlr
acidi acoan to varymf degrees aa annj filter
r/pea,avdadiat|iass fiber. csUalose ester.
fiber fltati* *»*".Voss
partkalste nftrete aarteg
arMowmgiaaDlmgmartlsooocardMto
geeodstten or chemical reaction. This
phenomeaoa has been observed ea Teflon*
filters • sad inferred for quartz fiber
filters "• **. The msgninide of nimte srafac:
crron in PKU atssa concentration
measurements will vary with location sad
atahient temperature however, tor most
seespliag locationa, these emn are expected
vbesmaO.
U ManicTly. The effects of ambient
humidity on the tasple sre acxvokUtU.Tle
fitter eovinbrsttOB procedure m eecnon ftA is
designed to minimus the effects of motstore
ea the filter i "
44
that detenunes the veiietfaa m the PM*
samplen under typical sampling coodiboe
rend
Contiaual sssfciiment of predsion via
coOocsted tamplen is rtquirtd by Part 58 of
this chapter for PMw samplers ased ia certain
monitoring network*.
LO Accuracy.
U Beesuse the sue of the particles
making ep ambieot osTfvnilste SMBsr varies .
ev« a wioe range and the eonceatrenoa of
pertidss varies with parade eta. tt hi
difficult to define the absotats accsncy of
PM. semplan. Pert 13 of this «heptor
effectiveness of FM. eemplera. This
apeciJBesaon rsqaires that the ei^oMed awes
eonceottatiaa oakaiatsd lor a caadtdaH
PMi* samplar. whea ssrapUng a epacifted-
parade size distribvtion. be within ±10
percent of that calealeted far aa ideal
sample whose saapttet gflsUliimai is
explicitly specified. Also, me partfds size far
to percent sampling cfiecnveaees is reoafaed
te avoid
i dae to damaged filters or lees ef
ceflectsd particles from the filters. Use of s
fitter •cartridge or csssetts may reduce the
magnitude of these errors. FUten must alio
meet the integrity spedficsrJoa in secoon
7.13.
43 flow Kate Variation. Variations in the
eampier's operating flow rate may alter the
particle stas dieaiarinetfaa chenaerwtiai of
the sampler inlet. The magnitude of this error
win depend on die sensitivity of the miet to
variations m Dow rate aad oa the particle
disMbation m the etmosphere daring the
sampbng period. The we of a Bow control
device (section 7.13) ts required to minimize
Has,
M be 10±QJS aricrometara. Other
specifications related to accuracy sppry to
flow eieaiU'iBiiaiH and csHbratioa. fitter
meeia. eaatyooai fwe^faaagj proosoareai aad
artUact. The flow rate aecaracy ef PM«
samplers used m certain monitoring networks
• reoairadbyPeriHofthisohaatorttbe
aeseeeed penadlcalr/ v4a flew seat aadMs.
ae ate volume aetetmnvation may resalt trom
i hi the flew rate and/or sampling time
. The flow control devkjt
aerves to minimize.enors in the flow rate
determination, and an elapsed time meter
(section 7 4J5) ts required to minimize the
Apporatft.
TJ XMUSamplet.
The eaaapiarshaO be designed toe
a. Drew the sir sample toto the eampier
•let aad throagh *e parade ooQecaea Utar
elaeailsrmiaaaeeleatty. - . .
-------
Federal Register / Vol 52. No. 128 / Wedne«day. July 1. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
b. Hold aad seal tfae filler fa a faoruootal
poeltioa so that sampie air is drawn
downward tfanogfa the fitter.
.c. Allow tfae filter to be installed aad
removed convaaieBtly.
d. Protect tfae fitter aad templar from
areapitatioB aad pu»eat laaacts and other
dabria frova aev^aajBAMB.
a. Miaaaixa air leaks that wouM cause
WQft* fll ttW BMURMttlBC OI tsW 4Dtf VOiUflMI
passing tfaroogh Ifae filtae. • .
f. Discharge exfaaeat air at a eefitaeat
dlstaoos fraai tfaa saaDalar iaiaC Is Btiattacaa
Iha sampling of exhaust ate,
g. Minimize the coUectioo of dust from tfae
supporting surface,
7.U The sampler shaD have e sample air
inlet system (fast, wfaea operated withia a
specified flow rate rang*, provide* partide
•Us discriauastioa characteristics meeting all
of the applicable performance aaedficatioB*
prescribed ia Part« of this chapter. The
sampler ialet tMfl show aa sigaificaat wind
. cu generally be satisfied by aaialet shape .
that is droularly »j amisti kal aboat a vartical
axis.-
74J Tfaa sampler shall have a flow
control device capable of maintaining tfae
sampler'* operating flow rate within the flow
rate limit* specified for the sampler inlet over
normal variations in line voltage sod filter
pressure drop.
7J.4 Tie sampler shaD provide a awens
. to measure Ifae total flow rale during tfae
semptiag period. A coobaaoas flow recorder
is recommended but aol required. Tfas flow
measurement device shall be accurate to ±2
percent.
7JJ A timing/control device capable of
starting aad stopping tfae sampler abafl be
aaad to obtain a sampie coOectioa period of
24 ±1 far (L440 ±«J min). Aa elapsed thne
atetar. accurate to withia ±13 auaatea. ahall
be used to measure "T""! BBM. This awtar
is optional for sampler* with continuous flow
recorder* if tfae sampling time measurement
obtained by means of the recorder meets the
±15 minute accuracy specification.
7.1J The sampler shall have aa
associated operation or instruction manual as
required by Part 23 of this chapter which
includes detailed instructions oa tfae
caiibratioa, operation, and maintenance of
the sampler.
73 fUtmr*.
7.2.1 fl/ttr Mtt/fuai. No commercially
available filter aiadjuai It fckaJ at afl/aspect*
for all samplers. Tfae aser's goals m sampling
determine tfae relative importance of varioos
filler characteristic* (ej, cast aaae of .
handling, physical aad chemical
characteristics, etc) aad cansequantfy.
determine tfaa choice among acceptable
•filters. Furthermore, eeruua types of fillers
may not b* suitable for me with SOBM
sampler*, parrtcaieriy under heavy loading
conditions (high BUM coneeatratfoaa).
bacaase of high or rapid increase ia Ifae flltar
flow resistance tfaat would exceed .tfae
capability of tfaa sampler's flow oaetral
device. However, samplers equipped with
automatic filler-changing mechanisms Buy
allow «sa of these types of filter*. Tfae
specifications grvea below are •<•»•«"••
raquiramaats lo ensure acceptability of tfae
After medium for i
concentre tiaaa. Odv
r filler evekatioa
criteria should bt considered to
fediridiiaJ saoptag sad analyal* obje
tives.
by the DW Mot (ASIM^HV)
with OJ *ua partide* af tat sampler'*
•pentiag boo velocity.
voiiaae). fatagrity la BMaiuied ae t
COBCflBtNtMB tf^WWMSt OBCfWpOBBIIIf 10
. the averafa difleranee betweea the faiUal
and tfae final weigfata of a random sample of
ten fflten that are weighed and handled
cmditiooa. bat have BO air taatpie paaaad
tfarouah than fla, filter blank*}. Ae a
minimum, the teat procaduie mtort indade
ouOat equilibration and weiahnt. iBatallatioo
oa aa inoperative aempler. nawval from the
• aaaplar. aad final aqaffibntioa and
.. Calibration.
BM Gt/ieru/ Aaotui B/JMA& '
aUJ Caiibratioa of tfae sampler'* flow
• aaeasureuuat device ia rmuiiad to establish
taceebility of subsequent flow
Biaesiifsnunt* to a primary standard. A flow
rate transfer standard calibrated against a
primary' flow or volume standard shaD be
aaed to canbtata or verify tfae accuracy of the
saaapiar's flow measurement devfa
Particle sue discrimination by
toertal separation requires that specific air
vclodtiea be maintained ia tfae sampler's air
inlet system. Therefor*, the flow rate through
tfae sampler's tolat mast be autntained
throughout tfaa sampling period withia tfae
design flow rate range specified by tfae
•uanfacturer. Design flow rates are specified
as aetaaJ volume trie flow rates, amsured at
I caadttiooa e/taupaiatua aad
flow rate* corrected to EPA referem
conditions of temperature aad ares*
a\2 Flo* Rat* Calibration Pmcti
UU PMM aaaiplen employ vari(
Wflow-eoBtfolaBdflowBwasttreiBr
devicss. The specific procedure asec
rate callbrstioa or verification will v.
appending oa tfae type of flow contro
flow (Bdicatar employed. Calibration
af actual vohaaetric flow rate* fQJ u
af flow rate (04.0^) may be used pi
the requirement* af section a.1 are me
general procedure given acre is based
actaal volumetric flow unit* (QJ and:
to iOuatrate tfae step* involved in the
caiibratioa of a PMw sampler. Coasuii
sampler manufacturer* instruction m*
sad Reference 2 for specific guidance c.
calibration. Reference 14 provides adc:
m/ormatioa oa Ifae ase of tfae commoni;
i of flow rate and their
t£2 Calibrate tfae flow rale transfer
standard agaiast a primary flow or volu.
standard traceable to NBS. Establish a
calibration relationship («.g_ an equatio:
family of carve*) such that craceafailm- •••
primary tlaadard i* accurate to wititin 2
percent over the expected range of a.-.-
condinon* fLe_ temperature* and p~«i.:
ander which tfae transfer standard-w... ;c
used. Kacaubrate tfae transfer standard
periodically.
aV2J Following tfae sampler
manufacturer's instruction manual, remov
tfae sampler inlet aad connect tfae flow r*t
transfer standard to tfae sampler such tfast
transfer stsadard accurately measures the
sampler's flow rate. Mais sore there are r.
leaks betweea the transfer standard anc th
sampler.
C2.4 Cboose a minimum of three flow
rates (actual m'/BUn). spaced over tfae
acceptable flow rate range specified for the
fatlet (see 7.U) that can be obtained by
suitable edjustment of (he sampler flow ntc
la accordance with the sampler
manufacturer's instruction manual obtain :.
verify the calibration relationship berweer.
tfae flow rate (actual m'/min) as indicated ti-
the traasfer standard and the sampler** flow
indicator r*spoosa. Record the ambient
temperature aad barometric preMure.
Temperature aad pressure corrections to
subsequent flow indicator resdings may b«
required for certain types of flow
measurement devices. When such correction!
are necessary, correction oa an individual or
daily basis is preferable. However, scasonsl
average temperature sad average barometric
praMura for the sampling site may be
incorporated into tfae sampler calibration to
avoid daily corrections. Consult tfae sampler
BiBBufactttrer's lastructioa tnetiml f*^
Reference 2 for additional guidance.
«-2J Following calibration, verify last the
sampler Is operating at its design flow rate
(ectual m'/aua) with a deaa filter ia place.
s-ZJ Replace tfaa sampler ialet
(QJ-b«ootraaLi
itioaa of FM« are oooovted uaof
0.1 Tie sampler shall be operated m
accordant:* with tfae specific guidance
provided in tfae eampler autaafaetnrcr'i
instruction manual aad in Reference Z The
-------
U « VU«.
uid Regulation*
the aaaplara flow salt ealibrattoa is baaed
an flow ratas M ajsbieat mm ifltiiiii (QJ aad
serves to fflusMtetto steps famlved hi the
operaooa of a AC aeonler.
12 taped each Biter iarpiahoJet.
parades. eed other Jmperfecttons FtteHtth a
filter tnfacmaBOB record and astitn ea
Idcattfieaaoa naaaber to each filter.
U Coaffibnteeach filter iathe
eoBdittaBtBt mtooantat (iw ?.«) tor at IMM
24 hows.
9.4 fbOimfege*&inira«a& weigh each
ffller aad ncord the presaapltag weight wflh
activity, fins or out <
be peraaaat la die i
.ate. that aleht
laathtflltar
lyaaaport tha aiasasdaaaale Star
SB the filer eoadlaaaaaf ei
ifareaailibraac
aa a«aaibla far aqtdl
9M Bqafflbrata
the
fta axpoaed Alter to tha
«t24
afld
U Install apreweished fiber in the
•ampler following the iactractfons provided
m the sampler auo«4aetiaw a iastractioaal
manual
. 64 Tun on the sampler and a8ow M to
establish ron-temperature conditions. Record
tfaeOowiBdicatarrradintaad.ff0cadad.lha
ambient tampetatwaad DaiumsBu
pressure Determine the sampler Bow rate
filar aeoflibfatfaa, (aaa U).
a>7 bnaMdiaUty altar aqoiUmtiao.
^mtiafc tha Uiar aod nacord tht
waia^t with tht filtar
WHO 7A
raferaaca coodleoaa aa (^» When the
aaaqiier's Bow tedicator U calibrated U
actual voh&awtrfc aaO* |QJ. Q«k okkalalad
No<
oweMirements are aeoteaary 4* the sampler's
flow mdicstor does not require tempeiatare
or pressure uxieiriuna or If seasonal average
temperature and average barometric pretture
for the sampling site are incorporated into the
•ampler csUbration (see atep 12.41. If
individual or daily tempers fore asid preeaere
corrections are raoairaoL eeeDtent
- 1 i. , . , luj i -^^_ .^^ U.
annparatare ans oaroaMizic avveeort oaa oa
obtained by oa-aita BMaaoraoMnts or fraai a
nearby weather stsfioa. Barometrte pisaaars
readings obtained froaj atrports i
wneta
^averace Oow rate et EPA reference
condition*, ttd B*/DUB
.-even^e flow rate at ambient oondltiona,
P,»erer««e baracaatrk p
t darint tha
aaatpliaf period or avaraae baroaMgic
prcMore for the aaapoac tH*. kPa (or
aad aey aaed ta be corrected for <
hi elevattoa between the aaapUaf tita aad
theafeport.
U tftfae flow rate keenride tha
acoeptaiua ra&ae specified ay aaa
maaufacturer, check for kaaa. aad ff
aaee*MiT. adiwet the flow raai ta dM
specified fetpoat Stop the taaipier.
M Set the tiswr to sun aod stop (be
•ampler it appropriate times. Set the tlipearf
time meter to aero or record the laitiaJ aaatar
raadinx.
7«->evari(e aabteat aoDparatan dartaf the
aaaptias; period or saeaaaal event*
ambient Uooeratare for «M •eaptioa.
T— -fUadard tanperatare, defloed ti 298 K:
P—-awj»dard preaien, defined M ICLJ kPt
1U Calcolats the total vobnae of ab
sampled as:
location ar (dentificatioo aMatbec. aaatate
date, filter identification aonbar. a
saapler ewdej and aerieJ namherj.
9-10 Seapk for 34^1 ho«n.
. BUI Detarmiae aad raeard toe
flow rate (QJ ia actual aWwia for the
•eatpiioc period la accordaaee with the
buouctioos providad in tha eaapiar
Baaufacatrar's iaatruction aMaoal Xacord
where
VM«tocsJ sir aatnpled ia staadud voIoaM
a&its, std »*:
Calcolata tha PKb* oawjentitttoa a
irl flair aielar flnsl rasrttrn snri
barometric preamra for tha aarapliac period
(sea note foilowinf stap a\a^.
•J2 CarerVilly MOMva tha fiUarhnai tha
aemplar. lbiiowia« tha aaBalar
maaaUcturar'a inatracdomi
only tha oatar adaaa of the£i(ar.
9.13 Place du Eher ia a protective bolder
or container (e*. petri dish. (Uaaiiie
aavalopa. ar CMaila lolder^
•.14 JUcardaaylactanaaoh** - --
mataarotoaicaletMcf
PM.-1
••:
W, W.-fiaal and tattial wataats affillar
eolUeaag PMi, partclas, f
10**itiai vaiaioa of g ta 414.
fcg—A— M-~— |4^«« ^^^ M<^» ^^_^J^_ ^ ^^
iwjia^MQ nore oan aoe an nvcaon ai OM
PM» atee raafe is collected by the saaaiee.
tha sum of the net weight gain by etch
cotteeaoa filter flfWf-WJ| isaaad la
1ZO /tfferweeat.
1. QvaJity Awonaca) Handbook for
Air PoQotion Measurement Syt terns.
Volume L Principles. EPA-600/9-7B-OOS,
Mtrdilfl7n.AvailaWefromC23U.ORD
Publications, U^. Environmental
Pratactkn Agnqr. 29 We*t St Oair
Cfraat, CiocinaatL Ohio <
2. QnaJity Aaeuranca Handbook for
Air Poihrtkd Maaawraaiaot Syatetns,
VobBM D. Anbiant Air Specific
Methods. EPA-Wtf4-TMC7a, May 1977.
AviiUbl* from CZRL ORD PobUcatlotu.
UAEwri»mmntalProtaetlonAt«ncy.
28 Weal SL dair Strati Cincinnati.
OhtoafiZao.
X Clamant li. and P.W. Kansck.
Saapte Coapoaitioo CTianjts to
SaapUnf ud ABajytto of Organic
Caoqxnmoj ta AaroaoU. fat J. Environ.
AnaJyt. ChetB, 7309.2979.
4. Lee. RJE. Jr, and J. Wagnun. A
Sampling Anomaly in the Determination
of Atnoapheric Soifate Conc^ntntion.
Amer. fnd. Hyg. Aaaoc J, 27^88. i960.
S. AppeL BJL. &M. Well Y. Tokiw*,
aad M. Haik fatarference Eflecti in
Sampling P«rtcuUt« Nitmtt ia Ambient
Air. Atmoa. Environ. 1331ft 1878.
•.CooUntiLW.Sffaclo/
i«»l Vanablea 00 Cfft
of Atmoapheric Solfata. Environ. So.
TadmoL.lU73.1877.
7. Spicer. CW. and P. Sdronacher.
Interference ia Sampling Atmospheric
Particulate ffitrate. Atmoa. Environ.
11473.1977.
•. AppeL BJL. Y. Tokiwa, and M,
Haik. Sampling of Nitrataa in Amhient
Air. Atmoa. Enriroo- 1&38X 1981.
8. upibu. C.W^ cad P.M. Sdsnmacse?.
Particulata Niirata: Laboratory and Field
Stadiee of Major Sampling Interferences.
Atmoa. Environ, 13*43, 1879.
10. AppeL BJL Letter to Larry Pordua,
UA EPA. Environmental Monitoring
aad Support Laboratory. Much 14, 1962.
DocfartNo.A-82-37.IW-l.
n. Pienoa. WJU W.W. BncaacMk.
T.L Komiaki. T.J. Trnex and J.W. Bntler.
Artifact Formation of Sulfate. Nitrite.
and Hydrogen Ion on Backup Filters:
Allegheny Mountain Experiment. J. Air
Poflut Control Aaaoc~. 3030. I960.
22. Onawoody. CL Rapid Nitrate Loss
From FMn raters.]. Air Poflut Control
Aaaoc, 36:817. 1968.
13. HarrelL RJ*. Meaauring the
Alkalinity of H-Vol Air Fillers. EMSL7
B7P-SOP-QAD-534. October 198&.
Available from the UJi Environmental
Protection Agency. EMSL/QAD.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina .
27711.
14. Smith. P. P.& Wohlschleg«L KS.C.
Rogen. aad O.J. MuDigtn. Investigation
of Flow Kate Calibration Procedures
Associated With J - Hf^h Volume
Method fgrDetr^^aatMM ui SuapeooW
Partcnietes. E?^-«00/4-78-
-------
Federal Ragjaler / Vol 52. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 1. 1987 / Rule* and Regulations
2461
Appaadut K-fetMpratatfaM of tha
National Anbiaat Air Quality Standard*
far PattkalatB Matter
10
•• sjresifsnfa mi nf 1 TTt irnnlrl hi mnniliil
to U. which to the town* emit (or
data to detanaia* •ttaJaxaant af tha 14-boor
and anaaal aundards aaeeifledja««OCnt
alhtf to aaaaaand SB
ieara*PMw(perticiaawrtfa«a
aamiljnsiai) itiasMiei lees itiati nr equal la a
nominal 10 attcfoojetan) by a nfennoe
method beaed on Appendix; of One part and
dc*i«Miad ia accordance with Part S3 of tfato
chapter, or by aa equivalent method
designated in accordance with Part S3 of thi*
chapter. The required fraqaaaey af
measurements to specified ia Part M of Into
chapter.
Several term* aaad tferaogbout thto
append* amst be defined, A •daoyvahja'
for PM» refer* ta tha tt4ttw average
caocsBtrattaa of PMw caicalatad or Baaaond
from SBidaigBt ta addaight (local ttee).T&e
to above die level of the 24-«our standard
after rounding to the nearest 10 pg/mj (i*_
value* ending in S or greater are to be
rounded up). The term "average" refer* to an
arithmetic mean. All paniculate matter
Mandard* are expressed in terms of expected
annual value*: expected number of
exeeedancea per year for the 24-aoor
standard aad expected annual arithmetic
i for the annual Maa
Uodar 40 CFR «oa(U tat aaaaal atiaurf
•ad aeeaadaqr atandarda an attained whoa
to Use than or equal to the
expected anaaal artthmnle a^aa to
ds'tBrauned by aearaaBg l&e annual
arithmetic aeaa PM« concentrations for the
past 3 calendar yean. Because of lac
potential for incomplete data and the
possible eeaaoaality fa PMw concentration*.
the annual aweaaoall be caiculatad by
averaging tha four quarterly mean* of PMw
cnncentranoos withm tha calendar year. Tha
formula* tor calculating the annual arithmetic
BMaa an ghreaiaSectioa 4. Situation* in •
which 3 yean af data an aot available aad
Bueaibto adju»tmantt far aaaaaal avanu or
tosnds an dlacttaaedtB Sections 2J aad 2X
ito
i to The aaaraat l «•/•• before
oooipeiten with the aonul priaarv
atandard (fractional valaet equal to or
tTgater.than A^ejo be roanded up(-
•expected aaaual vmlne" 1* the
approached wfeeo the aaaaal vmioea Zroet aa
tocreatint mnber of yean *re averafrnd. to
the abaeace of lonfteroi trend* IB emiaaioe*
or Beteorolotjcal condltioea. The tens "y»ar"
refers to a calendar year.
Althoosh the dlacaaiiaa ia tfca appeadlx
focinn on mooitored data, the MOM
pnnOpla apply to modeling data, auh^ct to
EPA modeling guideline*.
IB Attainment Determination*.
2.1 24-Hour Primary and Secondary
Standards.
Under 40 CFK 50-31) the 24-hour primary
and •ecoodary standarda are attained when
the expected munber of rrreerfancei par year
•t weh monitorbn wte I* len than or equal
to one. la the timpleat caae, the nwnber of
erpectad exowdeacM at a «te i* drfaratiocd
by recordiaf the amber of noeedaaeea ta
eeek cdewiar year aarf tbeo cveraalzit tfwai
over the pa*t 3 calendar yean. Sitoettoaa ia
w*vj± 3 yeera of data are aot avcilabie aad
pouible tdj
-------
/ »»eujiesudy. jujy i. 1987 / Rules «nd Regulations
basis. The estimate of the expected number
of exceedance* for the quarter is equal to the
observed number of exceedances plus an
increment associated with the missing data.
The following formula must be used for these
Computations.
«,• the estimated number of i
calendar quarter e>
v,»the observed number of iinsedaures for
ff the estimated cxceedances for the other 3
cakndar quartan in the year were iX. OO
and O& then, using formula (2). the estimated
number of exceed SBOSS far theyeer to
2J6+2JO+OJO+(U> which equal* 446 or 4J.
If no exceedances were observed for UM 2
preview year*, then the expected somber of
exceedance* i* estimated by (I/
J)X(4J+0+0|«U? or U. Sao* U excel ^
tbe allowable number of expected
.tiuasMMitoring site would feu*
.
N,«tbc number of day* in ralendsf quarter
-
Xpiarter q
.
tt^m the number of day* in
with PM*. and '
,«the index for calendar quarter. q»l. 2. 3 or
4.
Tbeestimatednumberof excaedaacM fora
caieadar quarter most be rounded to UM
nearest hundredth (fractional values eqaal to
or grMter than OOOS must be rounded up).
Tbi Mlliiiiliit inttihir nf nreiilsni si fnr
the yeart. a. te the ana a/ the estiaeteo far
each calendar quarter.
b this example, everyday sampling wa*
initiated following the first observed
exceedaace a* required by 40 CFR 1 SMI
Accordingly. «b» first obacrrad tMtcdanot
would not be adfrmed for IncoapliK
aanpUnf. Dottaf the aext three qvartcn. 12
•xoeedaocaa wen evtinaiaQ. « ttia caae. tnc
eatlmatadcxcMdancaafortbejrMrwoaidbe
Booitorini rite would not lad the inainment
SaotpJing Day*.
If a tyctdhatie aampiiat Kfaedulc U uud
and Mnpliai U performed on day* in
addlttoatolhidayvipecifiedbythe
•yrtamadc MmpHnf »efaedttle. 04. during
•piaodea of aiffa pollatioa. than an
tdjatrmaiit mat be made ia the formula for
the MttaMtioo of cxcMdance*. Sod) an
adftteOBcatia seeded to efeninate the bia« in
•W ectiinate of the quarter/ and annual
•amber of exoeedaacM thai would occur if
tbt chance of an cxeeedaacc to different for
•cbeduied than for aoa-echcduled days, as
would be the cat* with episode sampling.
The required adtosoncnt treau the
systematic sampling schedule as a stratifleti
•ampiing plan. If the period from one
scheduled sample until the day preceding the
aext scheduled sample ia defined as a
sampling stratum, then there is one stratum
far each scheduled aaaphag day. Afl average
•amber of observed exctedaaces ia
•xeeedanoee for the 3-ye«T period would
AM be (l/3)x(i2-t-aO-t.ajO)-07. and the
WHhaoaachedaled sampling days, the
sled noabcr ofexeaedaacea te defined
e- e,
.-1
Tbe estimated number of exceedaace* for e
single year must be rounded to eoe decimal
place (fractional value* equal to or greater .
than (US are to be rounded up). Tbe ejgpectod
number of exceedances i* them estimated by
averaging the mdMduaJ annual estimate* for
the most recent 3 or more representative
yean of daU. Tbe expected number of
exceedaacM must be rounded to one decimal
place (fractional value* equal to or greater
than (US an to be rounded up}.
The adjustment for incomplete data win
not be necessary for monitoring or modeling
data which constitutes a complete record, ia.
365 day* per year.
To reduce the potent!si for overestimating
the number of expected exceedances. the'
correction for missing data will not be
required for a calendar quarter ia which the'
first observed erreerisitce has occurred tt (a)
there waa only one erceedancs ia the
calendar quarter, (b) everyday sampling is
subsequently initiated and maintained for 4
calendar quarters to accordance with 40 CFK
I SaU3 and (e) data capture of 75 percent ia
achieved during tbe required period of
everyday ««mpH«g h» addition, if the first
noHKUna. fr observed In a calendar quarter
in which the monitor is already ,
every day. ao adjwtment for missing data
wiD be made to the first exceedwct if a 73
percent data capture rate waa achieved m the
quarter m which it waa observed.
•V" the estimated BIMBO* of exceedances far
the quarter.
N,-the number of day* m the quarter.
m,«the number of strata with samples
daring the quarter.
»i- the number of observed cxceedances ia
stratum t sad
k,«the number of actual samples in stratua }.
Note that if only one sample value is
recorded In each stratum, then formula (3]
reduce* to formula |1J-
Examples
A monitoring site samples according to *
systematic sampling sdtrrtnle of ope sample
every 6 day*, for a total of 15 scheduled
samples in a quarter out of a total of 82
possible samples. Daring ooe frday period.
potential episode leveh of FM* were
suspected, ao • additional samples wen
taken. One of the regular scheduled samples
wes missed, so a total of U samples in 14
'sampling strata wen measured. Tbe one e-
day sampling stratum with • sample*
recorded 2 exceedance*. The remainder of
the quarter with oat senate per stratum
recorded sen exceedaacc*. Using formula
(3], the »^tmm^mA mn»K»«y pf «^i>trrl«'K-* far
Tke foQowiaf formula Is to be ased for
calculation of the mean fora calendar
ajuarter
Xi-(l/aJX —
where
TE,- the quarterly mean concentration for
quarter q.q-1.2.1or4.
a,- the number of samplei in the quaner.
and
X" the ith concentration value recorded ia
the quarter.
The quarterly mean, exp
must be rounded to (be nearest tenth
(fractional value* of (LOS should be rounded
•P).
T^s annual •H^^* la-calculated by using the
following formula:
the quarter h
During • partcniaff calendar quartet, at e*4
of a poesible gaeapJea i^ie nirnreM. wstk
one observed s*asttf4a
. . .+01.. 139
41 CaifalatJaa of the Amssal Arithmetic
standard. U*i«g iorauiia llj. (he estimated
jnimber of exeeadance* for the ejuartsr is
Aa anaaal ertthawtle meea veJue for PM»
la determined by everuiat a* s^arHdj
•eene far At 4 eaJeman nwrten ef tbe yett
T-the anneal mean, aad
I, • the mean for calendar quarter q.
The averaee of quarterly maaaa m«*t be
rooaoW to the nearest tenth (fracoooal
values a/005 should be rounded up).
The see of quarterly «wages to compute
•Ve saaueJ average wtfl not be necessary for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S2. No. 126 / Wednesday. July ~L 1987 / Rules and Regulations 2466
BWrirorint or nxxMiog d*U which ic*ult* ia
• complete record, i*. JOS days per year.
Th« exoecud annual maaa u ealiauted ea
the average of three or mort annual means.
This multi-year estimate, expressed m M/m>-
•hail be rounded to tht •canst taugei for
comparison with the taa*a4 atmndaai
(fractional vaJUta* of OS ihoiild bereaaMJarf
T-
4-2 Adjustments for Non-«chedaled
Sampling Days.
An adjustment in the calculation of the
annual mean ia needed if sampline. ia
performed on days in addition to the days
specified by the systematic sampling
schedule. For the seane reasons given in the
12J. the quartcxiy avaragM would be
calculated by asing the loUowosf formula:
U*b«| im-amla \*\, tte o^Mticily BMWM arc
'calculated for much caicndtr quarlar. ff (he
qiMrtwiy flMam «r» S2.C7U.
|tg/« '. (beat Uw aiatnil OMana bj
where
x^«
-------
Federal Register / .Vol 52. No. 152 / Friday. August 7. 1967 / Rules and Regulations
nearest 1 pg/m* befon comparison with
tha annual primary standard (fractional
values:oqual to or greater thad O5 an to
be rounded up).**!* corrected to read
The expected annoal arithmetic mean
i« rounded to the ncacast 1 ftg/m* before
companion with thranoal standard*
(fractional values equal to or greater
than OS are to be rounded op}.".
18. Oapage 24667. column 3, Section
3J) of Appendix K, change
"Computational formulas for the 24-hour
standard" to "Computational formulas
for the 24-hour standards".
19. On page 24668. column 1. line 17 of
Appendix K. change V to "q" and line
24. change "years" to "year"."
20. On page 24668. the following
formulas in Appendix K are
corrected:
Formula (2J is corrected to read
• 4 •
e » t e
formula (3) is corrected to read
eq «
x I*
. V *
formula. (4) is corrected to read
1-1
and lines 0 and 7 under formula (4)
which read "Xi=the ith concentration
value recorded in the quarter." are
corrected to read "xt=the ith :
concentration value recorded in the
quarter.". . . •
formula (5) is corrected to read
x - (1/4) x I
21. On page 24669, column 2, line 4 of
Appendix K. change "means" to "mean"
22. On page 24869 of Appendix K. the
formula which reads
x - (1/4) x (52.4 -I- 7SJ +82.1 + 612 - 6&2S
OT88J * '
23. On page 24669. formula (6) in
Appendix K is corrected to read
x « (1/4) x (52.4 + 7SJ + 82.1 +
or 68.3
is corrected to read v
68^5
(l/mq)
M
[FR Doc. 87-17983 Fded 8-6-87; 8:45 am]
StUMO COOC U40-M-M
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
IAD-FRL-3244-6J
PMM Group I and Group 11 Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: List of PMio Group I and Group
II areas.
SUMMARY: On July 1.1987. the EPA
promulgated national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for
participate matter with an aerometric
diameter of a nominal 10 micron of less
(PMto) (see 52 FR 24634). The EPA also
promulgated policies and regulations by
which it will implement the PMw
NAAQS (52 FR 24672). In accordance
with these policies. EPA has categorized
areas of the Nation into three groups
based on the likelihood that the existing
State implementation plan (SIP) must be
revised to protect the PMio NAAQS.
Areas with a strong likelihood of
violating the PM(e NAAQS and requiring
substantial SIP revisions were placed in
Group I: areas where attainment of the
PMio NAAQS is uncertain and the SIP
may require only slight adjustment were
placed in Group It and areas with a
strong likelihood of attaining the PMio
NAAQS, and therefore probably having
an adequate control strategy, were
placed in Group UL
By this notice, EPA is identifying the
Group I and Group n areas in each
State. The remainder of the State not in
Group I or II is placed in Group IIL
AOORESSES: Information supporting the
. placement of each area in Group L It or
ni can be obtained from the respective
EPA Regional Office which services the
particular State. The addresses of the
Regional Offices are:
• State Air Programs Branch. EPA.
Region I. JFK Federal Building. Boston,
Massachusetts 02203.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Region
IL 26 Federal Plaza. New York. New
York 1027a
lion \
hia. \
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Regi
m. 841 Chestnut Building. Philadelphi
Pennsylvania 19107.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Region
IV. 345 Courtland Street N.EL. Atlanta.
Georgia 30365.
• Air and Radiation Branch. EPA.
Region V. 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. Illinois 60604.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Region
VI. Allied Bank Tower. 1445 Ross
Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202-2733.
• Air Branch. EPA. Region VTL 726
Minnesota Avenue. Kansas City^Kansas
66101.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Region
VUL 99918th Street Suite 1300 Denver.
Colorado 80202-2413. •
• Air Programs Branch. EPA. Region
DC. 215 Fremont Street San Francisco.
California. 94105.
• Ah- Programs Branch. EPA, Region
X.1200 6th Avenue. Seattle, Washington
98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth Woodard, Standards
Implementation Branch (MD-15). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5351 (FTS
629-5351).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Background
On July 1.1987 (52 FR 24672), EPA
promulgated in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
policies and regulations by which it will
implement the PMw NAAQS. The EPA's
policies for developing SIP'S for PMio are
discussed fully in section IV.C. of the
preamble to that Federal Register (52 FR
24679). Also as noted in that preamble,
section 110(a)(l) of the Gean Air Act
(Act) requires that each State adopt and
submit within 9 months after revision of
a NAAQS. a SIP providing for
attainment and maintenance of the
primary NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than 3 years
from the date EPA approves the SIP.
Due to a lack of PMio ambient
monitoring data, EPA considered
different ways of implementing this
requirement including simply calling
upon States to develop and submit a full
PMio attainment demonstration and
control strategy for every area of the
country within the 9-month period. The
EPA believes, however, that such a
requirement would be unreasonable in
many areas. An analysis of ambient
total suspended participate (TSP) data
for 1984-1988 in conjunction with the
methodology described in EPA's
"probability guideline" (Procedures for
Estimating Probability of Norvattainment
of a PM,« NAAQS Using Total
-------
i
1
i
'jJi^-i
tolSOTcounttes to'
w»ttotbe
tefneappncaole prevention of - --•
t deterioration/new source
attained Whflfr fterftrambert are (for':.
best indication at thia time of Hn''. .
potenftrf neoaHafamebt stluation tot ~ .'
PMtfethey tin only estimate* and wftt ;'
probably change at new ambient PMi* .
data, become available. The estimate* .
are. however, useful as an mdfcatkm of !
the degree ft* PMi. SHP development that
may evE*ttta&y beneeessaryvThe key*
point is-tint naay of the 3141 counties
in the Nation may need no additional
paniculate natter SIP provisions to
meet &« revise* NAAQS. Thus, to*
many areas, the exUtingvTSP SB's may .
already provide fc» timely attainment •
and maintenance of the VM» NAAQS. .
To call upon areas that almost certainly
have adequate SIFs. to tasubmtt those -
SIFs along with full attainment -
demonstrations would be unnecessary
and- therefore wasteful of lum'ted State
resources.
There are, abok several areas where
available data Indicate mat air qaattty .
may be «J3>et6 the, level of the.NAAQS.,
Many of toeWereei may actaaUy be
shown, wife more ambient data, to be in
attainment or may need only minor SIP
changes. Therefore. EPA believe* that a
demand for immediate submissions of
attainment demonstrations and control
atrategtoferallof these area* is
unreasonable when additional PM»« air
quality data could provide a more clear
picture of the statue of the area. On the
other band* due to appUcabfc Act
requirements and the potential
environmental risk, the Administrator
did not consider it reasonable to permit
delay in the development of PM*
control programs for areas with severe
air quality problems until adequate PMi*
data were available to show that the
area was violating the PM>» NAAQS
For the reasons given immediately
above. EPA adopted a poocy by which it
is dividing all areas at the country taito
three categories-. {!) Areas with a strong
likelihood of vioUfeffee PKh. NAAQS
and requiring substantial SIP adjustment
(Group I). (2) areas where attainment rf
the standards is possible and existing
SIFs probably need leas adjustment
(Group U), and 13) areas with a, Kroner
likelihood of attaining the PM* NAAQS
and therefore needing only adjustments
1 D*v«aoptaf • aovaxi attahMieal deomMtntian It
gencnUy KtOMna iatemrn. It requiMs M te^tptti
Mudy ol Utt nainlnn d»t»cUo»)QM «p tb 4 wortt yeirt and
S250.000 to devwkoe. • tUf hi e«i« at»« fotrod lo k«
violating the NAAQS.
review fjPSD/NSR) and monitoring.'
provisions bt their SIPS' (Group HI).
The EPA used a three-step process to
categorize areas into .Groups L n. and
HL First where only ambient TSP data
or Jbtcdtad amounts of PKfo data were
available, EPA hi cooperation with State
agencies used those data and the
probability guideline to classify areas.
preliminarily as Group 1. n, or IIL The
EPA presumed that at a minimum. Ike
(1) areas with a probability of not
attaining the PM» standard of at least
95 percent fit into Group I, (2) areas with
a probability of between 20 and 95
percent Bt into Group IL and (3) arear
with a probability of less than 20
percent fit into Group IIL • -
Second. EPA's Regional Offices, after
consulting with the appropriate State •
and local agencies, evaluated the . .
existing TSP SIFs, available existing •
source data, and other relevant ' ' ' *
information for each area in their
jurisdiction (1) to see whether
information other than the probability of
nonattainment justified changing the
group for an area, and (ZJ to determine,
the appropriate group for areas that the •
EPA could not classify under the Srst ;
step because ambient TSP data were * .
unavailable. ~ -
Third, to insure national consistency,
all grouping was reviewed by
representatives of EPA's Headquarters.
staff and Regional Offices.
The EPA has completed the process of
categorizing areas and the Group 1 and
n areas are listed by State in the
following section of this notice. Any
area of a State not listed as Group I or 0
is considered to be in Group ffi.
The requirements and schedules for
developing PMto SIFs are different for
Group L, n. and IB areas. Immediate
action to develop a full SIP that will
bring about attainment and maintenance
of the PMie NAAQS is required for
Group I anas because they have a
. strong likelihood of violating the
NAAQS and requiring substantial
revision of the existing SIP. Since the
attainment status of Group U areas is
uncertain, time is allowed for additional
monitoring of ambient PM*
concentrations before revision of the
existing control strategy is required.
Group ni areas have a strong likelihood
of attaining the PM>0 NAAQS.
Therefore, for Group HI areas, the State-
need only submit SIP revisions for the
preconstruction review program and
monitoring network (52 FR 24681) within
9 month*. The requirements for SIP
development for each group are
discussed fully at 52 FR 24680-24682.
The Grotip l:a«d ft anas of concern
are gmeraUy described below as at
county, a township, or a planning area.
These descriptions are only the initial
definitions of the area* thai must be
investigated hi the SIP development
process. la the process of monitoring
and modeling PM»» concentrations and
determining the extent of sources of
PMt« emissions that impact the areas,
the States will better define the
boundaries of file area that is or may be
violating the standards.
In 1977, Congress added section
107(d)(li to the Act which required EPA
to designate areas as nonattainment
undassifiable, or attainment for the
NAAQS existing at that time. In 40 CFR
Part 81, EPA made such designations for
TSP. Since the PM* NAAQS is being
implemented under the provisions of.
section 110 of the Act such designations
are not necessary for PMt*. Thus, EPA •
will not make such designations for
PM,o (see 52 PR 24682). However. EPA
will retain the TSP designations to
implement the requirements of Part C of
the Act relating to PSD (see 52 FR •
24885).
IL last of Areas
Separate list* of Group 1 and Group n
area* follow. They are listed by county
within each Stats. The area of cone
or planning area within the county j
specified where appropriate.
GROUP I AREAS
COUMMt
Uaneopa.
tuent
Mono.
Arcrutoa-
Mara
Prowwci_
Ana ol Conem
P*4 SpK/OouoW arM.
Yum
MM
V«*n atoning araa and
San Joaqun Vaftty and Saartx VKW, [
nmg ma.
S*n Jc«>*\ W«*r>.
San JMMn Va*rr.
Sow* Coaat A- Bawi and COM
va»t».
Sou* Coot Mr Baam and &MM» V
P«opuSpnrgt-
D*m*> mMropoKan i
Danm iMtraeofcan i
D«o«nr inoopoHan i
DOTW mttropofcun i
-------
b-Tf
' £•-• 5
Nqt-is*./. Friday. August ?. 198T/ Rule» and Repiktiona. . 2938S-;
G«wo">n AREAS—Continued
or ol oou«r not n Group L
Authority: Section* 110 and 301 of the
Act give the Administrator authority to
adopt policies necessary to implement
NAAQS.
Con*, Ana_| County.
Date August 3, 1987.
Cnig Potter,
Astittant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 87-17990 Filed »-«-87: 8:45 tm]
MUJNa CODE (MO-fV-M
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[AD-fRt-3244-3]
Thunson laoty.
Counry.
County.
County.
County.
County.
GROUP II AREAS
Tnoinpcon fw^
Jaok»onhn)
Markm F*ry.
Snow tow and Jonon C»y plannng
Snow Lour pumng ar**.
AID and Tunon planrang an**.
Tuc*an plamng arw.
Cau Grand* plannnB
Yomgttown.
Oaylon.
County.
County.
County.
SoUhMM Onw Mr Baan.
StMnaact OaMD Ar 8aan.
Regulation* for Implementing Revised
Particulate Matter Standard*;
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule: correction.
SUMMARY: The EPA is correcting errors
in the regulations for implementing the
revised participate matter standards
which appeared in the Federal Register
on July 1. 1987 (52 FR 24672).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Daniel deRoeck at (919) 541-5593
(FTS 629-5593).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
has promulgated revisions to its
regulations for the review of new and
modified sources and the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality.
These revisions address the fact that
EPA has revised its national ambient air
quality standards for particulate matter.
The revised regulations contained errors
-------
-------
- • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-.' Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
2 1 SEP 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient Air Definition
FROM: 6.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
We are in receipt of your memorandum of August 17, 1987, regarding
ambient air. In response to your request, we have considered..the need
for clarification of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy
on prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increment consumption on
rooftops and whether the May 16, 1985, Regional Meteorologists memo needs
to be revised to avoid ambiguous guidance.
With respect to PSD increments and rooftops, EPA's policy is contained
in Joseph Cannon's memo of June 11, 1984. As you correctly pointed out,
PSD increment consumption does not apply at the tops of buildings. With
respect to the Regional Meteorologists memo, that memo does-not attempt
to define ambient air beyond what is currently contained in the Code of
Federal Regulations and clarified by Senator Randolph in 1980. The
meteorologists memo addresses technical modeling concerns and states that
for modeling purposes, receptors will be placed everywhere the general
public has access outside of contiguous plant property, e.g., rooftops.
Subsequent decisions on use of the pollutant concentrations calculated at
the receptors is determined by the definition of ambient air and EPA
policy and guidance, such as the Cannon memo. Thus, we conclude that the
meteorologists memo contains clear guidance on the placement of receptors
when modeling and the Cannon memo defines rooftops as not ambient air
when calculating increment consumption.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
cc: Joseph Tikvart
Richard Rhoads '
Darryl Tyler
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SEP -231S8T .
SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceabilitiy and Legal Sufficiency
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Thomas L. Adams Jr.
Assi-stant Administrator for Enforcement
"and Compliance Monitorinc
TO:
Francis s. Blak<
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Addressees
One critical.function ^hat your offices perform is to
assure that regulations developed for stationary sources
by the states under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and
legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state
implementation plans ("SIPs") must "be adopted as rules and
regulations enforceable (emphasis added) by the State agency"
(40 C.F.R. §31.281 (1987))!." We are concerned that review of
SIPs for enforceability has not been receiving adequate atten-
tion. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its
efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not
sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront
of the federal SI? approval process. .The purpose of this
memorandum is to remind you of the importance of doing the
review necessary to assure that all SIP plans and revisions
are enforceable and in conformanca with the Act. Please do not
forward for approval SIPs which fail to satisfy the enforce-
ability criteria in this memorandum.
Backcround
Recent information ir
to SIP approvals is decli:
dicates that the attention bein paid
ing, particularly for enfcrceability.
The Office of General Counsel reviews regulations as to their
adequacy under applicablejlaw and Agency policy, but not for
enforceability. ""This void is not being filled by other offices
Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not
immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue
focuses on the particular regulation. At the October 1986
-------
Annapolis meeting of Air
Air Branch Chiefs, a number
cases due to difficulty in
tions were discussed. With
address the nonattainroent
that regulations be clear «
-2-
Pnogram
Directors and Regional Counsel-
of problems in recent enforcement
interpreting and enforcing regula-
the recent work being done to
problem, it is even more critical
nd enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff
and the Regional Counsel's(office have primary responsibility -
for this enforceability review because they have the most direct
experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also
have resources allocated through their workload models specifi-
cally for SIP review.
Timing of Review
The Regions should try to review developing State SIP
provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the
provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with
this, each Region should provide its States with a copy of the
implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a
briefing which outlines the enforceability requirements for new
SIP subtnittals. If we provide the States with more explicit
guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems", we can
avoid instances where EPA is pressured to settle for a flawed
regulation only 'because it
Enforceabilitv Criteria
is better than its predecessor.
Your review should ensure that the rules in question are
clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the
regulated sources.- Vague,(poorly defined rules must become a
thing of the past. SIP- regulations that deviate from this
policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.F.R. speci-
fically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly
addressed. 'The rule should be clear as to who must comply and
by what date. The effect,I if any, of changed conditions (e.g.,
redesignation to attainmenp) should be set forth. The period
over which compliance is determined and the relevant test
method to be used should be explicitly noted. Provisions which
exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must
identify explicitly how such size or level is determined.
Also, provisions which allpw for "alternate equivalent techniques'
or "bubbles" or any other sort of variation of the normal mode
of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
roaXe clear whether or not EPA case-by-case approval is required
to make such a method of compliance federally effective.
-------
Conclusion
SIP revisions should
language to implement thei
-3-
written clearly, with explicit
r intent. The plain language of all
rules, as well as the related Federal Register notices, should
be complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of
the rules, specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in
implementing this memorandum.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-x
Regional" counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and 15:
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Toxics Manaaement Division
cc:
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII. ano" X
Deputy Regional Admini
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV,
listrators
V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of* Air Quality Planning and standards
-------
-4-
cc: John S. Seitz, Directjor
Stationary source con
Office of Air Quality
Alan W. .Eckert
Associate General CoiJ
Air Division
Michael S, Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
pliance Division
Planning and standards
nsel -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
FROM
2 3 1987
SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceabilit}
Michael S. Alushiij
Associate.Enforcement counsel
for Air Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate Generl
Air and Radiation
and Legal Sufficiency
TO:
John S. Seitz, Di
Stationary Source
Office of Air
Addressees
issued by J. Craig Potter/
msel
Division
rector
Compliai
Quality" Plai
fing and Standards
This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
on this date relating to reiview of SIP plans and revisions
for enforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to
provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors
Applicability
This guidance applies
not completed the state or
requirements for SIPs. Foi
to all SIP proposals which have
local agency legal and procedural
proposals that have not yet
been submitted to the Regional office for action, the state
and local agencies have forty-five (45) days from the date
of this uidance to submit
such proposals for review in order
for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures
SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returnee to "the Regions if they contain
deficiencies which raise significant auestions as to whether
the regulation would be enforceable.
Enforceability Criteria
The notion of enforce ability encompasses several concepts,
At the most basic level, al regulation must be within the statutory
authority of the promulgating agency. For example/ some states
have statutory restriction's or prohibitions on the promulgation
of reaulations more restri-tive than the federal counterpart.
-------
consult
Although we should gener
the scope of its authority
should/ at a minimum,
be certain the issue has
appropriate, an opinion
State Attorney General.
Please ensure that
directly addressed.
0 Applicability
-2-
lly defer to a State's interpretation of
when there is real doubt we
the responsible State Attorney to
been considered and resolved. When
etter should be obtained from the
the following additional issues are
It should be clear as to whom the regulation applies. The
SIP should include a description of the types of affected
facilities. -The rule should also state in which areas the rule
applies (entire state, specific counties, nonattainment, etc.)
and advise the reader that State administrative changes require
a formal SIP revision. Also, some regulations might reauire a
certain percentage reduction from sources. The regulation
should .be clear as to hov the baseline from which, such a reduction
is to be accomplished is set. In some cases it may be necessary
for enforcement purposes and independent of Clean Air Act
requirements for the SI? to include an inventory of allowable
and actual emissions from sources in the affected categories in
order to set the above baseline.
0 Time
The regulation should specify the required date of
compliance. Is it upon
promulgation, or approval by EPA, or a
future date certain? Future effective dates beyond the
approved or proposed attjainnent date should not be allowed
unless the related emissions reductions are not needed for
attainment. Also, the regulation should specify the important
dates required of any compliance schedule which is required to
be submitted by the source to the state.
Effect of Changed
C- iditions
If changed circumstances effect an emission limit or other
requirement the effect of changed conditions should be clearly
specified. However, yovl should not approve state regulations
which tie the applicability of VOC control requirements to the
nonattainment status of jthe area and allow for automatic nullifi-
cation of the regulations if the area is redesignated to an
attainment status. Such regulations should continue to apply
if an area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment
status unless a new maintenance demonstration supporting a change
in the rule's applicabi!
ity is submitted and approved by EPA.
-------
0 Standard of Conduct
-3-
The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a
source is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet.
For example, "alternative equivalent technique" provisions
should not be approved without clarification concerning the
time period over which equivalency is measured as well as
whether the equivalency applies on a per source or per line
basis or is facility wide!
* Incorporation by Reference
Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption
by reference. For example/ a state intending to enforce PSD
regulations adopted by reference must adopt 40 C.F.R. 552.21,
not 40 C.F.R". SSI. 166, as
0 Transfer Efficienc
only the former is written in a form
imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes
may have to be made to tape into account the difference between
the State's situation and
EPA'S.
Some states have attempted to provide particular VOC
sources with relaxations jof compliance limits in return for
improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the
pollutant producing material. Any rules allowing transfer
efficiency to be used in
as to when and under what
transfer efficiency as a
determining compliance must be explicit
circumstances a source may use improved
substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is"required on
a case-by-case basis. Al'so, such provisions may not simply
reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer
efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through
testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth-
Implied improvements nbte|d by the NSPS auto coating TE
table are not to be accepted at face value.
* Comrliance Periods
SI? rules should describe explicitly the compliance time
frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous,
stack test, 3 hour average or daily). The Regions should not
assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance
The time frame or method
the standard involved.
Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
Certain provisions a
or "alternate equivalent
"as approved by the Dire
employed must be sufficient to protect
low sources to comply via "bubbles"
techniques" or through mechanisms
tor." 'These provisions must make i
-------
order for the changed mode
will not be required, then
criteria must be set forth
-4-
clear as to whether EPA approval of state granted alternative
compliance techniques is required on a case-by-case basis in
of compliance to replace the existing
federally enforceable requirement. If EPA case-by-case approval
specific, objective and replicable
for determining whether the new
arrangement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and
ambient impact, such procedures must be consistent with the
control levels specified ty the overall SIP control strategy
and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the
« . »
-------
Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the office
of General counsel or the Office of Enforcement and compliance
Monitoring should you have{any questions concerning issues of
enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom
Helms, OAQPS, FTS-629.-5526J for other questions concerning
implementation of this guidance.
Attachment - ••• —-
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, ill and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and T-oxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VTI, VIII and
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch! Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV,
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Directcjr
Control programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of "Xir Quality
and Standards
VI, IX
Planning
-------
Q.
•
ao JT w-j-i
ft "» &> >* W
3 n co
o rr x* rr ft
5 y\£i ft 3
W ft rj o. r~
rr O to »<
i-t D e >- to f
fl> rr 5 3 F- b
rr «T Q, O T
*~fi» rr 3
§•- QiS"
3 O ft r-
•0 3 O 3
ft C <
rrl §
1 &
n
«<
!r
*
0 CT to > lr
• * • MM 1^
* * ^j H
•e jr
t^^ \t
TSt-l ftS r,* ^. J|
-•^w x=P «5 o I>
to ft 6 vu &t OL ]»
»OO ^T Crr Q- U
i ft 01 "B ^» >~ 1«
• Gif rr o» &)0) r- k
;cft >*5 rro »*• I.
«ff O» ftc rr J;
> ft »— 3 Q. n »< ]:
i 0 -oo iJo ii
) r^ rr « ft ' i
rj •".'
II
^ hrf*
J ***
) ^T»
r <5"
rf»
Provision
Hrw Anal
1 O »- *~ CO <
-* 9 sr w »
T> 3 ft ft 1—3
•.ft n »s
Lx »- ft
ft Si '
'S *^ ft
rr Or*
« * 3
o va ]
M
>A
JH
fT
M
S
8
3
CO
•- ft
(0
rr^-3CD*">i->-3>— O P 0> M ftftb"OP3 O O
»-.3SS-3J--3re3bi>-3 JTJSSST? % S*
OiCO^ i-iQJ5f3rrM-i-< OftEJOP O Si
3 fta»rr ftrrh-fttoOft •3L_C>3 ^ *^
• «^ f Jk ^L M* «te_ rM *• t /S FA «• ^ ^ -*S3 W«> •• *M ^MK k^
U5CrWrrty>rO CVQWS,3 ^••o rr »% »o •-• »~
• £LW ^-ftOft"OQiOr~tJrr rrD fc- rr rr
Cral orr3cy«o&o »-
ft n 3 B> D. >-i &•< 3 *- "^ O
>->< rrrsft-o^Mftvc 3
f** P»" <
a/ x
IB ^3 O
rr M 0)
3i-ni-Bfl»..Qrr(«fi3'i-'-O>>-- "^ftSf
ft O r" C ftOO333 >-nBO
Cflntg3.r-OConc QjO j*SfliC
Cgr^rn *-w^>- 3
^— Q. O S ft O)ftOC ft
3ft3"D3O>33 COQ, _
rr rr*3O.'-nCri-«rrM. _ CT
i-tftQ, i3t< OOQCS w;
ft*^DQ.rr »-< ftO>^Q •
& 3 er n tn <~) Q r- • »-•
c^.a»3^r-ro ^*-
S.3 5 ft 1 2
B> 1 r~~ 3 &) • ft
1 W 1 S • "
'
.J
&. rr »->
B *-fl>
5 Q rr
Is
rn
O
n
n QJ
o
fc
w
o
n
>•* «
"S
to >-
» 13
*^ ^^rl
ff n
»
M-
IT
rr
0>
»—
P3
5
5
3
•<•
"<
a
ft
3
rr
--
>
O
5
^S
§
& *
*•••
•^
M-
^
<
!
i
&
»— *
ro
o
»i
5
nrr
g 0,
cr >
8
ft
CO
»—I
T5
*U
&
ft
O
1
-------
*
^D PJ ri Qj &"*• «j 03 u) ^* *
fij ^3 ^^ ^& 3^ ^? rr ^** ^3
n > H-rr (o C fi> JTVQ
O fl» »* 3 O .. ,_ 5 ""^
Ql <»»-»—rrfljOa»
*O rr (B W ft *"C "o
^O 3 3*^3 "O * ft IB
^^ ^K {fi ^y ^0 {A
O rr 3 *
< -0 QJ
n» g
O ff
V *~*
TO •<
(0
5 Wt ^
-I O i£ O vQ O £ Q)ftC »-«.
&*S ^D Ctf ^J j3* ^5 «3 tfJ Oj
fi) ^3 >*^ 5} Q9 ^^ ^^ ^r
** ^1 «3 W*" ^i ^* ^D ^^ ^^
5* ^ Q* Of ri fT O 3
-> O "C O S3 O 30)
- 50 »-">Q M fl<
3 rr »^ ^c>-
5 fil Oi W 3 "-i O ^- 3
i> QI rr o> *•• o r*n <9 vfl
< tt <0 •< rr «\j
^HMOto
E)
»«•
S
5"
rr
0
W
c
o-
rr
&
W
I
tr n
1-8
O
•n
>*o
Qi £B 3 < 5
O Q« H-V
<»" "^S^" 3 3 ^ 3 O <2
3 aar^S»—nt—rr»-tna
W ri; ft -u I < O QI "OJ c!rr
•—•veWWrti re rrfrlO
CTSffi
ft tt
ra
•a
13
rrQ C O
o» w 3
rr •
t-", 3
O
i-n
Clear
rule
stat
ed
the
•t(BSK-
ad 3 a
>-«
rr rr Q, <
3
>-« VQ C5 rr
3*OW S»-
itt C rr rr w 3
— 3 I-* r~ 3" *" O
-
(t) O
3 re
rt)
3
rr
TO
33
O^ rr rr
»•" 3"
fo rs
&)
ft
3
rr
)
3
rr
S
O
C;
>-^
rc
o
-------
0. O
• . •
§rr i-t fil -^ ft O •-<
y rt> < »~ < fil <0
to ft • fi) •-•
TJ K «"l ft »— fj O>
*~rrtft .fi»« C c o
Q> n ft rr fit a
3 3 rr Q< **• rr g
O C O i-n 01 O *--'D
' ^o s£*ssf
iv* §*|S8
Qi ft O ft C ft
8 S*to" srft
Q. rr rr QJ
o ffL
m
*
rr a> w
• *
o
rr rr s n z »«-
ft «-5* ft 3* iti
to 3 fi) via Q» +*•
rr ft rr c rr O
^* i^«
g f— »— n rr rr
ft 9 tt ft ft *<
3* O T •»! rr O
II* S o
*- fit rr o
>-< 3- S
fil ft Q Ol
3 n Q. C
Q fi» 0
ft vQ »~ rr
^^ Co
«2
ft •*}
X O
*C ^*l
r- 3 ••
££•
rr
. 3
6
rr
3 fi > • ft H D*
£73 < k S v;
W ~ ft "O M
rr *- n »» rr to
r- ft 1— O
C" O U3 O3 C
ft fl> t— r~ ro **
rr S rr rr O
x o" K* O
*O S rr u< rr
H» >*• to O
*~ O 3 rr 3
O I-T> ft fil C to
r** fr w rr
rr w- fi) ft rr - Q>
• M- S u. ^ rr
rr
,'
...
5°
c- & o s"
* * O "
13
O,£ fi*S *"* Orrrrrri-4
rr&> rr B> fi) ft O ft O
ftrrftrrg ws 3n
•o *sj o co ft » y
**• *•• ft Qi *^ 3 ft
0 tt a S- STJiS
rr Q fi >* to >-
3* 2^ 3*rh>~^-r-
ft 3 ft O O W
*0 « ^.^ S rr
B> •— -5 JB 3" fil
rr . »— to *^ >~
rr fii » M- to «-i
O 3 . . 3 ft
r- O C •— O CL
3 ft 2* rr 3- ft
3 H- fil fi) to
3 3" ' vB vS"
rr ^ 3
1
-
n Q) to H> H-
5 3 T3 O <^
S S 0 ^ C
r- >-rr >-
n to rn 3- >— >
6 OK fl> H.
S Q, « ry
rr o> tu ft ft
O C rr05
^ *-ft C 3
rr ft to i-1 ft
ft to Q) o
*— rr ft
to rr 3 r— to
C 3* O W
rr BI o 3 si
3 rr o r.
**. J ^^
rr fl>«Q O
rr n »-•
2,ffiT
3 3 ft B> ST Q) 3 rrrrgrrrstofiJSS
§(u 3 rr ft ^3 c Q H— QJ rj ^ ft & ft
Oh»-rr»no O*^ Q,^-rrva
rrftttOOJ^rr C*3SB»ftrnOC
• to to >~2 O M rr rr M 3 t—
to r** 3 T3 ^ 3 O r^ r^ rr ^•** 3 iv ^
fii O 3 ^ ft O *o ft 3 Si t^^ C rr rr
M^SmOUirr kQ- fll r— 3 H- »-• »^
•"< rr -> O 3 rr M • fi) 3
OSfift ar^ft vQ'^ftft»->-r*it^
§OQtC Cft 3 O >— +*• 3
r% C 3 C^ Q) v^ t^ Q^ r^ r^ jj r$ i«^ Q/
oi—fiTerft & •
*<;
OrrOrrorr rr >— 3 Orrfi)
O " >— W ft C ft w-SO rnF~i->3
iurrOM rr^ —Q ? ^ 0*^0
to fi? 2 • O 3 O to CO fi) 3 O rr
ft r^ 03 * r^ rr rr « r^ cT 3^ r^ ^
w}3 O3* CiTftC
^13 S> ftfiJfiJ'nr*
o 5 »^ i So
fj
•i
3
*
}
) ^^^
^*
T
*
>
3
fi)
Mrf
<
A
*»
M
ft
IT
P
?.
•^
i
2
3
rr
*"
V^
0
§•
rr
c
a
o
1^^
"Z
0 .
rr
-------
o
§fT cj O *^ «"^ (P ^ 1
*** n c «3 fi) o O '
Ul Jfc
a ^
IT 0) » O" ft «•<
. . Q . .3
8 w^^> ^s 8
1 S_ *O ^3 rr »P" »-•»— ft rri^ng i^ o>
{/} *<^ jy* % 5 *•** (0 3 Ctf *"^* & (D A *•• 3 3 O ^ H^ O *••
O f* 3 H ^ C* O* Q 3 SOUS" <0 O
cm a p $ cr «» jy o o uS 5 <& ^ o 3 <& »
ID $ ^ fi) J3 to "f _ O (D f^ ^ 5 r^ Q* 0 Cj 5 ^- C
W^~rr3 rTM-QPS
O fit C **• 3 rf 1? *~
rrs»-to 3UJ Q^
O *< rr (6 « TO CJ
rr rr ft
a- s* n v 'o —••y *** o
(uB'3fD IvACSn
i, o oa rr ere «2 59
a n rr « 3"»< k- «o ft ft
T— I9O ffllt Crn
Pft C * w* "^ " " ""• * «••••• .•••• fq •••• ^^ |R
• 5s" =; n
*» P- O ft
rr 2 n 3
CQ (P «— O
rr ft
-
3 a o
w o to
rr o «"%
n >*•
CT Q^ rr
8^ ^
05 C-
fc*
jroft fc-ffl«rrjrr^-
fD ^ ^ O *O . ft 3* .fD ft ^,
^3 ft Q rj 0*^0 9 O C3 'w "*^
rr^O »5 J^* • ^** ro ITT rr ^
^•C1 S I rr CD
« N- n ea i-i
w ° 1
'
7
)
^
)
<
1
1
r
^
M
••
T
«
>
a
^
e
§
H»
ia
rf
rr
e
>
3
1
i
rr
' 3
5
v
rr
O
O
o
n
-------
15
ta
o
S
5"
(t>
*
8
to
i
•
W
rr
D
rr
fD
M
Rule must specify w
exceedances may be
excused, how the
standard is to be
applied, and who ma
the determination.
- i l
Must be clearly def.
and distinguishable
what constitutes, a
violation. '
>'
i
IT> 3
n n
O Cu
•3
T
>
i
v^*
f«
!
>
U
tJ
n
2
ft
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
» OCT J987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: 6. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions l-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and revise some points
in my September 3, 1987, memorandum entitled "Technical Support for Stack
Height Negative Declarations." That memorandum included a list of minimum
requirements for determining adequate documentation with three additional
guidance documents attached. One of the attachments was the August 28,
1987, memorandum from Charles Carter of the Office of General Counsel (OGC)
and me to Bruce Miller of Region IV, entitled "Documentary Support for
Deficiencies in Stack Height Review Packages." Because several actions
are being delayed by inadequate documentation, we sent copies of the
August 28 memorandum to all ten Regions as examples to alert them to
these problems.
The Tennessee State implementation plan (SIP) was used as an example
because we believed it had deficiencies that were common to other negative
declaration packages. The use of the Tennessee evaluation as an example
was not intended to single out Region IV as having more problems with
documentation than other Regions, although the tone of the memorandum
might have given-this impression. I am sorry for this misrepresentation.
In a recent conference call with OGC and Region IV, Region IV
suggested three clarifications and revisions to the guidance that we
included in the August 28, 1987, and September 3, 1987, memorandums. We
believe these should be incorporated. They are as follows:
1. The requirement for a list of sources evaluated for
negative declarations applies only to sources greater
than 65 meters.
2. For grandfather!ng documentation, the date the
source was built is not essential, but the type and
date of the documentation that the source was built
prior to December 31, 1970, must be listed. However,
whenever the actual construction date is submitted
by the State, it should be included.
NOTE: Attachments l»and 2 are not
included in the Policy and
Guidance Notebook.
-------
3. It is not necessary that a Region give assurances that
they are confident the documentation is adequate; however,
regional management should be satisfied that the State
submission meets the requirements of the stack height
regulation.
We also agreed during the conference call that the Delaware negative
declaration (#3356) {See Attachment 1) includes a good tabular form to
present the good engineering practice (GEP) review in a Federal Register
notice or the accompanying technical support document (TSD).Attachments
2 and 3 present expanded tables for stacks over 65 meters and for sources
over 5000 tons per year. The notice does not have to include tables in
these formats, but the information required in them should be discernable
from the notice and/or TSD. For example, the Delaware table in Attachment 1
is a shortened version of Attachment 2, since no stacks exceeded GEP.
I hope this memorandum clarifies my past correspondence and gives
you a better understanding of the documentation necessary for processing
stack height negative declarations. If you have any questions, please
call Ted Creekmore (629-5699) or me (629-5526). Thank you for your
patience during the processing of these complex SIP revisions.
Attachments
cc: Charles Carter
Pat Embrey
Sharon Reinders
Richard Rocs-Collins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield
Eric Ginsberg
John Silvasi
-------
l»,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 3 N988
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM - -. - - - ;.
SUBJECT: . Transmittal of OAQPS Interim Control Policy Statement
FROM: ""'JohnS. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source ComplL
Office of Air Quality Panning and Standards"
TO:
Air Management Division Directors .
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI ;.
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the final Interim Control Policy for
developing compliance schedules that require replacement or
upgrading of existing air pollution control equipment.
Comments solicited from the Air Compliance and Air Programs
Branch Chiefs, OECM, and SSCD by a memorandum of January 20,
1988, have been addressed, resulting in a few minor language
clarifications and one change to the policy.
The change resulted from a comment on the requirement
to maintain existing controls in the interim. In lieu of
maintaining the operation of the existing control equipment
during the interim period, allowance has been made for
installing interim controls which may be more effective in
reducing emissions. The usage of interim controls may not
result in a delay of the installation of the final control
equipment.
-------
- 2 -
Also, clarification has been made concerning the
installation of redundant equipment on new control systems.
Design requirements mentioned in this policy apply to those
sources which require continuous operation of the process
equipment. Temporary shutdown during maintenance periods is
always a possible compliance alternative to adding redundant
control equipment. The policy now states this specifically.
One notable recommended change has not been included.
The comment was made that performance bonds should not be
applied to activities^which may be beyond the control of the -
source, such as the delivery of materials. Installation of
control equipment frequently involves the activities of
several contractors and requires careful scheduling to avoid
delays. Late delivery of equipment can have a serious adverse
effect on the ability of a source to meet a tight installation
schedule. A source must take the necessary steps to select
the most reliable, rather than the lowest cost vendor, to
ensure that schedules are met.
Thank you for your assistance with the development of
this policy statement. If you have questions concerning it,
please contact Pam Saunders of my staff at FTS 382-2889,
EMail EPA6264.
Attachment
-------
INTERIM CONTROL POLICY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide uniform criteria
for developing final compliance requirements, schedules, and
interim requirements for sources in situations where failing,
deteriorating or inadequate air pollution control equipment
must be replaced or upgraded.
APPLICABILITY ' . '- - -' -" "
This policy applies to situations where a determination to
rebuild or replace existing control equipment has been made.
Situations mentioned in this policy may also be subject to
applicable civil penalties as stated in the Civil Penalty
Policy-
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this policy are to require subject
sources to:
1. Minimize and continuously monitor emissions during
the interim period;
2. Attain final and continuing compliance as quickly
as feasible using all available means;
3. Maintain continuous compliance in the future by
appropriate design of the final control system,
including the continuous monitoring of excess
emissions.
POLICY
INTERIM MEASURES
Interim measures combined with continued operation and
maintenance of existing controls must be required wherever
existing controls are inadequate. During the interim period
until the new or upgraded control equipment is operational
and the source is in compliance, emissions from the source
must not be allowed to increase. The existing though
inadequate control equipment must remain operational to the
maximum extent possible, including being maintained and
-------
- 2 - .
repaired, until such time that construction or tie-in of new
equipment requires its shutdown or removal. In lieu of
maintaining the existing though inadequate control equipment/
interim controls which offer a higher degree of emission
reduction and are readily and reasonably available may be
installed. The use of such interim controls shall not unduly
delay the installation of final control equipment.
When existing control equipment must be taken off line
to tie-in or complete construction of new or upgraded
equipment, additional interim controls or other interim
measures are required to ensure no increase in excess emissions
occurs during the tie-in period. Such measures may include
installation of additional temporary control equipment or
operational controls, e.g., curtailment of production rates,
relocation of production to complying process lines or
facilities, purchase of power or product elsewhere as needed,
or temporary shutdown.
The source should be required to implement an interim
continuous emissions monitoring program, to enable the agency
to monitor the emissions performance of the source during the
interim period.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
All compliance schedules must contain specific milestones
for design, construction, installation and operation of new
or rebuilt control equipment. The milestones should reflect
the shortest feasible schedule for achieving compliance and
should include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Submittal of a control plan, including necessary
permit applications, to agency;
2. Award of major contract(s) to vendors;
3. Delivery of materials or control equipment;
4. Initiation of off-site fabrication or on-site
construction or installation of the control
equipment;
5. Completion of installation or rebuilding of control
equipment;
-------
6. Testing and demonstration of final compliance by
the source.
Performance boads or stipulated penalties must be
associated with every milestone specified in the schedule.
To promote an expeditious schedule, the use of prefabricated
equipment or the use of double or triple shifts for the
construction or installation of equipment should be considered.
CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A fundamental principle of this policy is that the source
must make every possible effort to maintain continuous
compliance after the new or rebuilt equipment becomes
operational. To assure continuous compliance during future
maintenance periods, all new or upgraded equipment must
normally include spare compartments (or units) and parts (or
equipment) that can maintain emissions at a compliance level
while the remainder of the equipment is being replaced,
repaired, or maintained. In lieu of this, those sources that
do not require continuous availability of the process equipment
may shut down during such periods.
To assure the ability of the agency to monitor continuous
compliance in the future, the source must periodically report
excess emissions to the appropriate air pollution control
agency. This may be accomplished by requiring the installation,
operation and reporting of data from continuous emissions
monitoring equipment. These requirements are to be set out
specifically in the compliance agreement.
-------
-------
PN 114-88-03-31-006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 3 I 1288
OFTKEOF
AIKANOfcAOtATlON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY 89 .
FROM: John S. Seitz, Directot^V^/^^ t^VXffkg^
Stationary Source Compl^An^jHJfVrsiolT^T
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO:
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides/ and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
I am transmitting to you the attached Compliance Monitoring
Strategy (CMS) for implementation in FY 89. '' This strategy is
the culmination of a multi-year effort that focused on addressing
some very important issues of the Air compliance program.".!
feel the CMS makes major strides in guiding our surveillance
activities in a direction that will dramatically improve the
program.
As you know, the Compliance ^Monitoring Strategy will
replace the Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG) in FY 89.
The CMS emphasizes flexibility with accountability. * This
strategy recommends developing a comprehensive inspection
plan that identifies all sources or source categories
committed to be inspected by the State agency (means State
or local agency throughout) during their fiscal year.
-------
The State inspection plan must address national priorities
and may also include inspections not normally of EPA concern.
The plan, to fully utilize the flexibility offered, will be
organized around four groups of sources.
Group I: Traditional stationary sources such as Class A
and known Class B SIP, NSPS, and operating
NESHAPs sources.
Group II: Asbestos D&R Strategy contractors.
Group III: Small VOC Compliance Strategy sources.
Group IV: Sources of State concern.
High Points of the New Strategy
New features of the Compliance Monitoring Strategy are
the following.
(1) Ability to address local air pollution concerns.
The CMS provides State agencies with the discretion to
address significant local air pollution concerns such as
citizen complaints, odor problems, and other localized toxic,
hazardous, and nuisance issues. These types of concerns may
not be national priorities, but are legitimate resource
expenditures under this strategy. Group IV is where local
issues and new State-specific initiatives may be addressed.
(2) Use of inspection targeting.
The concept of inspection targeting provides an approach
to systemically direct resources toward the most significant
problems. The approach employed is a PC-based model using
multiple targeting criteria to determine inspection frequency.
The targeting model accepts source specific targeting data
supplied by the State inspector in such areas as plant emis-
sions, compliance information, and air quality factors. The
model assigns values to these data, and mathematically combines
the values to produce a ranking of sources to be inspected
along with the estimated resource costs.
-------
- 3 -
(3) Account for the total inspection activity.
This strategy will credit a program for its total inspec-
tion activity. The total State inspection resource budget
must be provided to EPA for this key aspect to be.accomplished
effectively.
(4) Maintain minimum resource expenditure levels in the
inspection program.
Minimum resource expenditure levels for Group I sources
are defined to be the average-inspection effort over the last
three years. The levels for Group II asbestos D&R contractors
are those reported in the SPMS for the latest fiscal year.
Group III resource levels are the minimum number of inspections
required by the Small VOC Source Compliance Strategy or
supplied by the State, whichever is larger. Group IV levels
are generally supplied by the State.
5) Focus on national priorities.
Each year the Compliance Monitoring Strategy will reflect
the Air program's stated national priorities as identified in
EPA's Operating Year Guidance. These national priorities are
encompassed by Groups I, II, and III.
Comments
The responses I reviewed from both State and EPA personnel
were universally supportive of the general approach in the
CMS. I thank you for your time. The kinds of concerns expressed
typically revolved around the following issues.
1. Targeting model input data may not be known by the
inspector.
Since the model's input is often qualitative and is so
critical to effective source compliance understanding, the
lack of such data is a key finding. In addition, experience
has shown that such a structured model helps guide an inspector
toward the needed data to carry out effective source inspections
and-provides supervisors with valuable management
control information.
-------
- 4 -
2. More resources (Regional and State) will be needed to
implement the CMS with targeting.
Our experience has shown that initially more time is
required to establish the source inventory, to develop
a working database, and to negotiate a plan. However, the
initial resource commitment is very dependent upon the current
condition of an agency's database. Thereafter, the resource
burden is greatly reduced.
Given a principal aim of targeting is to be a more focused
use of scarce resources, targeting over time, is expected to
realize a resource savings. A program using targeting
should find and correct more problems than a program that
does not. Therefore, resources may actually go further
because of more effective use.
3. The Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG) should remain an
option.
We recognize in some cases, as mentioned in the CMS, the
current IFG will be a more viable means for States to meet
their inspection commitments. Therefore, the IFG is the
alternate approach. However, we strongly encourage the use
of the CMS with targeting whenever possible. To further
promote the CMS, we intend to monitor, in which States and for
what reasons, the.CMS is not used.
One final observation, after reviewing the comments I
found a more comprehensive reading of the strategy should
answer any remaining questions. It became apparent that
inadequate attention was given to reviewing the strategy
because so many questions and comments were already answered
in the draft CMS, I will be happy to discuss with anyone
issues associated with implementing and interpreting the CMS,
but please read it carefully first.
Next Steps
SSCD has arranged to conduct Regional training (States
may be invited as well) in the use of the inspection targeting
model and provide on-call technical support. Please contact
Howard Wright at FTS 475-7034 to schedule training. To
effectively coordinate ten Regions training, Mr. Wright would
like to know what Regional dates are suitable for this one
day training session. Please notify him of your preferred
dates by April 22, 1988.
-------
I - 5 -
\
The diskette containing the model along with the
Description and Explanation document will be distributed at
the training sessions. For technical support in the model's
operation, please contact Ferrin Quarles Associates, Inc. at
804-979-3700.
Attachment
cc: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I, VII, VIII and X
-------
MAR3J BBS
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Introduction
The Inspection Frequency Guidance flFG) will be replaced in FY 1989 by
the Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS), which provides a more flexible
approach for determining State1 inspection commitments. The CMS
emphasizes flexibility with accountability. This strategy recommends the
development of a comprehensive inspection plan that identifies all sources
or source categories committed to be inspected by the State agency during
their fiscal year.
Strategy Components
The CMS has five parts.
(1) Objectives
The Compliance Monitoring Strategy has five objectives.
- To provide the ability to address significant local
concerns where they differ from national priorities.
- To ensure effective national oversight of the air
compliance monitoring program, to permit its evalua-
tion, and to establish a feedback mechanism.
•
- To promote the importance of enforcement presence
through effective compliance monitoring activities.
- To ensure an adequate level of resource commitment.
- To assure emission standards are met through effec-
tive use of compliance monitoring activities.
(2) Requirements
Sources subject to this strategy, if its flexibility is to be fully utilized, are
the following.
Group I: Traditional stationary sources - Class A
and known Class B SIP, NSPS, and operating
NESHAPs sources.
Group II: Asbestos D&R Strategy contractors.
1 means State or local agency throughout.
-------
Group El:- Sources subject to the Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy.
Group IV: Sources of State concern.
The national priorities must be met or In cases where exceptions are
justified, the rationale for the exceptions must be agreed to by EPA. Groups I,
II, and III will encompass the national priority, categories in FY1989.
However, national priorities may change from year to year.
In FY 1989, the national priorities are the following.
- Class A sources emitting VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. (Group I)
- Class Al sources emitting TSP. SO2, CO, or NOx in
nonattainment areas. (Group I)
- Class A sources emitting any criteria pollutant in
attainment or unclassified areas that have known or
suspected compliance problems. (Group I)
- Lead SIP and operating NESHAP sources. (Group I)
- Asbestos demolition/renovation contractors per the
revised Asbestos Strategy dated March 31. 1988.
(Group II)
- Small VOC sources per the Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy dated July 6, 1987. (Group III)
Inspection quality under this strategy must be Level II or higher, as defined
by EPA guidance. Furthermore, this strategy will credit a program for its total
inspection activity. That is. this approach will account for the total
federally-funded compliance monitoring effort including, where it is mutually
agreed, the substitution of non-federally regulated source inspections (Group
IV) for federally regulated (Group I). It will be necessary to present the
rationale for this substitution and to enter only the substituted Group IV
sources into CDS.
The inspection targeting model will be run by States wishing to use the
flexibility this strategy offers to determine the inspection commitment for
Group I sources and those Group IV sources that will be substituted for Group
I source inspections. Inspector-supplied data on emissions, air quality
compliance history, inspection level, inspection time and inspection
frequency are inputs into the model for these sources. The output of the
targeting model is a priority ranking of sources to be inspected with
cumulative resource needs. Attachment 1 provides further details on the
(inspection targeting model. Training in the use of the model will be provided
at EPA's Regional Offices upon request.
-------
The asbestos and siria.ll VOC source strategy requirements, where
applicable, will be used to determine the inspection commitments for Groups
H and m. j.
Recognizing the significant departure this strategy is from the IFG, it is
expected to take more than one year for widespread implementation of the
inspection targeting approach. For that reason. Headquarters will closely
monitor the Implementation of the CMS to assess progress and to make
necessary adjustments. Therefore, the Regions are required to report-In
which States, and for what reasons, the inspection targeting approach is not
used. This information should be submitted annually to SSCD along with each
State's Inspection plan.
The strategy requires a minimum inspection resource base (baseline) be
established for each group. It will be used by the EPA Regions as a
benchmark to evaluate their States' inspection plan submittals. The minimum
baseline for each State is established in FY 1989 in the following way.
Group I: The average number of inspections from the
last three years, as reported In CDS.
Group II: The number of inspections in the last
fiscal year, as reported in SPMS.
Group III: The number of inspections the Small VOC
Source Compliance Strategy requires, or,
supplied by the State, whichever is
larger.
Group IV: The number of inspections supplied by the
State.
The total level, i.e.. the summation of the minimum baselines for Groups I-IV,
used to established the baseline in FY 1989 shall not be reduced in
subsequent years.
(3) State Inspection Plan SubmittaL
Each inspection plan submittal will present how that State will address
national priorities and will justify exceptions to the national priorities. The
plan will also identify specific sources to be inspected, allocate the total
inspection budget among source groups, and cover other issues that are
necessary to meet the Compliance Monitoring Strategy objectives and
requirements.
The targeting model should be used to determine Group I and specific
Group IV sources to be included in this inspection plan as well as their
priority of inspection. Groups II and III will be addressed by their national
strategy requirements and by the resources allocated to each group. For
other Group IV source inspections, a block resource allocation will be made
by the State in their plan submittal.
-------
- These steps will allow the State agency to develop their initial
comprehensive inspection plan, which will be submitted to the EPA Region
for review. To justify exceptions to national priorities, the State must submit
>the basis for their decisions, such as the inspection targeting model inputs
and results. .
(4) Final Inspection Plan Negotiation
The final comprehensive State inspection plan will be agreed to by both the
EPA Region and the State. This plan will result In the State's inspection
commitment to EPA for FY" 1989. The resources necessary to fulfill this
commitment are provided by the Section 105 federal grant and State
matching funds.
The final mutually accepted plan will have two parts.
(a) Inspection commitments and associated resource alloca-
tions.
- Group I sources will be identified by name.
- Group II contractors will be identified by name.
- Group III sources will be identified by category with
the estimated resources allocated to this group.
- Group IV sources will be identified by name if they
are to be traded off for Group I source Inspections,
otherwise an estimated resource allocation will be
assigned this group.
(b) Accountability measures such as data to be reported
in CDS to measure the States fulfillment of their
inspection plan commitments, (see Reporting and
Evaluation component).
The EPA Region and State will use the following to finalize the plan.
- State-supplied input and output from the inspection
targeting model's ranking of Groups I and IV sources.
- National strategies for asbestos D&R and small VOC
sources.
- Other EPA-established national priorities.
- State-supplied inspection resource budgets by group.
- Baseline EPA estimates of inspection resource budgets
by group. This gives EPA a benchmark to assess the
State-supplied inspection resource budget
-------
(5) Reporting and Evaluation
Improving upon the current IFG, this strategy; will emphasize effective and
timely reporting of accountability measures, evaluate each year's results of
plan implementation, and build the resulting recommendations into guidance
for the upcoming operating year.
The principal data management tool EPA will use for evaluating the
implementation of this strategy is the CDS. The specific sources, as well as
data needed for evaluation,-should in most cases be tracked in the CDS.
The data that must be kept current and complete in the CDS for Groups I,
II, and III sources and those specific Group IV sources that are substituted for
Group I inspections, consistent with existing CDS guidance, include the
following.
- source identifier and location information.
- current and historic compliance status.
- key enforcement actions such as inspections and source
tests completed, EERs submitted, and malfunction reports.
- pollutant specific classification for all Class A sources
and for any sized VOC source in an ozone nonattainrnent area.
- nonattainrnent and attainment status code (PAQC).
- pollutant code (PLLT).
- air program code.
- inspection flag.
For other Group W sources that are not of federal concern, a year end
accounting of resources consumed versus the beginning of the year block
resource allocation estimates should be discussed at the time of the plan
evaluation. This is part of the total inspection activity assessment and
provides a complete picture of resource use in the inspection program.
These other Group IV sources are not tracked in the CDS.
Additional mechanisms that will be used to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of this strategy will be the National Air Audit System and the
Section 105 compliance guidelines. The NAAS is presently being revised to
accommodate the CMS. The Section 105 compliance guidelines are under
development and will be issued this year.
Alternate Approach
r
In the event that a State and EPA Region cannot work out an inspection
plan using the recommended strategy approach, the current Inspection
Frequency Guidance plus the Asbestos D&R and Small VOC Source
Compliance Strategies will determine the State inspection commitments for
the upcoming year." See Attachment 2 for the full text of the current IFG.
For those States that use the current IFG to identify their FY 1989
inspection commitments, an inspection plan must still be submitted to and
accepted by the EPA Region. These plans will basically be limited to Groups I,
II, and III sources.
5
-------
The fundamental differences between a State inspection plan developed
using the current IFG ^ihd one using the full CMS will be the following.
- Group IV source inspections will generally not be in
an IFG-based Inspection plan.
- An IFG-based Inspection plan will not capture an
agency's total inspection activity.
- Specific focus on national priorities is not as well
defined in an IFG-based inspection plan.
While offering this alternate approach, EPA strongly recommends using the
full CMS with inspection targeting whenever possible. However, it is
recognized that for such reasons as the lack of suitable software and
hardware, a small, easily managed regulated community, an adequate resource
base for comprehensive inspection coverage, and an inspection program tied
to an operating permit fee system, the CMS with inspection targeting will not
be universally appropriate.
Responsibilities
(1) EPA Headquarters
EPA Headquarters is responsible for the annual implementing guidance for
the Compliance Monitoring Strategy. It will be issued to the Regional Offices
k before April of the preceding fiscal year.
•
In addition, ongoing refinement and training in the use of the inspection
targeting model is Headquarters responsibility. It is expected that as more
agencies, become familiar with the value of targeting to their program, the
model will sell itself. After initial training, some level of ongoing support will
be necessary for the users of this tool. Headquarters will provide that
support.
Finally, Headquarters will evaluate and report the previous year's
implementation of the strategy to the Air compliance community in the
second quarter of the next fiscal year. The results will be incorporated into
the annual implementing guidance and any strategy modifications.
(2) EPA Regional Offices
The Regions are charged with negotiating, approving, and submitting to
Headquarters by August the individual State inspection plans for the
upcoming federal fiscal year. Along with the inspection plans, the Regions are
required to report to Headquarters in which States, and for what reasons, the
inspection targeting approach is not used.
In addition, the Regions must ensure that the applicable sources scheduled
to be inspected per the negotiated inspection plan are entered and flagged in
-------
CDS on time. The Regions are also responsible for ensuring the appropriate
data necessary for evaluation are in CDS or are reported to EPA in a complete
and timely fashion.
(3) State Agencies
The State agencies are responsible for providing information and for
running the inspection targeting model, where applicable. They are also
responsible for meeting the commitments of their negotiated inspection
plans. Finally, the State agencies are responsible for ensuring the appropriate
data are reported in a. timely and complete fashion to the Regional Office or
directly Into CDS.
When preparing an inspection plan submittal, it is recommended the State
use the inspection targeting model for ranking Group I sources, and those
Group IV sources that may be substituted for Group I source inspections, on a
State-wide level. The inputs and results are then presented at the inspection
plan negotiation meeting with EPA.
For local districts that have direct Section 105 grantee status, it is
recommended that such districts be ranked using the inspection targeting
model separately from other districts in their State. In such a State, the
State-wide ranking should be an aggregation of individual local grantee
district rankings with the rest of the State. However, as a general practice,
running district by district rankings and aggregating them to the State level is
discouraged. To do this diminishes a management benefit of the inspection
targeting model that allows identifying where current resource distributions
may need reallocation.
For Assistance
The EPA Headquarters contact for this strategy is Howard Wright. He can
be reached at (202) 475-7034. The contractor for the inspection targeting
model is Perrin Quarles of Pen-in Quarles Associates. Inc. He can be reached
at (804) 979-3700.
-------
Attachment 1
Further Details on the Inspection Targeting Model
The Inspection targeting model is jointly funded by Regions V, VIE. and
SSCD. It is being piloted in Michigan and Colorado. These efforts have
provided a refined product ready for more widespread application.
The model is a computerized program which ranks sources for inspection
priority based on information supplied by State agency inspectors. It
currently runs on a standard XT or AT personal computer and on an Apple
Macintosh. Approximately 3 megabytes of storage capacity and 512 RAM are
required to run the program for a 2,500 source database. The program is
menu-driven andjrequires no special computer knowledge.
What Information is Needed to Use the Model?
Targeting data for each source normally include:
- Source identification and classification information
- Size data (for targeted pollutants)
- Last Inspection results
- Other recent compliance history (to the extent available)
- The Inspector's assessment of potential upset conditions at the source
(with four options)
- The inspector's rating of O&M practices at the source
(with four options)
- NAAQS attainment status
- Relative contribution of the source to air quality problems
(with four options)
- Whether there are multiple compliance problems and/or multiple
pollutant impacts
- The desired inspection frequency for the source
- The required Inspection time and relative inspection difficulty for the
source
- Other unique targetinu considerations that the inspector feels should be
considered, as well as the inspector's own rating of the source's
inspection priority (on a 1 to 4 scale).
What is Needed to Implement the Program?
The following steps are necessary to start up and maintain the program.
- Compile a list of sources that will be eligible for inspection targeting.
The State must identify all NSPS and NESHAPs sources and all sources
over a minimum size (e.g.. 10 tpy actual uncontrolled emissions). Inspectors
should review this list to make sure that important sources have not been
omitted. This review may occur when the inspectors are completing
individual data forms. Our experience has shown for the typical State, this
-------
pre-screening of the inventory may take 10 working days of total inspector
time during the initial $ear.
i
- Prepare targeting data forms for each source included
on the targeted source list
Basic source identification information can be compiled by administrative
staff using information normally available in agency reports, emissions
Inventories, and the like. A data form for each source may be partially filled
out by administrative staff, then forwarded to inspectors responsible for the
individual sources. Compliance and other unique targeting information would
be provided by the inspectors.
To minimize misinterpretation and Inconsistency among inspectors and to
ensure maximum efficiency, a half-day meeting or work session should be
scheduled to review the data form and answer questions. All inspectors
should participate. The forms should then be filled out by the inspectors, and
checked by a designated reviewer or manager.
If all inspectors participate, the initial meeting and data form completion
process should take no more than 3 working days for each inspector.
- Enter targeting data into the computer program.
After targeting data forms have been completed, computer entry may be
performed by clerical staff. Initial entry should be made by one person, then
checked by another person to ensure accuracy. Experience indicates that
initial data entry should require an average of approximately 2 minutes per
form and verification should require approximately 1 minute per form.
- Generate ranking and planning reports.
A ranking report may be generated by simple menu driven computer
commands. The length of time required to generate the report is dependent
on the number of sources and the computer capability. A typical XT processor
at 6 mh without a math coprocessor will normally process a 500-source
database in 2-3 hours. The printing of the report maybe generated in 10-30
minutes depending on the speed and type of printer and computer. These
time requirements are significantly reduced by using a 80286 or 80386 based
computer system.
- Maintain the database.
Once established, the database may be fairly easily maintained. As new
inventory, compliance, or air quality data are obtained, these may be entered
directly into the computerized database by inspectors or field support staff.
It is also possible to edit the hard copy form for data entry by clerical staff.
-------
Maintaining the program may be accomplished in a single annual update, or
it may be accomplished as new data are obtained (e.g., immediately following
an inspection). Editing and reentry require less than one-half of the time per
form that was required for initial completion and entry.
The model itself is easy to use for anyone. It was designed for use by
inspectors and managers with very limited computer skills. There is a help
file accessible at any time as data are being input
When the ranking and estimated inspection times are coupled with the
known resource base, the actual sources planned to be visited annually can
easily be determined. As a result an inspection plan is born. This plan can
serve the State agency as an effective management tool for its own inspectors
as well as serve to meet the EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy
requirements.
Final refinement of the targeting model is completed. It is available to all
EPA Regions for your testing and familiarization prior to implementation in FY
1989. It is on a floppy disk with accompanying documentation and will be
distributed at the time of the Regional training. Headquarters will continue to
support this activity with on-call technical assistance.
-------
Attachment 2
Inspection Frequency Guidance
INTRODUCTION
The inspection is the primary compliance assurance method presently
available in the air program for validating source performance. Therefore,
EPA believes it is Imperative that an effective inspection program be
implemented in all States. The following guidance on the expected frequency
of inspections is Intended to balance the need for a nationally-uniform data
base to enable an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program with the
needs of State and local agencies to make optimal use of their limited
resources to address the varied and unique air quality problems faced by each
State and locality.
CRITERIA FOR INSPECTION
The frequency of an inspection shall be determined by which requirements
are applicable (SIP, NSPS, NESHAPsJ-and, for SIP and NSPS sources, by
whether the source is a Class Al or A2 source. In cases where more than one
program requirement is applicable, the source must be Inspected based on
the highest frequency of inspection for any of the applicable requirements. It
is imperative that all sources be identified by source classification (if
applicable) and appropriate air program (SIP, NSPS, NESHAPs) and that
these data be duly entered and maintained in EPA's Compliance Data System
(CDS).
•
DEFINITION OF AN INSPECTION
For the purpose of this guidance, a minimally-acceptable State or local
compliance inspection (Level II) is an onsite visit to the operating source to
assess compliance with at least applicable federal air pollution control
requirements. At a minimum, a compliance inspection must be performed for
all federally-regulated air pollutants emitted by the source. Also, a source that
is regulated for visible emissions should be evaluated using an acceptable
reference method. Where a source is federally-regulated for more than
opacity, a compliance inspection involving only a visible emissions observation
is not generally considered to be a minimally-acceptable compliance
inspection.
As part of the minimally-acceptable, source compliance inspection, an
inspector must record the process operating conditions and. if appropriate.
the control device conditions to determine if any significant change has
occurred since the last inspection or any process or control operation outside
normal or permitted conditions has occurred. It is expected that
minimally-acceptable compliance inspections would also include at least an
operations log check of process and control equipment including continuous
emission monitoring systems logs. It should be noted that these
requirements for a minimally-acceptable inspection do not require the direct
measurement of operating conditions by the inspector.
1
-------
CLASS Al SIP SOURCES
All operating Class Al SIP sources regulated under the Clean Air Act shall
be Inspected annually.»Annually Is construed to mean at least one onsite visit
(is made to each such source between October and September, corresponding
to the federal fiscal year.
There are four permissible exceptions to the Class Al annual Inspection
requirement The first is for sources whose operations are seasonal in nature
(e.g.. alfalfa dehydrators) and which do not operate more than 90 days per
year. This operating time restriction does not need to be Included in a permit
for a source to qualify. However, the nature of its business should clearly
preclude the source from operating more than 90 days per year. To qualify
for this exception, a seasonal source should be well-controlled, should not
have a history of noncompliance, and should not be located in a
nonattainment area for a pollutant that is the determining pollutant for the
Class Al classification. All seasonal sources must in any event be inspected at
least once every five years.
The second category is for Class Al SIP gas-fired combustion facilities (gas
turbines, boilers, and internal combustion sources) which are regulated only
for sulfur dioxide emissions and which can operate in compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emissions limitations without controls.
The third category is Class Al NSPS and PSD gas turbines that are
regulated only for NOx emissions. An annual compliance determination for
these sources can be accomplished through record checks without an annual
onsite inspection of equipment. - .
The last category is oil-fired or coal-fired industrial boilers which are Class
Al SIP sources only because of their sulfur dioxide emissions and which can
operate in compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limitations without
either controls or use of low sulfur fuel.
To be excepted. sources in these latter three categories should not have a
history of noncompliance. All excepted sources shall be inspected at least
once every five years.
Exceptions to the annual inspection requirement should be communicated
by the Regional Office to EPA's Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
at the start of the inspection year and the data base properly adjusted by the
Regional Offices for subsequent analysis and reporting. Regional Offices are
encouraged to discuss with SSCD any novel issues which may arise in their
discussions with their States.
CLASS A2 SIP SOURCES
Except as noted below, operating Class A2 sources regulated under the
Clean Air Act shall be Inspected biennially. However, a State may propose a
modified inspection scheme to its EPA Regional Office which presents at least
the same level of resource commitment but which the State believes is more
-------
responsive to the needs of its air quality program. This can consist of any
combination of additional Class Al SIP inspections. Class A2 SIP inspections,
and inspections of other sources regulated under the Clean Air Act This
could include Class B SIP sources in those areas where they are particularly
significant EPA Regional Offices and their States are free to establish
whatever approach is best suited to their situation as long as the following
conditions are met:
- SSCD must receive Information copies of such agreements at the start of
fiscal year.
- The State must demonstrate that the modified approach is based on at
least the same resource expenditures as would be required to inspect all
Class A2 SIP sources on a biennial basis.
- All operating Class A2 SIP sources must be inspected at least once every
five years.
NSPS SOURCES
Any operating NSPS-subject source which is Class Al in size shall be
inspected at least once every federal fiscal year. All other NSPS sources shall
be treated as Class A2 sources.
VESHAPs SOURCES
- All operating nontransitory NESHAP-subject sources shall be inspected at
least once every federal fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVES TO CONDUCTING PERIODIC ONSITE INSPECTIONS
An alternative to an onsite visit for purposes of satisfying inspection
frequency guidance by the State for any SIP or NSPS source is the use of
continuous emission monitoring Excess Emission Reporting (EER) on a
quarterly basis in lieu of prr:ndic inspection requirements. An EER is a
suitable alternative to an or.Mte inspection if EER data from the source is at
least equivalent to the information that could be obtained from a
minimally-acceptable inspection as previously defined. EER data must be
submitted for all pollutants rmitted by the source for which the source is
regulated. The intended use of the EER alternative must be agreed upon
between the State and the EPA Regional Office and EPA must receive the
name and CDS numbers of all sources covered by the alternative.
Another alternative to an onsite inspection is available for sources whose
compliance is based solely on the characteristics of the fuel oil burned
(typically percentage of sulfur in the fuel). This alternative is an inspection of
the fuel oil supplier's records and a sampling of the supplier's product. To
realize the saving of inspector time, a source's fuel oil suppliers must be
known and fixed over time. If a source purchases fuel oil from the spot
market, has many suppliers, or has suppliers which are not easily monitored
by the State, this alternative may not be appropriate.
-------
Memorandum from Emison, G.A., OAQPS, to Air Management Division Director,
Regions I, III, and IX, Air and Waste Management Division Director, Region II, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Director, Regions VII, VIII, and X, Air
and Radiation Division Director, Region V. March 31,1988. (PN113-88-03-31 -048)
TO BE PROVIDED LATER
-------
PN 113-88-03-31-048
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
3 1 MAR 1938
OFFICE OF
AIR AND AAOlATlON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Reissued OAQ
FROM:
TO:
licy
Gerald A. Emison, Direct;
Office of Air Quality
Standards
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Region I. Ill and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the OAQPS policy on Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems (GEMS) data. This policy was originally
issued on July 28, 1987. However, because of the late
transmittal date, FY 1988 implementation of the policy was
done voluntarily. The policy, after minor streamlining, is
being reissued at this time to insure implementation during
FY 1989. It has been streamlined by removing the outdated
section called "Future Actions."
In accordance with the Operating Year Plan, FTEs and
LOE contract funds have been allocated to the Regional Offices
for CEMS and compliance monitoring activities. Implementation
of this strategy should help you utilize these available resources
more efficiently and effectively.
-------
- 2 -
Furthermore, note that tracking S02 GEMS requirements is
an element of the FY 1989 Strategic Planning and Management
System (SPMS). The FY 1989 SPMS requires determination and
reporting of the compliance status of SC>2 sources subject to
GEMS requirements. Specifically, these sources are to be
identified, and their compliance, status determined with
respect to GEMS installation, certification, report submission
and emission limits. While SC<2 sources are emphasized in
SPMS, this measure should be carried out for all sources with
GEMS requirements.
If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me or
Louis Paley of SSCD at FTS 382-2835.
Attachment
cc: John Calcagni, AQMD
Jack R. Farmer, ESD
William Laxton, TSD
Don R. Clay, CAR
Bruce Armstrong, OPAR
Paul M. Stolpman, OPAR
Michael S. Alushin, AED
Alan W. Eckert, OGC
GEMS Technical Coordinators
-------
* 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
3 1 MAR 1988
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: GEMS Policy
APPROVED: Gerald A. Em son, Directc
Office of Air Quality Planning "and Standards
DATE:
Purpose
This states the OAQPS policy, which is effective
immediately, on the use of Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (GEMS) data and provides specific guidance as to how
that policy should be implemented.
Definition
GEMS is one of several self-monitoring techniques used
by regulatory agencies to monitor continuous compliance of
sources. Sampling and analysis of sulfur in fuel to assess
SO2 compliance of sources and recordkeeping for assessment of
compliance with volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
limitations are two other self-monitoring techniques.
Information
As the air compliance program resolves initial compliance
problems and sources install control equipment, efforts to
assure continuous compliance become increasingly important.
Based on the review of State and Regional programs that
promote the use of GEMS, OAQPS has found that GEMS is a
valuable tool for assuring continuous compliance.
Self-monitoring techniques should be integrated into the air
compliance program as a means of assessing stationary source
continuous compliance with air quality regulations.
-------
- 2 -
Some of the States which effectively use GEMS data in
compliance monitoring and in supplementing or supporting
enforcement actions are Washington (with S02 and total reduced
sulfur data) and Tennessee {with opacity monitoring data).
Ohio has a comprehensive program for requiring GEMS in
operating permits which has resulted in installation of GEMS
on a wide variety of source types. Pennsylvania and Indiana
have highly structured .GEMS programs, including penalty
programs based on reported excess emissions.
Policy
OAQPS is committed to promoting, encouraging and utilizing
GEMS data as a compliance assessment measure. Our Office is
also committed to the use of GEMS in direct enforcement where
GEMS is the compliance test method and for supporting enforcement
where GEMS is not the compliance test method. OAQPS encourages
the use of GEMS data by States in compliance monitoring and
in supplementing or supporting enforcement actions. If it is
technically feasible, GEMS requirements should be incorporated
into NSR preconstruct ion reviews, operating permits and
resolutions of enforcement actions including consent decrees
and administrative orders.
GEMS should be used to assure continuous compliance of
sources in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Resources
should be allocated to monitor continuous compliance of
sources in areas where the greatest environmental benefit is
likely to occur. Therefore, priority should be given to
NESHAPS sources subject to continuous monitoring requirements
(currently 40 CFR 61, subparts F, N, O and V) and to SIP
(including major and minor NSR sources) and NSPS sources in
nonattainment areas (for the pollutant for which the area is
in nonattainment). Next, CEMS should be used to monitor the
continuous compliance of NSPS and PSD sources in attainment
areas. Sources with excessive emission limit excursions
identified by CEMS data should be targeted for follow-up
action (on-site inspection or §114 letter). Where CEMS is
the compliance test method, CEMS data should be used to identify
significant violators. These sources will then be tracked in
accordance with the "Timely and Appropriate Enforcement
Response Guidance," issued by OAR on April 11, 1986.
There are two different types of CEMS data - direct
compliance monitoring data and excess emissions monitoring data.
Where CEMS is the compliance test method, the status of the
source is established and documented by CEMS data. Compliance
status determined by CEMS data should be coded in the Compliance
-------
- 3 -
Data System (CDS). Violations identified by direct compliance
monitoring data require appropriate enforcement action
including the assessment of penalties. There are plans to
modify the GEM Subset of CDS to allow for entry of direct
compliance monitoring data. Use of CEMS data for direct
enforcement where CEMS is the compliance test method is
discussed in "Guidance: Enforcement Applications of Continuous
Emission Monitoring System Data," issued by OAQPS and OECM on
April 22, 1986.
The second type of CEMS data is where CEMS is not the
compliance method. In these cases, CEMS data should be used
to monitor the continuous compliance of sources and to initiate
follow-up action including on-site inspections, requesting
further information, and issuing a notice of violation.. This
application is also discussed in the aforementioned guidance.
Conclusion
CEMS is an important technique for monitoring the
continuous compliance of stationary sources. It should be an
expanding component of the air compliance program. Evaluation
of CEMS data has been shown to be effective for identifying
sources with continuous compliance problems and has allowed
agencies to utilize their compliance monitoring resources
more effectively.
-------
'
-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redes1gnatIons under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the following policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States' rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language is inserted which notes that the action is potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification If sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to issue permits under fully-approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits issued prior to EPA's promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. Regional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify them accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits, it should also insert
appropriate cautionary language *n the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submittals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by their, may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
Tne EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.
Requests for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment
wnich are affected by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaking
necessary to comply with the court's remand. This is due to the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this interim period, the Regional Office staff should review witn
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: D. Clay
A. Eckert
J. Emison
D. Grano
J. Metsa
-------
Attachment B
The following boilerplate, OP variations tailored to suit particular
situations, should be used in rulemaking actions affected by the stack
height remand.
General Addition
"The EPA's stack height regulations were challenged in NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). On January 22, 1988, tne U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C, Circuit issued its decision affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions to the EPA for
reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 within-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR Sl.lOO(hh)(2)(1i)(A)3; and
3. Grandfathering pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2)]."
Addition for Stack Heights Rules Packages
"Although the £?A generally approves [State's] stack height rules on
tne grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR Part 51, the E?A also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
ruletnaking to respond to the decision in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. dr. 1988). If the EPA's response to tne NRDC remand modifies the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify the~sTate of [3 that its
rules must be changed to comport with the EPA's modified requirements.
This may result in revised emission limitations or may affect other
actions taken by [State] and source owners or operators."
Additions for Stack Negative Declaration Packages
"Th
The EPA is not acting on sources (identified in table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under one of the provisions
remanded to the EPA in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir 1988).
The [State] and EPA will review tnese sources for compliance with any
revised requirements when the EPA completes rulemaking to respond to the
NRDC remand."
-------
Additions for Stack Height Emission Limitation Changes or
Good Engineering Practice Demonstration
The OAQPS and OGC will provide language on a case-by-case basis when
the EPA is acting on a source-specific package which is affected by the
remand.
Language for Proposed HSR and PSD SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State include the following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes 1t.s
reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates any
necessary revisions:
I T
In approving this perm ., [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892),,
Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC "/. Thomas. 838 F.2d
1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988}. Consequently, this permit may be subject to
modification if and when £PA revises the regulation in response to
the court decision. This may result in revised emission limitations
or may affect other actions tasen by the source owners or operators."
[State] must make an enforceable commitrr>ent to include this caveat in
all affected permits before the £?A can take final action approving the
[NSR or PSD] prognam."
Language for Final NSR and PSD SIP Approvals
"Under this program, [State] will be issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court-ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 278S2).
For this reason, the EPA has required that the State include the following
caveat in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes
its reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates
any necessary revisions:
'In approving this permit, [name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by the E?A on July 8, 1985 (50 FR
278S2). Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas. 838
F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be sucject
to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations in
-------
response to the court decision. This may result in revised emission
limitations or may affect other actions taken by the source owners
OP operators.1
[State] has made an enforceable commitment to include this caveat in
all affected permits by letter dated [ ]. This commitment is being
incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations for the State of [ ] as
part of EPA's approval action."
See Attachment 0 for sample CFR amendment.
The Regional Offices are requested to contact those States that
currently have permitting authority and request that they include similar
language in any permits issued until EPA has .completed its reconsideration
of the stack height regulations and has promulgated any necessary revisions.
-------
Attachment C
State
MH^MMHH*
AZ/CA/NV
AZ/CA/NV
sc
MS
NJ/NY/YI
WA
MD
AR
OH
IX
LA
DC
OH
SD
CO
AQMD 1
3059
3210
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3552
3600
3334
3618
3623
Description
Promulgation of Stack Height Regs.
App. and Disapp. of Stack Height Req.
Negative Declaration
Mississippi's Negative Declaration
Stack Height Revisions
Stack Height Rules
Negative Declaration
Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations
Stack Height Regulations
Revisions to Stack Height Rules
Stack Height Regulations •
Redesignation of Galia County to
Attainment
Administrative Rules
Negative Declaration
Disposition
HQ
RO
RO
RO
RO
HQ
RO
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
Hold
RO
RO
-------
PN 123-88-05-17-016
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY "
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAY 1 ? less
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicajrfflf^o^the Interim Policy for Stack Height
Reqjmtp^^dti ons
FROM: <#mrCarcagn-iy -Direct or
Qua!i.t/Management Division (MD-15)
TO: // Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
On April 22, 1988, J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, issued a memorandum entitled, "Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions" (Attachment A). The memorandum requests that
the Regional Offices review with their States all regulatory actions
involving dispersion credits and determine the appropriate action consistent
with the policy. The purpose of today's memorandum is to provide guidance
in carrying out the interim policy.
In general, actions taken at this time to approve or disapprove
statewide stack height rules which are affected by the remand must include
the qualification that they are subject to review and modification on
completion of EPA's response to the court decision. Permits issued under
the prevention of significant deterioration or new source review programs
should also contain caveat language for sources which may be affected by
the remand. Attachment B contains example boilerplate language to be
inserted into permits and regulatory packages. Note that States must
commit to including the caveat before EPA will take final action on packages
affecting permitting authority. Those actions not involving the remanded
provisions may proceed as usual.
In contrast to our policy regarding the processing of stack height
rules, our policy for source-specific State implementation plan (SIP)
revisions is to avoid proceeding with actions which may need to be
retracted later. You are advised to consult with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel staff prior%to submitting such rulemaking packages.
Affected sources must be deleted from negative declaration packages prepared
under the 1985 stack height regulations before EPA can proceed with action
on them.
-------
My staff has applied the policy when reviewing packages currently in
Headquarters (Attachment C). While proposals to approve (or disapprove)
State rules will remain on the Headquarters clock, the Regional Offices are
requested to review these packages and provide appropriate boilerplate as
soon as possible. Negative declaration packages and final actions on State
rules are being returned to the Regional Office clock as more substantial
revisions and commitments may be required. The redesignation packages
currently in Headquarters which contain sources affected by the remand are
being placed on formal hold.
If you have any questions regarding the April 22 policy, today's
guidance, or disposition of the SIP's, please contact Janet Hetsa
(FTS 629-5313) or Doug Grano (FTS 629-0870).
Attachments
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
C. Carter
G. McCutchen
J. Pearson
J. Sableski
bcc: B. Armstrong
P. Embrey
G. Foote
E. Ginsburg
: Grano
N. Mayer
J. Metsa
S. Reinders
R. Roos-Collins
S02 SIP Contacts
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
JUNE 1988
-------
The following are questions regarding implementation that have been
raised since the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PMlo), July 31, 1987. The questions are arranged by subject and the
responses were prepared by the Air Quality Management and Technical
Support Divisions of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS).
-------
RECEPTOR MODELING AND RECONCILING MODELING RESULTS
1. Uhy should States use dispersion models rather than receptor models?
Dispersion models are the preferred analytical tool for control
strategy development because they estimate concentrations at locations
other than the monitoring site. Also, they can more easily analyze
for attainment in future years. Receptor models should be primarily
viewed as an additional method which will improve confidence in the
dispersion model results.
2. Clarify the use of uncertainty of ambient measurements.
The ambient uncertainty referred to in receptor modeling is the
analytical uncertainty of the method which is used to determine the
elemental or toxic concentrations. Generally, x-ray fluorescence is
used for elemental analysis and this method is more accurate for
some elements than others. This difference in accuracy should be
reflected in the uncertainties for each element.
3. Are receptor models useful if you are looking at 24-hour samples?
Multivariate analysis and dispersion models are better suited for
annual averaging times. The chemical mass balance and microscopic
methods are well suited for 24-hour samples.
4. If we take 15 samples, should we use all of them in_a jeceptor
analysis?
Generally, analyze as many samples as time and budget permit.
Priority should be given to analysis of samples that are collected
when concentrations are the highest. (Refer to page 7 of Protocol
for Reconciling^ Differences Among Receptor and Dispersion Models.)
5. How does a State reconcile the differences between dispersion and
Teceptor models if they are based upon different years (time periods)?
Combine the model results into groups which represent similar
meteorological conditions. Refer to page 7 of Protocol for Reconciling
Differences Among Receptor and Dispersion Models (EPA-45Q/4-87-Q08).
-------
6.
Clarify the PMm SIP Development Guideline section 6.4 "Determining
Emission Limits" regarding the use of actual versus allowable emissions.
The emissions used should be the same as those used in the base year
and design year in accordance with the guidance in section 7.4
of the supplement to the PMyp SIP Development Guideline (SIP guideline).
The "Source Category Contributions to Ambient Concentrations" (AC-j)
would be representative of actual base year conditions. If the
control strategy development is to be based on receptor modeling
(i.e., no dispersion model is applicable), then special attention
must be given to the use of the following equation contained in
section 6.4:
% RIj - ISR, jug/m?)
AC.j (ug/m°)
If the emissions change between the base and design years, tne AC-j
must be adjusted to reflect the design year conditions. This is
accomplished by assuming that the change in the ambient concentrations
resulting from source category i is proportional to changes in
emissions from that category between the base and design years. The
equation depicted below may be used to derive the appropriate AC-j
for the design year.
ACj
(design
year)
ACj
(base
year)
design year emissions-;
base year emissions-;
The emissions^ must be estimated consistently with Table 9-1 in the
Guideline for Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA-450/2-78-027R, and
with the discussion in section 7.4 of the supplement to the SIP
guideline. If the preceding adjustment is made, the percent Rli
applies to design year emissions-;.
-------
DISPERSION MODELING
1. Is EPA working on a model to handle secondary particle formation in
a manner suitable for SIP control strategy demonstrations?
No model recommended for regulatory use at this time handles secondary
particle formation in a manner suitable for SIP control strategy
demonstration. However, EPA has completed work on two models, PEM-2
(an urban model) and MESOPUFF-II (a medium scale transport model),
that can provide a supporting analysis (see page 4-8 of the SIP
guideline).
2. Is an exercise to evaluate dispersion model accuracy necessary before
utilizing the model for control strategy demonstrations"?
Use of the dispersion models contained in Appendix A of the Guidelines
on Air Quality Models (Revised) and listed in Table 4-3 on page 4-9
of the SIP guideline do not. require the evaluation of model accuracy
before utilization for control strategy demonstration. These models
have already been evaluated for a number of situations and have been
found to perform well. However, the evaluation of model performance
for an individual situation is strongly encouraged where appropriate
data bases are available. This evaluation can be used to identify
deficiencies in the emission inventory and source characterizations
for the area [see Example Modeling to Illustrate SIP Development for
the PMio NAAQS].
3. How should PMiQ fugitive dust sources be modeled?
fugitive dust sources can be modeled as area, line, or volume
sources with the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model, depending on
which is most appropriate for the individual fugitive dust source
type. For urban area analysis, fugitive dust sources can be modeled
as area sources with either the Gaussian-Plume Multiple Source Air
Quality Algorithm (RAM) or Cl imatological Dispersion Model (COM 2.0)
as well as with the ISC model.
4. Does a modeled violation in a Group II or Group III area trigger the
need for a SIP revision?
Yes, a modeled violation will result in the State being required to
revise the SIP to correct the deficiency. For Group II areas, the
same timetable triggered by a monitored violation must be followed
(i.e., immediately notify the appropriate Regional Office of the
violation, within 30 days evaluate the existing SIP, and within
6 months submit a PMig control strategy that has been revised as
necessary to maintain the standards). For Group III areas, EPA will
call for a SIP revision under section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Clean Air
Act (Act).
-------
EMISSION INVENTORIES/EMISSION FACTORS
1. What are the emission inventory requirements for Group II and III
areas?
These requirements are specified in the supplement to the SIP
guideline, section 5.
2. Does Mobile 4 calculate PMio emissions?
No. A separate program is available to calculate PM^Q" emissions.
Contact Jon Adler, EPA Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
at (313) 688-4260 or FTS 374-8260.
3. Must an emission inventory be prepared for an entire county?
Not necessarily, unless the entire county is included in the designated
attainment demonstration area. The area to be included is determined
based on various considerations discussed in the SIP development
guidance. Often, inventories are compiled for entire counties
because some of the key data used to estimate emissions, particularly
for area and mobile sources, is most readily available on a countywide
basis. However, such data can be apportioned to subcounty areas, if
so needed.
4. How far out does the emission inventory go?
See response to question 13 concerning the area to be inventoried.
The distance out should be based primarily on the characteristics of
the sources in the area. All sources that would cause a significant
PM]_Q concentration gradient in the area of concern should be modeled.
5. The EPA does not have emission factors for 40-50 percent of the PM\n
sources in Wisconsin. What is EPA doing to develop new emission
factors for these sources?
The EPA has been in contact with Wisconsin regarding their "gaps."
The estimate of 40-50 percent mentioned at the workshop was based on
a preliminary State PMio inventory. The EPA's initial review indicated
that some of the identified gaps could be filled and many sources needed
to be better defined. Wisconsin plans to refine its inventory, but
until it does, the extent of their gaps cannot be ascertained. The
EPA has anticipated that Wisconsin and others will encounter gaps
and has efforts underway to assist in filling gaps identified by
State and local agencies. In addition, EPA is establishing a clearing-
house to handle gap filling requests and proposals from State/local
agencies.
-------
6. The EPA needs to provide more Information on control efficiencies.
Should a State use the control efficiency or equation if no Information
on PMio emissions is available?
We agree that better information is needed on control efficiencies
for PMio. Unless better information is available elsewhere, States
may use the table and procedure described in Appendix C-2 of AP-42
to estimate PMio control efficiency for the types of control equipment
listed in the table.
7. How does a State handle a range of control efficiencies in AP-42?
AP-42 does not give ranges of control efficiencies for PM^Q. The
table of control efficiencies in Appendix C-2 of AP-42 presents
single values of percent efficiency for each of various segments of
particle size. How these are used individually or how they are
combined is explained with an example in Appendix C-2.
8. The EPA needs to clarify which inventories are based on actual versus
allowable emissions for the three groups of areas.
The requirements in Attachment 1 specify which are based on actual
versus allowables for the three groups of areas.
9. What is the difference between the base year and attainment year
emission inventory?
•For Group I areas, the base year is a recent year for which adequate
air quality data are available to evaluate a model's applicability
to an area. This is an optional step that may be performed before a
model is used in the SIP control strategy development. There may be
cases where a particular model has already been sufficiently evaluated
in other similar areas. In such instances, an evaluation for the
area in question may not be necessary. Nevertheless, a base year
emission inventory is a useful starting point for the control strategy
analysis.
An inventory for the projected year of attainment, before the control
strategy is applied, is the basis for the model application to
determine the target percent reduction in PM^o emissions needed to
attain the standard. This inventory should consider any permanent
source changes between the base and attainment year, including
projected new sources, modifications, shutdowns, new or discontinued
controls, growth, and banked emissions. In addition, source emissions
should be based on allowables, as specified in Table 9-1 of the EPA
modeling guideline, document.
For Group II and III areas, inventory data are only applicable to a
recent "base" year and should reflect actual emissions. In addition,
for Group II areas, an allowables inventory is required for the base
year. In Group II and III areas, the base year may change as the
data are updated for a more recent year.
-------
10. If the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) program limits
sources to those greater than 100 tons per year (toy), does this
limit size of the source to be considered in the plan?
Annual reporting of source emissions to EPA are limited to 100 tpy
sources, but neither the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) nor
AIRS limit entry of point source data for sources of less emissions,
if desired for some other purpose (e.g., SIP's). For SIP purposes,
EPA is requiring no higher cutpoint than 50 tpy (uncontrolled or
uncontrolled potential) for inventorying and submitting data for
point sources in Group I areas. Detailed data may be necessary for
even smaller sources if they are likely to cause a significant PM^Q
concentration gradient in the area of concern.
11. Is the suggested PMio point source form (revised 9/87) compatible
with the Emissions Information System (EIS)?
Not presently. Some software or guidance may be developed to enhance
compatability but since EIS is likely to be replaced by AIRS based
State systems, the current thinking is to try to build the compatability
into AIRS. This feature is not in the initial design plans for
AIRS, but is being considered as part of an add-on module.
12. Regarding submittal requirements for Group I areas in 9 months,
a) What year do you use as the baseline inventory:
The latest year for which adequate air quality data are available
for model evaluation. The selection should be made with concurrence
of the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
b) How do you determine the attainment year ahead of time?
A projection needs to be made based on an estimate of how long EPA
will take to approve the SIP and the best information available as
to when all the measures in the control strategy can be effected.
c) Why is EPA using the old definition of uncontrollable potential
emissions? Is EPA including controls on the source, or are
potential emissions totally uncontrollable? (Person asking
question referred to a court decision of a few years ago.)
The requirements specify that the cutpoint for inventorying emissions
as point sources is for source emissions if totally uncontrolled or
the potential emissions of a controlled source if it were to operate
uncontrolled. This is only to determine if separate records as a
point source are necessary, not to consider in this manner for
control purposes. The purpose is to have a separate record for
verification if a source's impact does not or does not fully reflect
its reported emissions based on an assumed level of control.
-------
d) If you use a 24-hour standard, do you have to submit annual and
dal ly inventory?
Generally, no. In many instances, a State (or designated local
agency) may have to run a model for daily and annual periods to
assure that both standards will be protected, even if air quality
measurements show exceedances for only one of the periods. In such
instances, only the annual inventory data needs to be submitted to
EPA, although the 24-hour period inventory data should be available
for review, if needed. There are some exceptions. Some areas may
experience seasonal rises in emissions which largely cause their
nonattainment problem. If the problem involves more than one season
(e.g., summer wind blown dust and winter wood burning), then only
that seasonal inventory should be submitted. In the dual season
situations, a model analysis should be done for each season separately,
and the results combined for the annual standard analysis. For the
daily standard analysis, the model would have to be run for a 24-hour
period for each season. For the single season problem, only a
24-hour modeling analysis for the appropriate season is appropriate.
e) In areas with significant secondary aerosol emissions potential,
does EPA require inventories for secondary pollutants that may form
in the atmosphere?
Generally, only inventories of primarily emitted particulates (or
condensible aerosols at ambient temperatures) are required. . However,
if the control strategy developed to attain the PM^g NAAQS includes
measures to reduce locally emitted precursors of secondarily formed
particles, then the precursor pollutants should be inventoried.
This assumes that EPA and the State have agreed upon a dispersion
model to use in demonstrating the adequacy of such a control strategy.
13. Regarding Group II areas submittal (within 37 months) requirements:
a) How do you determine allowable emissions?
For the selected base year, use the criteria in Table 9-1 of EPA's
modeling duideline document. There may be a need to consult with
the appropriate EPA Regional Office in determining which sources in
an area should be treated as point sources, other contributing
sources, and background sources.
-------
b) Uhat is the object of the allowable emission inventory for
ISroup II areas? (It was suggested that this be reevaluated.)
The object is for the State to evaluate the extent to which allowable
emissions may exceed actual emissions. This gap poses a potential
for future exceedances should economic or other factors become
conducive for sources to emit up to their allowables. If a wide gap
exists for any major source in the area (large enough to cause a
violation of the NAAQS), the State must either modify source permits
or emission limitations to bring these closer in line with actual
emissions and, thereby, minimize the potential for future exceedances
or submit a demonstration that the NAAQS will be maintained with
emissions at allowable levels. This objective is in accord with the
stated intent in the Act to "attain and maintain the standards"
(emphasis added).
14. Regarding Group III areas:
a) Is annual reporting (referred to in the second slide at the PMm
Implementation Workshops) required in addition to NEDS reporting.
No. This is the same as the present_ NEDS reporting. The NEDS is
the current system for handling these data, but in the near future
it will be changed to AIRS. Therefore, we referred to this in
generic terms (in preceding slides) as annual "national" reporting
of emissions.
b) Is the NEDS report due next year, or when?
The NEDS report continues to be due every year. However, through
calendar year (CY) 1987 data due in CY 1988, States will still
report total particulate emissions data. Beginning with CY 1988
data due in CY 1989, States will be required to report PMiQ emissions
data.
15. Regarding PMiQ controlled and uncontrolled emissions factors, why is
the penetration factor included in the calculation of PMjQ emissions
ITsing an uncontrolled PMip emission factor? Shouldn't it instead be
used in the calculation using a controlled emission factor?
No. The penetration factor is used to account for the efficiency of
the control device if a source is controlled and an uncontrolled
emission factor is used to calculate emissions. If the source is
controlled and an appropriate controlled emission factor is used to
calculate emissions, the controlled emission factor already takes
into account the control efficiency of the source; hence, a penetration
factor is not needed in the calculation.
-------
16. New emission factors are needed for:
a) Fugitive dust sources.
The EPA has developed gap filling factors for open sources for
several fugitive dust sources which are not covered in AP-42. These
are default factors based on technology transfer, engineering judgment,
etc. It will cover about 10-15 such sources. The report should be
distributed to State/local agencies in February 1988.
b) Fugitive emission sources, especially construction activities.
Open fugitive dust sources are covered in the preceding response.
Few PMiQ factors exist for industrial operations because of a dearth
of test information for such sources. The EPA will continue to try to
develop stop gap factors for such sources. For construction activities,
there is no overall factor for such activities because of their
diversity. PM^Q are presently available for some but not all distinct
construction operations. Some of the construction activities for which
PMiQ factors exist are road dust emissions, batch or continuous drop
(loading or unloading), and storage (sand or dirt) piles. A clearing-
house has been established by EPA to facilitate the filling of gaps
as they occur in inventory development.
-------
1. For monitoring purposes, how large is a neighborhood?
Neighborhood, in this context, refers to the spatial scale of
representativeness in Appendix D of 40 CFR 58. A neighborhood scale
defines concentrations within some extended area of the city that
has relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the range of 0.5 to
4.0 kilometers.
2. In the Group I areas, one must sample every day at one site. What
Sampling frequency is required for other samplers in the monitori"n"g
area?
Section 58.13(i) requires everyday PMio sampling for at least one
site in Group I areas during the first year of sampling and it must be
located in the area of expected maximum concentration. The remaining
sites in the Group I area require a minimum of every sixth-day sampling
This does not preclude operating one or more of the remaining sites
more frequently than every sixth day.
3. How long must total suspended parti cul ate (TSP) samplers continue to
operate?
Appendix C, section 2.2, 40 CFR 58 specifies that the high-volume
sampler may be used as a PMiQ surrogate State/Local Air Monitoring
System (SLAMS) as long as the measured concentrations are below the
PMiQ NAAQS. This applies only to the those samplers which are not a
part of the National Air Monitoring System (NAMS) network.
No TSP samplers may be a part of the official PMio NAMS network.
However, Appendix C also specifies that if a PMio NAMS site is
designated at a site which was previously a TSP NAMS site, then the
TSP and PMiQ samplers must be concurrently operated for a 1-year
period. The purpose of this is to maintain historical continuity
for trends purposes. All or part of the 1-year period could have
been before the July 1 promulgation or before the official approval
of the NAMS PMio network.
A subset of the NAMS TSP sites are being requested to continue operation
to provide filters for the National Parti cul ate Network (NPN). These
filters are being analyzed for trace metals and the data are used for
long-term trends.. Studies are being planned to test the possibility
of switching these analyses to the PMio filters. However, until
these studies and analyses are complete, the TSP sampler will continue
to be used for the NPN.
10
-------
The officially designated NAMS TSP samplers may be discontinued (except
as discussed above) only after the PMio network description has been
approved and all the PMio samplers so designated are fully operational
at the required frequency. A reduction of some of the TSP samplers
from the currently approved NAMS/SLAMS network may be considered on
a case-by-case basis before the above conditions are met. Except for
the cases noted above and situations where TSP samplers are used to
collect particulates for lead analyses and where there is a State
standard for TSP, agencies are encouraged to discontinue the use of
TSP samplers.
How soon are collocated PMio required?
Part of the requirements in an approved PMio network is for all the
PMio samplers to meet the quality assurance (QA) procedures as set
forth in Appendix A. The collocation of PMio samplers is a part of
the QA plan as specified in Appendix A, section 3. Therefore, the
collocated PMio samplers must be designated and operating before the
NAMS PMio network can be approved.
5. Must TSP monitoring be continued for lead?
Yes. At the current, time, the reference methods for lead as specified
in the regulations call for the collection of ambient lead by the
high-volume sampler collection method. Until such time EPA changes
the lead standard and/or reference method, the continued use of the
high-volume sampler for monitoring ambient lead levels is required.
6. When does NAMS, SLAMS PMip monitoring start?
The regulations require the NAMS and SLAMS network description to be
submitted within 6 months after the effective date of the regulation.
The NAMS network, and the SLAMS network in Group I and II areas, must
be operational within 1 year after the effective date of the regulation.
The remaining SLAMS network (i.e., Group III areas) must be operational
within 2 years after the effective date of the regulation. There is
nothing, however, to preclude an agency from submitting their network
descriptions early and, upon approval, implementing their NAMS and/or
SLAMS networks early.
7. If a State has PMjp dichotomous and PMjp size-selective samplers,
considering the potential for higher values from the size-selective,
which data set should the State use?
All data must be used at face value after promulgation for attainment/
nonattainment purposes, design value development and monitoring frequency
determination.
11
-------
8. HW*ades*one£iW6Ho'r^^^ P S !*
One incorporates PM^o into the PSI by discontinuing TSP monitoring and
substituting PM^o monitors and following the procedure described in the
Part 58 Appendix G regulation, which identifies the PSI breakpoints,
and in the guideline entitled!5n^la'nc^f^T^HTh^EpTs^de"'M6"n1 torlng/
MethodS7^£PAs450/4-83-005^February'1983.-
9. Are mass flow controllers affected by atmospheric changes?
Yes, they are. Although the mass flow remains constant, the actual
volumetric flow rate through the inlet fluctuates as the ambient
temperature and barometric pressure change at the sampling site.
Normally, the range of the fluctuations is within the tolerance limits
of the inlet. However, the flow rate set point of the mass flow
controller must be correctly adjusted so that the deviations are
centered with respect to the seasonal average temperature and barometric
pressure at the site. Detailed procedures for calculating the set
point and adjusting a mass flow controller are contained in Volume II
of EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
System, section 2.11, EPA report 600/4-77-027a.
12
-------
1. What is the purpose of flagging described in the Exceptional Events
Guideline?
The basic purpose of the flagging system Is to Identify those air
quality measurements that are influenced by exceptional events.
These are events which, if unidentified, could lead to possible
misinterpretation or misuse of the data. Because the flagging
system relies heavily on the identification and understanding of
events that may have influenced a particular air quality measurement,
its major thrust is information exchange. The criteria for identifi-
cation of "exceptional events" are designed to be expansive enough
to encompass most good faith claims by State and local agencies of
when data should be considered for special treatment. It is not
intended to reflect EPA's views on the validity of these claims.
The flagging of data is merely a way for a State or local agency to
state that it regards the data as influenced by exceptional events,
and may later claim that the data should be discounted for certain
purposes.
2. Who flags data?
Under the flagging system, State and local air pollution control
agencies will be responsible for initially identifying and documenting
data influenced by exceptional events. These agencies also must
develop the appropriate background information used to support the
decision to flag an individual piece of data; they must submit the
information to EPA for concurrence and make it available for the
public's review upon request.
3. Does flagging imply use or nonuse of data?
The guideline's general policy is to allow consideration of excluding
flagged data from use in regulatory actions.The actual exclusion
of the use of flagged data would only be allowed if, as a result of
a public review process, the responsible government agency, e.g.,
the State air agency during the State regulatory process, and the U.S.
EPA during the Federal review/approval process, determines that the
data are inappropriate for use in a specific regulatory activity.
This consideration for exclusion of flagged data carries with it no
prior presumption towards use or nonuse of flagged data. The exclusion
of flagged air quality data for SIP regulatory activities (areawide
or local control strategy development, SIP design values, attainment
/nonattainment status, enforcement actions, etc.) shall be considered
on a case-by-case basis and discussed during the public review
process. Exclusion of the flagged data would only be allowed if the
responsible control agency determines in conjunction with a public
review that the flagged data are inappropriate for use.
13
-------
4. Is there consistency in the definition of exceptional events nationally?
This guideline provides general definitions for these events and general
criteria for their use in flagging air quality data. -The application
of a definition may vary from area to area because of differing air
quality and control situations. For example, salting and sanding of
streets for snow and ice control may be an exceptional event in the
southern sections of the country, whereas they may be routine,
controllable events in the northern sections. Therefore, definitions
in the Exceptional Events Guideline are only a national guide and
are not meant to replace reasonable judgment on the part of the
Regional, State, and local air pollution control agency officials in
defining and identifying exceptional events for the purpose of
flagging data.
5. How is exceptional defined for exceptional events?
Webster defines "exceptional" as forming an exception, rare, uncommon,
extraordinary, deviating from the norm. With respect to air quality
considerations in this guideline, an exceptional event is defined as
an event that is not expected to recur routinely at a given location,
or that is possibly uncontrollable or unrealistic to control through
the SIP process. As noted previously, what is exceptional in one area
of the country may not be exceptional in another. Therefore, some
judgment is needed in identifying whether an event is exceptional in
the area of the country where it has occurred.
6. How frequently does an event have to occur before it is considered
•not an exceptional event?
During the 4-year development of the guidance, which was reviewed
three times by State and local agencies and numerous times by Regional
Offices, no concensus was arrived at concerning frequency of occurence
or how rare should be defined. Therefore, no absolute definition or
numerical quantity has been assigned to rare or unusal. An attempt
has been made to leave some room for interpretation because, what
may be unusual or exceptional for one part of the country may be
typical for another and this variability requires flexibility in
national definitions and criteria.
7. If data are flagged as an exceptional event and the level is greater
than the 24-hour NAAQS (150 ug/rn^), is the flagged value counted as
an exceedance?
Yes. A 24-hour value greater than the level of the 24-hour NAAQS,
after rounding to the nearest 10 ug/m3, is defined as an exceedance
of the 24-hour standard. All data, flagged or unflagged, should be
available to the public for comparison to the NAAQS to determine if
24-hour exceedances and, in turn, if violations of the 24-hour or
14
-------
annual NAAQS have occurred. However, in section 2.4 of Appendix K,
EPA has authorized special treatment of air quality data affected by
uncontrollable events caused by natural sources or unusual events
that are not expected to recur at a given location. These events
may be discounted or weighted according to the likelihood of their
recurrence, subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator in
accordance with EPA guidelines.
Moreover, the use or nonuse of flagged exceedances for SIP purposes
will be determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, a flagged
exceedance caused by a volcanic eruption would not require modification
to an approved SIP.
3. Will flagged data be used to determine monitoring frequency requirements
as specified in 58.13?
Yes. However, if the exceptional event has received regional concurrence
prior to the time in which revisions to existing sampling frequency
would be required to have occurred, a request for relief from accelerated
sampling schedule can be submitted to the Regional Administrator for
SLAMS or the Administrator for NAMS sites.
9. Under what circumstances will prescribed burning not be considered
as an exceptional event?:
In .those areas of the country where prescribed burning is used regularly
and extensively for agricultural and/or forestry land management, pre-
scribed burning may not be considered an exceptional event for the
purposes of flagging air quality data. Prescribed burning in these
areas is usually subject to rules and regulations, including smoke
management plans, under which a regulatory agency permits burning
after deciding where, and to what extent, the smoke will be allowed
to impact air quality.
10. Why do we call "agricultural tilling" an exceptional event?
This event was included along with highway construction, salting, and
sanding of streets and others, which are not exceptional; however,
they may be difficult or impractical to control through the SIP
process. There are some conditions attached to the agricultural
tilling; such as, it must occur within a reasonable distance (500
meters) of the monitor and the ,data in question must have been
collected during or immediately after the day of tilling.
11. What type of documentation is required for an exceptional event?
The type and extent of documentation for an exceptional event will
vary depending on.type and nature of the event on a case-by-case
basis. A discussion of documentation is provided in section 4.4 of
15
-------
the Exceptional Events Guideline. It could be as simple as a newspaper
article concerning a severe windstorm or as complex as a chemical or
microscopic filter analysis.
12. After EPA has completed the grouping process, can data be flagged?
The Exceptional Events Guideline was developed independently from the
PMio SIP grouping process and it concerns all criteria pollutants. If
data are entered into AIRS, they can be flagged at entry. If the AIRS
system is not used, flagged data should be submitted along with the
SLAMS annual report or its cover letter.
13. Is there a procedure for public comment on exceptional event data?
It was not the intention of the Exceptional Events Guideline to create
or prescribe a procedure for public comment.Public review only
becomes necessary when a decision is made to use or not to use data
for particular regulatory purposes. All of these regulatory purposes
require some form of public input. It is the intention of the
guideline to utilize those public review processes already in place.
14. Uhen is the last date data may be flagged and documentation submitted?
Requests for flagging data including the documentations should be
submitted prior to, or together with, the submission of the SLAMS
annual report covering the timeframe for which the data was generated.
15. Can onlyambient PMiQ values greater than the NAAQS be flagged?
The exceptional events policy applies to any concentration, regardless
of magnitude, affected by the infrequent activities included in the
policy. Otherwise, the annual arithmetic mean concentration for an
area may be overestimated due to a few high 24-hour concentrations
(but not exceeding the NAAQS) caused by exceptional events.
16
-------
1. With the statistical- form of the standard, when does the 3-year
time-frame start for evaluating compliance with the standard?
The 3-year timeframe for evaluating attainment (compliance) started
on or before promulgation with the initial deployment of PMiQ samplers.
According to Appendix K to Part 50, the 3 years must be calendar years,
although 3 running years may be used for the initial period of PM^Q
data collection to allow for midyear startup.
Data collected both before and after the July 1, 1987 promulgation
can be used to satisfy the 3-year data requirement. However, in order
for data to be considered "valid," the data must be consistent with
the short-term and long-term sampling requirements described in
Part 58.13 as well as the data capture requirements of Appendix K.
Once the short-term requirements are satisfied, 2 additional years
of data satisfying the long-term sampling requirement would then be
needed.
The data used to satisfy the short- and long-term sampling requirements
can be data collected prior to the July 1, 1937 promulgation.
2. How is the gray zone data interpreted now that the regulations are
promulgated? .
Prior to promulgation, PMig data were used in combination with TSP
data to place areas into one of three groups for SIP development
purposes. PMio data from the Sierra Anderson 321A instruments that
were within 20 percent of the standard (0 to +20 percent) were not
used to place an area in Group I. Other data or SIP conditions
would be required for that classification. The EPA has determined
that a potential bias in PM^Q measurements exists in some situations.
This was demonstrated in Phoenix where the particulate matter contained
a large percentage of coarse particles. Since there was limited
time to evaluate the potential for coarse particle influence on
existing PM^Q monitoring programs, the concept of the gray zone was
developed where areas were placed in Group II, so that more time
would be provided to determine the correct status with respect to
the standards.
A series of meetings are ongoing among EPA staff to resolve issues
related to instrument modification and the recording of observations
in the "gray zone" since the promulgation of the NAAQS for
policy statement is expected by mid-1988.
17
-------
3. If an area has a lot of exceedances, does EPA care what procedures
are used to characterize these exceedances? What procedures are
available to the States?
The estimated number of 24-hour exceedances is needed for several
applications. The foremost application is the determination of
attainment or nonattainment with the 24-hour standard. For this
application, the estimate of the expected number of exceedances is
derived according to the formulas specified in Appendix K to Part 50.
If this estimate is less than or equal to 1.0, the site passes the
attainment test for the 24-hour standard. If this estimate exceeds
1.0, then the site fails the attainment test. When the observed number
of exceedances in the last 3 years is greater than or equal to 4,
however, the computation for the estimated number of exceedances is not
necessary—the 24-hour standard is automatically violated.
If the observed number of exceedances is greater than 3 (or the
site is otherwise determined to be in nonattainment with the 24-hour
standards), procedures other than those specified in Appendix K may be
used to estimate the number of exceedances per year. This may be of
interest, for example, in the evaluation of dispersion models and
design value estimation. For these applications, the use of a
statistical distribution fitted to observed PMio concentrations may be
considered.
4. How much data capture per site is required before a site can be
used in an"attainment demonstration?
Three years of PMio data are needed which are sampled in accordance
with Part 58.13 monitoring frequency requirements and produces
75 percent data capture in each calendar quarter.
5. Can you use more than 3 years of data?
Yes, more than 3 years of data may be used. This is permitted by
the regulation provided that the additional years of data are repre-
sensitive of current conditions and that all additional years are
used. This is stated in Appendix K to Part 50.
6. What would happen if one of the attainment evaluation years does not
have 75 percent data capture?
The test for attainment requires 3 calendar years of data. If one
of the most recent 3 years of monitoring data does not satisfy the
minimum 75 percent data capture for at least one calendar quarter,
then this year cannot be used to test for attainment with the standards,
If an attainment demonstration is desired, then (a) make use of the
guideline on exceptions to minimum data completeness to "fix" the
18
-------
incomplete year, or (b) use additional prior calendar years of
data to come up with the required 3 complete calendar years. Appendix K
permits the use of more than 3 years provided that they are representative
and that all such years of data are utilized.
If one of the last 3 years which does not satisfy the 75 percent data
capture requirement has exceedances of the 24-hour standard, however,
these exceedances cannot be ignored in the estimate of the expected
number of exceedances. At an absolute minimum, the observed number of
exceedances for the calendar quarter would be considered in the
computation of the estimate of the expected number of exceedances.
Adjustment for incomplete sampling could still be considered, but must
be considered cautiously in this situation, because the annual number
of estimated exceedances could be overestimated with insufficient data.
Adjustment for incomplete sampling must be permitted even without
75 percent data capture so that there is no incentive to terminate
sampling in a quarter with an observed exceedance to avoid a large
number of estimated exceedances.
Similarly, the average for a calendar quarter which does not satisfy
the 75 percent data capture requirement could also be considered in
the computation of the 3-yaar annual arithmetic mean. In this way,
a quarter with high PMio concentrations and less than 75 percent
•data capture is not necessarily ignored. The use of averages based
on incomplete data must also be used very cautiously because of the
potential for biased estimates. Appendix K indicates that one-half
the minimum detectable concentration (one-half ug/m3) can be substi-
tuted for the missing values in order to judge nonattainment. Other
"reasonable" approaches could also be considered. For example, if
the temporal distribution of available observations within the
quarter is balanced and at least 12 observations are available, then
a quarterly mean can be computed from the available data for attainment
or nonattainment purposes. The observations can be considered
temporally balanced if no less than 20 percent of the total number
of quarterly observations are in any single month.
7. Can data from incomplete years be ignored in the attainment determination?
Data from incomplete years can only be ignored if the PM^g concentrations
from those incomplete quarters or years indicate attainment. Those
incomplete periods cannot be ignored if they indicate potential
nonattainment.
8. How will a variable monitoring frequency affect the attainment
determination?
The variable monitoring frequency can affect the minimum data
completeness requirements specified in Appendix K. Those requirements
indicate that the site must produce 75 percent data capture and must be
19
-------
sampled according to the frequency specified .in Part 58.13 of the
monitoring regulations. This may be once in 6 days, every other day
or every day. If the site is sampling at a frequency less than that
required by Part 58.13, then the site does not satisfy the minimum data
completeness requirements and cannot be used to measure attainment with
the standards.
If a site does sample at the correct frequency and produces the
required 75 percent data capture, the missing data periods among the
scheduled samples may not be intentional. It would not be acceptable,
for example, to only sample on weekdays in order to capture 75 percent
of the possible samples.
9. In adjusting for trends in particulate matter emission and air
quality data would we differentiate between: (2, 2, 0), (2, 2,
2), (0. 1. 2) exceedances per year over the last 3 years?
The adjustment for trends is only permitted if the most current year
indicates attainment with the standards. Therefore, only the first
example cited (2, 2, 0), would qualify for consideration for trends
adjustment. In addition, the justification for trends adjustment is
not merely the appearance of a trend in observed air quality during the
last 3 years. Rather, it is based on a documented trend in the
underlying emissions during this period.
The adjustment for trends is not intended for situations in which
emissions have increased and the average of the last 3 years of
monitoring data do not indicate nonattainment. Thus, the case (0, 1,
2) with a corresponding increase of emissions during this period could
not be adjusted for the emission trend to indicate nonattainment.
10. Can data be combined among sampling sites?
In general, you cannot mix data from more than one monitoring site
for attainment/nonattainment demonstration or estimation of design
values, regardless of the similarity of the sources that are affecting
the sites. However, there may be special situations where this may be
justified and data can be combined among consecutive time periods
(e.g., because of a minor movement of an instrument). Such instances
would have to be clearly documented to justify this special treatment
of these data.
In a situation in which a number of districts are suffering from
similar emission problems, the data from monitors in these districts
cannot generally be combined. However, a single monitoring area can be
defined which includes all such districts. In this way, one site can
be designated as the worst site in the multidistrict area and only
this site would be required to monitor at a frequency greater than once
every 6 days.
20
-------
11. If you exceed the 24-hour and annual standards, which one is controlling?
By definition, the "controlling" standard is the standard which
requires more emission control in order to be attained. Furthermore,
when this standard is attained, then the other standard will also be
attained. In the simplest case, where emission reductions are directly
proportional to air quality improvement and the background is assumed
to be zero (or negligible), the standard with the highest ratio of its
design value to the level of the corresponding standard is the
controlling standard. This is the case that is assumed in Part 58.13
where the 24-hour standard is said to be controlling if it has the
largest ratio.
Normally, the annual and 24-hour design values would be reevaluated
from current air quality data for each site in the monitoring area
during the annual network review and used to define sampling require-
ments. However, dispersion modeling may be used to reassess PM^o
design values and corresponding sampling requirements.
If it is determined by modeling that emission reductions are not
directly proportional to air quality improvement, then modeling derived
estimates could indicate a different control li/ig standard. For
example, the annual standard may be the "controlling" standard even
though the 24-hour standard at monitoring locations has the larger
ratio of its design value to the standard level.
If the modeling results regarding a controlling annual standard and
the.corresponding control strategy are deemed valid for the current
year during the annual network review, then 1 in 6-day sampling may
be utilized at the designated worst site; selective sampling require-
ments for 24-hour controlling standards based on observed monitoring
data may be waived. Nevertheless, the occurrence of high 24-hour
design values estimated from monitoring data should be considered in
the SIP tracking and the reassessment of the existing control
strategy to make sure that the SIP strategy is still valid and that
underlying conditions have not shifted towards a controlling 24-hour
standard.
12. How do you use a 24-hour design value that was extrapolated from
observed data?
A 24-hour design value is extrapolated from observed data when less
than 1 complete year of data ar*e available (i.e., 365 observations).
The extrapolated design value must be used to determine whether the
24-hour or the annual standard is controlling, for the purposes of
defining monitoring requirements. The extrapolated design value is
also used in the development of the control strategy.
21
-------
If a dispersion model is. used in the control strategy development,
the model'derived design value is the preferred design value. In this
case, the extrapolated 24-hour design value from ambient data would
be used in the model evaluation. The model should be compared to
statistically extrapolated values as well as observed data if the
number of 24-hour observations represent less than 1 complete year
of data.
Receptor models make use of the chemical composition of actual PMio
samples. If a receptor model is used, then obviously, the receptor
model cannot make comparisons to a hypothetical sampling day which was
not observed. The receptor model would focus on the highest day(s) to
determine the emission contributions to the peak PM^g values. The
extrapolated design value in this case would be used to determine the
extent of emission reduction that may be needed for these sources. The
extrapolated design value indicates the PMio concentration that might
have been observed if sampling was performed every day. An assumption
is made that the same sources would contribute to the PMio
concentration predicted by the statistical extrapolation.
If dispersion or receptor models are not applicable, then the design
value derived from ambient air quality data must be used to define
emission reductions. If the data are incomplete (i.e., < 365
observations), then a design value based on observed data must be viewed
as tentative and subject to revision. The extrapolated design value
can be used to estimate emission reductions that may be needed.
13. Do you have to extrapolate to get your design value when you have
less than everyday sampling?
The SIP guideline describes several methods for estimating design
values. One of these is table look-up which does not involve extra-
polation. Since the regulation does not specify the design value
estimation procedure and only provides references for consideration,
extrapolation is not required. However, the SIP guideline does
state that for the purposes of determining the controlling standard
(annual or 24-hour), extrapolation must be considered.
14. Why did you use the upper 10 percent of data to estimate the 24-hour
design value?
Procedures described in the SIP guideline for estimating the 24-hour
design value only depend on the highest values in an air quality
data set. The table look-up procedure may only utilize the highest
value observed in the last 3 years. The procedures that involve the
use of statistical distributions or graphical estimation only utilize
the upper tail of the data. The highest values could be caused by a
different set of source receptor relationships and meteorological
conditions. Common practice is to consider the top 5-10 percent of
the data.
22
-------
HONITORlRG-SCHEDULES-AND TREATMENT-OF'EXC EEOANCESf
1. How do you handle a change of sampling schedule in the middle of a
quarter?
If the sampling schedule changes In the middle of a calendar
quarter, the calculations for the quarterly mean and the estimated
number of exceedances are performed on the basis of the total number of
observations recorded for the quarter, regardless of the sampling
schedule(s) involved. In Appendix K to Part 50, the calculation of the
annual mean and the adjustment for incompleteness of sampling do not
consider the month in which the samples were recorded.
The change in sampling schedule may be important, however, for
determining if the site is sampling at the correct sampling frequency
in accordance with Part 58.13. The monitoring requirements are always
described in terms of calendar quarters. Therefore, the minimum
frequency reported for the quarter is the frequency with which the
monitoring requirements are compared.
2. What site should be selected to sample on an accelerated schedule
within a monitoring area"?
The regulations specify that for some areas at least one site must
monitor every day or every other day and that this site must be located
in the "area of expected maximum concentration." A variety of
considerations for site selection are discussed in Part 58.13 of the
new monitoring regulations including: the magnitude of the high value
observed in the most current year, changes in PM^o emission sources and
the use of the last 3 years of data for network stability. Ideally,
when the selected site is in attainment with the PM standards, the
entire monitoring area will also be in attainment. The selected site
will be called the "designated worst site."
3. If a site is in the long-term monitoring plan, when does it adjust
its sampling frequency?
At the time of the annual network review, the annual and 24-hour
design values are recomputed. One site is designated the worst site
and its sampling frequency is determined in accordance with the
selective sampling requirements. The new sampling frequency must be
initiated on or before the beginning of the next calendar year. It is
advantageous, however, to track air quality data on a real-time basis
and not wait for the midyear network review. This can keep sampling
schedules more consistent with current air quality status.
23
-------
Air-quality data, reported to EPA, is summarized by calendar quarter
and calendar year. The sampling frequency used to produce the data
must also be reported, as well as the dates of any changes in sampling
frequency. The minimum reported frequency will define the frequency
for the quarter. This value will be used to judge if minimum sampling
frequency requirements have been satisfied. Since Part 58 requirements
are stated in terms of calendar quarters, and Appendix formulas are
computed in terms of calendar quarters, it is desirable to start
new schedules at the beginning of a calendar quarter.
When is the short-term sampling period completed?
The short-term sampling requirements of Part 58 define the first
year of monitoring for the site designated as the worst site in the
monitoring area. In Group I and Group II areas, the sampling frequency
at the designated worst monitor for the first year of monitoring shall
be every day and every other day, respectively. In addition, everyday
sampling for 4 consecutive calendar quarters is required in Group II
and Group III areas that observe a single exceedance of the 24-hour
standard. Acceleration to everyday sampling following an observed
first exceedance is part of the short-term plan.
A definition of an equivalent year is also provided, whereby 2 or
3 years of data produced at lower sampling frequencies could satisfy
the first year requirement. If more than 1 year of data are used
to. satisfy the short-term sampling requirement, these data shall
only count as 1 year towards the required 3 years of "valid" data.
When the designated worst site satisfies the short-term requirements,
the entire monitoring area satisfies the short-term, "first year"
requirement.
5. How are data collected prior to promulgation judged to be consistent
with the short-term and long-term sampling requirements!
If more than 1 year of PMiQ data were collected prior to promulgation,
then some of these data could be used to satisfy the short-term,
"first year" requirement and the remaining data could be used to
satisfy 1 or more years of long-term monitoring. The short-term
requirements depend on the area grouping and the occurrence of any
exceedances of the 24-hour standard for Group II and Group III areas.
Once the short-term requirement is satisfied, the long-term sampling
requirement depends on the controlling standard and the relative
level to the 24-hour standard if it is controlling. If the annual
standard is judged to be controlling in a Group II or Group III
area, then 1 or more prior years of data collected every sixth day
would be sufficient to satisfy the long-term sampling requirements.
However, if it is determined that the 24-hour standard is controlling,
24
-------
then the adequacy of the frequency of the prior sampling depends on the
relative level to the 24-hour standard. This only applies to the
designated worst site in the monitoring area. In principle, this
determination should be made for the year in which the data were
collected, but due to practical constraints, this determination can be
made on the basis of the current assessment of PMjQ air quality status.
If, for example it is determined that the 24-hour standard is
controlling and the designated worst site is 30 percent above the level
of this standard, i.e., design value equals 195 ug/m3, then every other
day sampling would be required according to Part 58.13.
6. Short-term monitoring plan: Is more than one monitoring site required
to increase its sampling to everyday for 1 year if an exceedance is
observed at multiple sites during the same calendar quarter?
Only one site is required to increase its sampling to everyday
following the first observed exceedance. If several sites observe a
single exceedance in the same calendar quarter, one site is designated
the worst site and this site would be expected to increase to everyday
sampling within 90 days following the end of this calendar quarter.
The selection of the worst site will be based on observed concentrations
as well as other considerations regarding knowledge about emissions
and meteorology.
7. Short-term monitoring plan: How is the first exceedance treated at
aTsite, if another site in the monitoring area is already sampling
everyday (or planning to) in accordance to Part 58.13?
By policy, EPA shall exempt the first observed exceedance at all
sites in a monitoring area from adjustment for incomplete sampling in
the exceedance calculations, if one site, the designated worst site,
goes to everyday sampling for 1 year. The monitoring agency may
choose to increase the sampling at additional sites if it feels that
these sites are potential nonattainment sites, reflecting different
emission sources or source receptor relationships.
8. Short-term monitoring plan: How is the second observed exceedance
Treated in a monitoring area, prior to the initiation of everyday
sampling at the designated worst site?
When a second exceedance occurs at the designated worst site or if a
second exceedance occurs at any other site prior to the initiation of
everyday sampling in the monitoring area, then this exceedance (and
subsequent exceedances) would be adjusted for incompleteness of
sampling.
25
-------
Exceedances are adjusted for incompleteness of sampling on a
quarterly basis, using the total number of samples in the quarter. The
second exceedance is estimated using the total number of observations
(minus one observed sample for the first observed exceedance).
9. Short-term monitoring plan: During the period of everyday sampling
following the first observed exceedance, how are exceedances
Tnterpreted which are observed at sites sampling less than everyday?
When the designated worst site is sampling everyday, other sites
sampling less frequently may measure exceedances of the 24-hour
standard. Except for the first observed exceedance, all exceedances at
all sites are adjusted for incompleteness of sampling. If a site which
is sampling less than everyday observes an exceedance, then the
exceedance will be adjusted for incompleteness of sampling. However,
if the designated worst site observes a higher value on the same day,
then designated worst site will continue to be used to assess
attainment/nonattainment, regardless of the estimated number of
exceedances at the other sites. If the designated worst site records a
lower value on the same exceedance day, then the site recording a
higher value must go to everyday sampling to avoid adjustment for
incomplete sampling. The designated worst site would be expected to
continue its current sampling schedule until the time of the next
annual network review. At this point, one or more of these sites could
be identified for accelerated sampling.
10. Long-term monitoring plan: How'are exceedances interpreted at
TTtes which are sampling less than the designated worst site?"
As described above, the designated worst site will be used to assess
attainment/nonattainment if it observes higher concentrations on days
with exceedances at other sites.
11. Long-term monitoring plan: How is the first exceedance interpreted?
If the first exceedance occurs in the long-term plan (even if
another site in the monitoring area previously observed an exceedance
and increased its sampling to everyday) then an increase to everyday
sampling must be initiated. This is not necessary if the designated
worst site previously recorded an exceedance and currently records a
higher concentration on the same sampling day. If multiple sites
record an exceedance on this day, then only one site is required to
accelerate its sampling. The'acceleration to everyday sampling will
avoid the adjustment for incompleteness of sampling in the exceedance
calculations for this first exceedance and help to determine if this
site should be the new designated worst site. Since the monitoring is
in the long-term phase, however, the evaluation of revised sampling
frequencies would take place during the annual network review and the
change in sampling frequency can commence at the beginning of the
following calendar year.
26
-------
Everyday sampling must be followed for 1 year, even if it is
determined that the selective sampling requirements do not require it
on the basis of the estimated design value.
12. If an area designated Group II or Group III observed its first
exceedance and wants that exceedance to count as one in future
"exceedance calculations, does it have to initiate everyday sampling
in its first year of monitoring?
If the exceedance occurred after promulgation, the area must satisfy
the Part 58.13 requirements for 4 calendar quarters of everyday
sampling following the first observed exceedance, in order to permit
the first exceedance to count as one in the exceedance calculations.
If the first exceedance at the site occurred prior to the promulgation
date, however, the site will be exempt from the additional everyday
sampling requirement. This is consistent with the policy used for
the area grouping process, where the first observed exceedance was
not adjusted for incompleteness of sampling at all sites.
If an area observes its first exceedance after the promulgation and
does not initiate the required everyday sampling, the exceedance
shall be adjusted for incompleteness of sampling. On this basis,
the site could fail the attainment test for the 24-hour standard.
If this site is in a Group III area, then EPA could call for a SIP
revision.
13. Is there a problem with having more than one monitor in a given
source area?
In single (or multiple) source situations, multiple high concentration
areas are likely. The number of monitors needed to cover all such
areas, and to provide sufficient spatial resolution within each
area, will depend on professional judgment and the available resources.
It should be recognized that difference in sample frequency (and
subsequent adjustment for incomplete sampling) may complete the
attainment/nonattainment status. Thus, in a case where more than
one site is placed in areas of expected maximum concentration,
either all sites should be sampling at the accelerated schedule, or
only one site should be part of the SLAMS with the others designated
special purpose monitors. If it is determined that each such site
is affected by different emissions or meteorology, then it may be
appropriate to designate each site as the maximum concentration site
in its own monitoring area.
27
-------
MONITORING DEADLINES
1. How do the monitoring deadlines relate to the attainment dates for
Group II areas?
Technically, the SLAMS networks do not have to be in place and
operational until August 1, 1988. Therefore these areas are not
required to have any PMiQ data prior to this point. On this basis,
3 years of PMio data might not be available until July 31, 1991.
According to the SIP guideline, however, Group II areas are required
to determine if they are attainment or nonattainment by September 1,
1990 (37 months from the effective date of the regulation). Thus,
if a Group II area wants to be considered to be in attainment with
the standards, it must have its worst monitoring site to be producing
data by August 1, 1987. This provides 3 years for data collection
and 1 month for analysis. If monitoring was not initiated by August 1,
then 3 years of data will not be available by the required date. In
order for attainment to be demonstrated in this situation, a Regional
Administrator waiver for not satisfying the minimum data completeness
requirements must be granted (in accordance with the EPA Guideline
on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of the
Particulate Matter Standards, April 1987) or dispersion modeling
must be performed. Otherwise, the area cannot be considered to be
in attainment with the standards.
Since nonattainment can be determined in less than 3 years, this
determination can be made at any time. PM^Q data collected prior to
promulgation shall be used to judge nonattainment with the standards.
28
-------
DEVELOPMENT PLANS/SIP PROCESSING
1. What is EPA's timeframe for SIP processing?
The EPA's policy is to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking within
7 months after a complete SIP or SIP revision is submitted. A notice
of final rulemaking would be published within 7 more months.
2. What is the outside attainment date?
Three years from SIP approval, unless a 2-year extension is justified.
We know that some areas may not be able to attain in that timeframe.
See question 7 on page 42.
3. How does a State set a compliance date when EPA approval date is
indeterminant?
Source compliance dates must be within 3 years of SIP approval. The
SIP could be approved within 14 months of its submission to EPA.
The time between State adoption of the SIP and EPA approval may be
reduced by parallel processing during the period of public review
and comment.
4. Can States expect feedback from EPA when they complete the milestones
in their development plans (i.e., emission, inventory draft control
strategies, etc.)1
The States are encouraged to work closely with their EPA Regional
Offices and submit drafts of emission inventories, emission factors,
model protocol, regulations for review. The EPA will give as much
feedback as time permits; the State is not to stop progress while
waiting for comments, however.
5. Do all SIP actions require a public hearing?
Yes, since each State must revise their SIP for Group III areas
and since the Group II commitments will be incorporated into the
SIP, all such revisions and additions should be included in a public
hearing.
6. (a) Why is August 1990 the deadline for PMiQ determinations of
attainment status?
The EPA is allowing up to 37 months to determine attainment status.
(b) Does a State have to wait 37 months before it declares an area
to be nonattainment if a violation of the PMiQ standard is observed?
No, see "the SIP guideline, section 7.3.2.(3).
29
-------
7. What is the attainment date for Group II areas which observe violations?
Three years from approval of the committal SIP.
8. What demonstration of need is necessary for a 2-year extension of the
attainment dead!Ine?
See SIP guideline supplement, section 7.3.6.
9. Is it possible to request a 2-year extension after you submit the
initial SIP (including committal SiP's) to EPA?
No, see SIP guideline supplement, section 7.3.6.
10. Whose, resources will be used to analyze the ambient air sampling
filters?
The State's resources which are supplemented by EPA grant funds.
30
-------
ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
1. Why must an area demonstrate attainment based upon allowable
emissions? ' "
A SIP is to protect the NAAQS at all times. Therefore, it is
necessary to demonstrate that the SIP will protect the NAAQS when
sources are emitting PM^g at the maximum rates allowed. See SIP
guideline, section 7.4.1.
2. What type of demonstration is required for a Group II or III area?
See SIP guideline, section 7.3.2. No demonstration is required for
Group III areas.
3. If a facility emits more than 50 tpy, must it be considered in the plan?
See SIP guideline supplement, section 5.
4. Are sul fates fair game for controls?
Yes, if a State needs to reduce the precursors of sul fate formation
in the atmosphere, they have that prerogative. The State must work
with EPA to develop a procedure for projecting the ambient effect of
this control strategy.
5. How man ears are required in extending projections?
The SIP's should take into account the effect on PM^Q emissions of future
growth for 10 to 20 years into the future [see 40 CFR 51.110(h) and
6. Will EPA consider a several year control strategy for secondary
aerosol problems?
If an area cannot attain the PMiQ standards because of secondary
particle formation, the area may be able to justify an extension
under section 110(e). In addition, EPA is evaluating a policy on
long-term nonattainment.
Maximum allowable emission modeling will never show attainment and
does not reflect reality and it may be impossible to adopt control
measures. Actual emissions are, significantly less than maximum
TTlowable emissions. (Example: natural gas versus oil in power
plants.)
If boilers actually emit 0.001 Ib PMig/mmBtu but are allowed to emit
0.3 Ib PMio/mmBtu by permit, the SIP must be designed to protect the NAAQS
when boilers are emitting 0.3 Ib/mmBtu. If boilers do not need to
emit 0.3 Ib/mmBtu allowable in the future, then the limit should be
lowered. See SIP guideline supplement 7.4.1.
31
-------
8. Comment: In some States, there are a large number of sources with old
permits. It Is not reasonable to use allowable limits".
See section 7.4.1.' A screening model should be used to identify
significant point sources for which allowable emission limits must be
used. Areas sources do not really have allowable emission limits that
are above the controlled level.
9. Are seasonal controls legal ^6.9., burn natural gas in winter and
coal in summer?
Generally, control measures must be applied year-round (especially
those applicable to combustion sources) to continually meet the
applicable emission limit. However, it may be necessary for a Stats
to develop separate control strategies to solve different seasonal
PMio problems. In such cases, the seasonal control strategies must
have seasonally enforceable emission limits and separate demonstrations,
of attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS. The abilities of the seasonal
control strategies to attain the annual PMig NAAQS must also be
demonstrated using the highest seasonal allowable emission rates or
an average annual rate (see SIP guideline supplement, section 7.4.1).
10. What are the general SIP requirements for Group III areas?
See SIP guideline, section 7.3 and supplement, section 7.4.3.
11. How does one define the boundary of a Group I or II area?
See SIP guideline, section 2.5.
32
-------
TRANSITION POLICY
1. When can redes Ignati on of TSP nonattainment area request be submitted?
States can request area redesi gnat ion from TSP nonattainment to
attainment if the area has sufficient data to make the demonstration
under EPA's previous policy. Otherwise, a State can request redesig-
nation to unclassifiable when it submits its PM^o SIP for the area
(see 52 FR 24682).
2. Will EPA permit a State to relax its emissions from reasonably
available control technology (RACT) to actual emission levels?'
Yes, consistent with SIP guideline supplement, section 7.5.
3. What is to be done about States with TSP SIP's which are disapproved
under section 110?
The State should focus on developing approvable PMio SIP's. However,
it is likely that the elements of the TSP SIP that were disapproved
will be needed for the PMio SIP.
4. To what extent should enforcement actions during the transition period
be focused on for control of
See SIP guideline supplement, section 7.5.
5. What happens to SIP's in process?
See SIP guideline supplement, section 7.5.
33
-------
STACK TEST
1. Does EPA plan to promulgate an emission test method for PMm?
What Is EPA's' "plan for test methods for condensibles and secondary
part leu late?
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the reference method was
published April 8, 1988 (see 53 FR 11683).
3. The EPA uses a modified Method 5 to test wood stoves. It collects
the back half of the train (condensibles). Why can't this be used
for PMio condensibles?
The modified Method 5 is designed to measure volatile materials
generated from combustion of wood. It does not necessarily represent
PM at atmospheric conditions.
4. How can the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) probe be placed in the
stack— too big for the port?
The EGR probe requires a minimum 4-inch port.
5. If you do not have good PMip emission factors, can a State use a
Method 5 emission test and assume the emissions are all PMjQ?
The EPA would suggest following the test procedure described in
Appendix C of the SIP guideline to determine the PMio portion of the
emission gas stream. Use of Method 5 emission test method will provide
an overestimate of the emissions.
34
-------
EMISSION LIMITS/CONTROL STRATEGIES
1. How does a State quantify the emissions during startup/shutdown/
malfunctions?
The point of the provisions for addressing startups, etc., was not
that the State must quantify emissions from these periods, rather
that the State regulations be designed as discussed in section 7.4.
2. If emissions are mostly (e.g.. 70 percent) PMlQ, do the the PM
limits have to be revised to be PMio limits?
No, not if the SIP can attain the NAAQS without doing so.
3. Will a State in the next 5 years have PMip, TSP, and visible emission
(V.E.) limits for a source?
V.E. limits are required by 40 CFR 51.212(b), and TSP or PMio limits
will be necessary to restrict the mass emission rate from a source.
The combination of these emission limits must protect the PMio NAAQS
and restrict consumption of TSP increments under the program to prevent
significant deterioration.
4. What is the most effective way of cleaning streets? The Midwest
Research Institute report was inconclusive.
The most effective way is to prevent material from depositing on
street surfaces. Additional guidance is forthcoming in a project
being conducted by EPA.
5. Does EPA have a list of RACT that can be used to evaluate the control
strategies?
No. However, EPA can help in providing references on available control
measures.
6. How current is the MRI report on control of fugitive emissions?
The report includes references through spring, 1984. Some update will
be provided through the above mentioned EPA fugitive dust project.
7. The EPA needs a clearinghouse on control strategies.
The EPA has a clearinghouse on control techniques and will act as a
focal point for control strategies.
8. When must the State start enforcing the new emission limits?
As soon as possible so attainment can be as expeditious as possible.
35
-------
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
1. How do we handle violations of the PMiQ standards caused by emissions
from a foreign country?
These situations are investigated and resolved case-by-case.
2. What is the interrelationship between air toxic and PMiQ controls?
See supplement to SIP guideline, section 9. In general, PM^o control
strategies should attempt to maximize control of air toxics.
3. If a violation in a Group II or III area is modeled (e.g., as part
oFan NSR analysis), does the area have to develop a full demonstration
SIP revisions have not been required for Group II and III areas because
EPA does not have evidence that the NAAQS is being violated or that
the SIP is inadequate. If modeling for any reason shows that the SIP
is inadequate to protect the PMiQ NAAQS, a SIP revision and demonstration
of attainment is required.
4. The EPA should correlate opacity limits for roadways with emission
reductions needed for high, medium, and low silt loadings.
The EPA Region V is attempting to develop this in studies in Ohio
and Indiana.
5. Is there a general requirement that Group III areas must meet RACT?
No, it is being assumed that the existing emission limits are adequate
until EPA receives evidence to the contrary.
6. Does EPA expect more sources to be controlled as a result of
implementation? Will there be an improvement in air quality?
Most of the areas not meeting the PMiQ NAAQS were also not meeting the
TSP NAAQS. Therefore, sources must be controlled and the ambient PM
concentration reduced to attain the PM].o NAAQS.
7. What Is an adequate demonstration for maintenance?
The SIP should show that the standard will be maintained for the next
10 to 20 years. [51.42, 51.110(h), 51.110(K) (4)]
8. Are Part D transportation control measures (TCM's) applicable to
section 110 requirements'?
TCM's implemented to attain the TSP NAAQS must continue to be enforced
until it is demonstrated that they are not necessary to attain and
maintain PM^g NAAQS. If TCM's have not been adopted, they are optional.
36
-------
9. Does EPA have discretion to revise the SIP once the State submits It?
The EPA cannot and will not revise a SIP as long as it is approvable
and will attain the NAAQS. If the State fails to submit an approvable
SIP, EPA may have to promulgate a Federal' plan.
37
-------
INTERIM RURAL FUGITIVE DUST POLICY
1. If an area is impacted by seasonal fugitive dust and is not attaining
the PMio7 standard In other seasons due to other sources, does the ""
source have to reduce emissions from those other sources?
Yes, see SIP guideline supplement section 7.4.
2. Is EPA developing a rural fugitive dust (RFD) policy?
Yes, the policy was proposed in 52 FR 24716. In the interim, the
policy for TSP is being used. See SIP guideline, section 7.11. An area
designated under the interim policy must comply with the final policy
if an when it is revised.
3. If a Group I area meets the definition of a rural fugitive dust area
(RFDA), why is "it in Group I?
Areas are only considered RFDA's if there is evidence that RFD is the
primary cause of violations and the area has low population and little
impact from industrial sources or wood smoke.
4. If the violations are caused by wood burning, is that rural fugitive
dusT?
No, see the answer to question 3.
5. If offsets are required in an RFDA, do they have to be fugitive or
stack emissions?
Either.
6. How is wood smoke considered when determining if an area is RFDA?
Currently, it is being addressed on a case-by-case "basis. It will
be addressed in the final RFD policy.
7. What is normal background?
The average PMiQ concentration measured at a remote regional scale
monitoring site. See Appendix D of the SIP guideline.
8. Where are the rural fugitive dust areas presently designated under
New Mexico, Kansas, and Nebraska.
38
-------
9. What-are the requirements for RFDA?
Those areas that meet the requirements of an RFD area are placed in
Group III and are subject to Group III SIP requirements.
10. Can additional areas be classified as RFDA's and if so when?
Yes, if a State requests at any time that the area be classified as
RFDA and can show that it meets the requirements for an RFDA. The
area must also comply with the final policy if and when it is revised.
39
-------
ENFORCEMENT OF PMiQ RULES
1. Can you use V.E. regulations to control emissions from storage piles?
Yes, to enforce control measures such as wet suppression or wind
screens.
2. Does a State have to enforce new emission limits before the attainment
date!
Yes, see SIP guideline supplement section 7.4.
3. Can EPA provide guidance on enforcement of nontraditional controls in
the SIP's?
Additional guidance on fugitive dust controls is being prepared by
EPA. Compliance methodology must be specified in the SIP's.
4. What is required in a Group III area if the SIP is unenforceable?
If EPA knows a PM regulation is unenforceable, the State will be
required to revise the regulation to make it enforceable.
40
-------
SIP DISAPPROVAL/SANCTION POLICY
1. Can withheld State Grant Funds be used to pay EPA salaries or contractors?
-Withheld funds can be used to pay for contractor (not EPA salaries) to
prepare El, modeling, etc.
2. How can EPA use section 176(b) as a sanction if Part D no longer applies?
Section 176(b) states that "[if the State] is not implementing any
requirement . . . under section 110 . . . the Administrator shall not
make any grants under this Act."
3. Hill sanctions result from only a State failure to submit a plan or
wTll EPA sanction a State for missing development plan milestones?
What authority does EPA have to impose sanctions before 9 months?
The EPA's policy on failure to attain is being developed. However,
EPA does not intend to impose sanctions for failing to meet a milestone
in a schedule to develop and implement a SIP, but the State's record
in meeting milestones will be a factor in determining when sanctions
will be imposed.
4. Can EPA use sewage facility sanctions under section 316 of the Act?
The EPA can condition or withhold grants for construction of new
treatment works if new sewage treatment capacity'would be created
that may cause or contribute to an increase in PM]_o emissions in
excess of those planned for the SIP. • However, under a separate policy,
EPA has limited construction grants only to address existing needs.
Thus, these sanctions have little value.
5. If there is a State/local consolidated grant and the local submits a
proper SIP but the State is recalcitrant, can the sanctions be applied
against the State part and not the local part of this grant?
If Federal grant funds are given directly to the local agency, this
will continue if the agency is meeting EPA requirements. Sanctions on
funds that are passed through the State agency depend on regulations
between the State and local agency.
6. Are specific funds being set aside in the grants for PMm SIP
development?
The EPA identified $2 million of its section 105 grant funds in 1986
and 1987 for use in development of PM^o SIP's. In 1988, between $1
million and $2 million were again designated for use in preparing
SIP's.
41
-------
7. If PMio SIP is nonapprovable and cannot demonstrate attainment in
3 to 5 years, what do they do? Do sanctions apply only for failure
to submit a SIP?
The EPA's policy on failure to attain is being developed.
42
-------
EMERGENCY EPISODE PLANS
1. Regarding priority classifications, is it true that we do not look at
annual geometric mean for PMm? Are classifications revised from
those of TSP?
The EPA has not revised the criteria for classification of Regions
for emergency episode plans with regard to participate matter under
40 CFR 51.150. States would be wise to reevaluate their priority
classifications as required by 40 CFR 51.153 to determine if Group I
and Group II areas for PMio should have emergency episode plans.
2. Can you use emergency episode strategy as part of your control
strategy!
No, the emergency episode strategy is designed to achieve extra
temporary emission reductions beyond those needed under normal
meteorological conditions.
3. What emergency powers do States have to shut down industries during
hTrmful episodes?
The State, in adopting an emergency episode plan, is giving the State
. agency authority to order emission reductions for the purpose of
avoiding PM concentrations at significant harm levels.
43
-------
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
1. Vlill the full TSP Increment be available after a TSP nonattalnment
area is redesignated to unclassiflabfel
The applicable baseline date would be established on the date of the
first complete prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) application
(for participate matter emissions) which is submitted on or after
the date when the area is designated as unclassifiable for TSP. The
full increment may not be available, however, in cases where actual
emission increases in the baseline area have occurred from major
stationary sources on which construction commenced after January 6,
1975. Conversely, expansion of the allowable TSP increment may have
to be taken into account if actual emission reductions (from major
sources) occur prior to the baseline date. Actual emission decreases
involving construction at a major stationary source occurring since
January 6, 1975 will expand the increment if such decreases are
included in a federally enforceable permit or SIP.
2. What is the rationale for maintaining the section 107 area designations
for TSP when there are no longer TSP NAAQS?'.
The TSP area designations have been retained because of their direct
relationship to the applicability of the statutory Class II (and III)
increments for particulate matter. (The EPA intends to keep the
existing TSP increments in force until States have adopted new PMiQ
increments in their SIP's.) Under section 162(b) of the Act, areas
designated as attainment or unclassifiable are defined as Class II
areas (unless otherwise established as Class I areas or redesignated
under section 164). The EPA believes that this provision applies on
a pollutant basis so that the Class II TSP increments under
section 163(b)(Z) apply only in Class II TSP areas, i.e., TSP
attainment or unclassifiable areas.
It should be noted that EPA intends to allow States to redesignate
any existing TSP nonattainment areas to unclassifiable once a revised
implementation plan providing for adequate protection of the
NAAQS is approved by EPA.
-------
3. Why are there increments in an area that is nohattainment for PMio?
The reason that EPA has required a PSD increment analysis in an area
that is "nonattainment" for PMio is because the existing increments
for particulate matter, defined under section 163 of the Act, are based
on ambient concentrations of TSP. The significance of this is that
EPA, in accordance with its interpretation of applicable portions of the
Act, has ruled that the Class II and III TSP increments must continue
to apply in areas designated as either attainment or unclassifiable
for TSP. As explained in the previous response (to Question 2), the.
Class II (TSP) increments are to apply in areas designated as attainment
or unclassifiable for TSP.
While the TSP increments will continue to apply for several years
(approximately September 1991), PSD sources which would not cause
violations of the TSP increments, but would cause or contribute to
violations of the PMio NAAQS, would not be allowed to proceed with their
construction plans, unless the appropriate PMjQ emission offsets were
acquired and approved by the permit granting authority.
4. VJhat triggers new source review (NSR)—TSP or PMiQ?
Either TSP or PMio may trigger NSR. Generally speaking, however, it
would be more accurate to think of NSR being triggered by either
particulate matter emissions or PMio emissions. TSP and PMio are
ambient indicators of the pollutant particulate matter. NSR require-
ments are generally triggered by significant' amounts of a pollutant
which potentially could be emitted by a new or modified source. In
the case of particulate matter, significant amounts of either particulate
matter emissions or PMio emissions, or both, would require that certain
NSR requirements must be addressed. For example, if a major source
would emit significant amounts of particulate matter emissions, best
available control technology (BACT) and an increment analysis for TSP
would be required. If, however, particulate matter emissions would
not be emitted in significant amounts, but PMio emissions would (as in
the case of a source that could take credit for contemporaneous
emission decreases of particulate matter emissions but still finds
that its potential emissions of PMio are significant), then the source
would be required to apply BACT and comply with the PMio NAAQS. If both
forms of particulate matter would be emitted in significant amounts,
then, of course, all of the above mentioned requirements would apply.
5. If a PMiQ NAAQS violation is found in a Group III area, would a
PSD review be required for PMio?
Yes, since the PSD requirements for PMiQ apply everywhere (from a
geographic applicability standpoint), PSD review would be required
regardless of the PMio grouping or air quality status relative to the
45
-------
NAAQS. In such instances, where a proposed major source or major
modification would cause or contribute to a PMio NAAQS violation, the
PSD requirements would have to be augmented by an emission offset
requirement under procedures approved in accordance with 40 CFR 51.166(b).
It should also be noted that, in the event a PMio NAAQS exceedance is
found in a Group III area, EPA intends to require a SIP revision which
must meet the criteria for a Group I area in order to be approvable.
Such revision would have to provide for increased ambient monitoring
activities and a control strategy which provides for attainment of the
PMio NAAQS within 3 years of plan approval. As part of the control
strategy, a State may find it necessary to establish more stringent
NSR requirements than currently exist for such areas. For example, a
State may find it appropriate to establish a requirement that new
major sources in the area meet the lowest achievable emission rates
for their PMig emissions. Similarly, other Part D-based requirements
could be considered as well.
6. What triggers offsets for PMio?
A requirement that a major new or modified source must obtain PMio
emission offsets is triggered by a preconstruction review finding that
such new or modified sources would cause or contribute to a violation
of the PMio NAAQS. States may develop an emission offset program in
accordance with the newly amended requirements under 40 CFR 51.165(b)
for implementing PMio offsets. The EPA has. already ruled that the
nonattainment area offset requirements based on Part D of the Act do
not apply to
7. How are PMio precursors taken into account for emission offsetting
purposes?
The EPA presently has no policy prescribing allowances for PMio precursors
for emission offsetting purposes. No models are yet available to predict
ground level PMio concentrations that would result from precursors.
As mentioned in the PMio preamble to the July 1, 1987 Federal Register
notice (see 52 FR 24707), EPA will review on a case-by-case basis any "
State requests to incorporate in the SIP a provision allowing precursor
offsets for PMiQ where a site specific model may be proposed for such
implementation.
8. When does a PMiQ source have to obtain emission offsets which provide
a net air quality benefit rather than just compensate for its own adverse
impact?
This issue was discussed in the July 1, 1987 Federal Register notice
(see 52 FR 24684 footnote 14 and discussion on 52 FR 24699, column 1).
Basically, a net air quality benefit is required when a proposed major
source or major modification would cause or contribute to a violation
of the PMio NAAQS (or any other NAAQS) in an area lacking an approved
attainment strategy for the particular pollutant.
46
-------
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, no downward trend in
overall emissions has been established; therefore, the proposed source
must provide some air quality improvement to help remedy the existing
ambient problems. Once a downward trend in emissions is established
via an approved attainment demonstration, a new source need only
compensate for its adverse emissions so as not to interfere with the
attainment demonstration.
9. What happens if a State does not have an approved NSR SIP in a TSP
nonattainment area after the construction ban has been liftid?
The EPA considers the provisions of the interpretative rule (Offset Rule)
under 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, to apply in the absence of a construction
ban where a State does not have an approved NSR SIP. Permits issued
by States in accordance with the Offset Rule are considered to be
federally enforceable by EPA.
10. If a State does not have a PSD program for PMip, why doesn't EPA assume
such responsibility?
The EPA assumes immediate responsibility for a PSD program for
only in those cases where EPA also has PSD responsibility (i.e., where
the SIP has been disapproved with respect to PSD). Where States have
an approved PSD program under their SIP, the Act clearly provides
9 months from the promulgation date of regulatory amendments before a
revised plan must be submitted to EPA for approval. This statutory
provision is reflected in the PSD requirements for SIP's under 40 CFR
51.166(a) (6)(i). The EPA has no authority under the Act to promulgate
PSD regulations until a State fails to submit its revised SIP in a
timely manner.
47
-------
"June 7/1988 " .
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Revised Model Clearinghouse Operational Plan
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MD-14)
TO: Chief, Air Branch', Region VII
Chief, Technical Support Branch, Region I
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions II, III, IV, VI, VIII,. IX, X
On February. 9, 1988 I notified you of the expansion of the Model
Clearinghouse to include all criteria pollutants. That memorandum
explained briefly how the expanded Clearinghouse would operate and
identified individuals in the Technical Support Division and in the Air
Quality Management Division who would be involved in resolving Agency
regulatory modeling issues. The memorandum also promised that we would
be revising the 1981 Operational Plan for the Model Clearinghouse to reflect
the current operation. Attached is a copy of that revised plan.
To highlight major functions of the operational plan which you should
become most familiar with, please note the structure of the Clearinghouse
contained in Section 3, particularly Figure 1. Also you should become
familiar with the procedures for referring modeling issues to the
Clearinghouse, described in Section 4. Aopendix B identifies the contacts
in the Regions for various types of modeling problems. Please check over
these lists for accuracy and keep us informed of any changes of these
personnel in your Region.
It should be remembered that the Model Clean nghouse is a service
we provide to the Regional Offices. We do not normally deal directly with
the State/local agencies or with industry since this would compromise our
function as second level reviewers and would interfere with your function.
However we have discussed access by States to Clearinghouse expertise
through the Regional Offices. Where a State wishes such a contact, we
urge your staff to work closely with their State counterparts to establish
a mutally agreed-upon position on the .issue-.
Finally, for purposes of responding to questions from States and local
agencies about the Clearinghouse and its operation, we have no problem if
you wish to furnish them with a copy of this plan. For questions from the
public we would prefer that you instead provide them with a copy of Appendix C,
a separate copy of which is attached. This Appendix is a revised version
of a flyer we have distributed for a number of years at the EPA booth at
the annual APCA meeting.
-------
Summary
The Model Clearinghouse is the single EPA focal point for reviewing the use of
modeling techniques for criteria pollutants in specific regulatory applications.
The Clearinghouse also serves to compile and periodically report for Regional '
Office benefit Agency decisions concerning deviations from the requirements of the
"Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised).'
Need for the Model Clearinghouse
The Guideline states that when a recommended model or data base is not used,
the Regional Administrator may approve the use of other techniques that are demon-
strated to be more appropriate. However, there is also a need to provide for a
mechanism that promotes fairness and consistency in modeling decisions among the
various Regional Offices and the States. The Model Clearinghouse promotes this
fairness and uniformity and also serves as a focal point for technical review of
"nonguideline" techniques proposed for use/approval by a Regional Administrator.
Functions of the Model Clearinghouse
The major function of tne Clearinghouse is to review specific proposed actions
which involve interpretation of modeling guidance, deviations from strict interpre-
tation of such guidance and the use of options in the guidance, e.g., Regional
Office acceptance of nonguideline models and data bases. This is handled in two
ways: (1) the Clearinghouse, on request from the Regional Office, will review the
Region's position on proposed (specific case) use of a nonguideline model for tec.-.-
nical soundness and national consistency, and (2) the Clearinghouse will screen
Federal Register regulatory packages for adherence to modeling policy and make
recommendations for resolution of any issues identified.
A secondary function of the Model Clearinghouse is to communicate to regu-
latory model users in EPA significant decisions involving the interpretation'cf
modeling guidance. This is accomplished through an annual "Clearinghouse Report"
which itemizes the significant decisions that have been made and the circumstances
involved. This report serves to improve consistency in future decisions and as
a source of technical information for the Regional Offices. In addition to the
annual report the Clearinghouse informs users on a contemporary basis of signi-
ficant decisions through copies of written decisions and briefings at various
meetings and workshops.
Structure of the Clearinghouse
The Clearincnouse is formally located in the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(SRAB) of OAQPS. However, the Air Quality Management Division (AQHD) also pam'-
cipates in Clearinghouse matters involving SIP attainment strategies and other
regulatory functions.
The primary responsibility for managing the Clearinghouse and ensuring that
all of its functions are carried out is performed by a person full-time within
SRAB. The responsibility for responding to requests for review of modeling
issues is assigned, on a pollutant/program basis to three SRAB individuals. In
.addition, AQMD supports the Clearinghouse with staff who are also knowledgeable in
modeling policy. These individuals are responsible for screening SIP submitta'ls
and related documents, referring modeling issues to SRAB through the Clearinghouse
and documenting the final (and any significant interim) decision on disposition of
me issues.
Communi cat ion Cha in
The Mooei Clearingnouse functions within the organizational structure of EPA.
As such the Clearinghouse serves the EPA Regional Offices. It coordinates with
and communicates decisions to the Regional Offices. Any coordination with State
and local agencies and individual sources on Clearinghouse activities is a function
of t.w.e EPA Regional Offices.
-------
uuioe ui AMI uudiuy riaiuiuiy auu ouuiuaras
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
07 ,QQO PN 110-88-06-27-095
*~ • I«-/v-/t •
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Grandfathering" of Requi reme^s ^fqr Pending SIP Revisions
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Oirec _,
Office of Air Quality "PTanning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division . . • -
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Recommendations for improving SIP processing generally at EPA were
presented to the Deputy Administrator and approved fully. It is the
intention of the Agency's management that the recommendations be imple-
mented promptly. "This is being done by an Intra-Agency Work Group
composed of Headquarters and Regional Office persons. This memorandum
provides guidance on applying previously applicable standards to pending
SIP revisions where the relevant requirements have changed since the
state prepared the SIP submittal (i.e., "grandfather!ng").
In a number of cases, States have submitted SIP packages that were
consistent with the EPA "requirements" {i.e., standards, regulations,
policies, legal interpretations, guidances, and clarifications) in effect
at the time. As a result of processing delays and policy evolution, the
applicable requirements were revised before the proposed SIP change
received EPA approval. When the revised requirements did not contain an
appropriate grandfather!ng provision (e.g., a provision allowing SIP
packages to be acted upon based on the requirements, in effect at the time
of State adoption), SIP reviewers assumed that the appropriate action was
to disapprove the SIP revision and/or return it to the State for changes.
Not only can this delay rulemaking, but it also may be inequitable
and serve as an irritant to effective EPA/State/local agency cooperation.
Moreover, such action usually results in an ineffective use of resources
by the State and EPA. Consequently, we are today extending the concept
-------
of grandfathering contained in existing guidance (e.g., for modeling), as
described in the enclosure. It is the intent of EPA management that
grandfathering be applied where.it is warranted and appropriate. Today's
guidance was developed in conjunction with the Regional Offices and the
Office of General Counsel. We believe that it deals with the equity
issue, will not have a noticeable environmental impact overall, will
strengthen the Agency's working relationship with its State and local
partners, and does not conflict with either the Clean Air Act or the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel (Air Branch Chiefs), Regions I-X
Don Clay
Alan Eckert
Mike Alushin
John Seitz
Robert Cahill
John Calcagni
Bob Wayland
Dick Wilson
Bill Laxton
Charles Gray
-------
bcc: Work Group Members
Jack Farmer
Rich Ossias
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Steigerwald
-------
GUIDANCE ON GRANDFATHERING OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
June 1988
Introduction
EPA is expandtng Its guidance on how to apply previously
applicable requirements in two general situations where the issue may
arise: (1) when new or newly revised "requirements" (i.e., standards,
regulations, policies, legal interpretations, guidances, or clarifications)
for SIPs are issued by the Agency and (2) when rulemaking action is taken on
a "SIP revision" (i.e., a State-specific EPA rulemaking under
the Clean Air Act). This guidance will be in effect for complete SIP
revisions submitted to EPA and for requirements issued and/or revised by
EPA after today. In general, all SIP revisions submitted before today
will continue to be reviewed based on EPA's current policy, which is to
decide each SIP revision based on the requirements in existence at the
time of EPA's rulemaking.
Grandfather!ng is not to be considered mandatory or automatic.
In determining whether grandfathering should apply, and what the appropriate
date should be, the decision maker should keep in mind the thrust of this
guidance, i.e., to honor good faith effort on the part of the State/local
agency submitting the revision, balancing equity with other-considerations.
This guidance expressly is not intended as a vehicle to allow circumvention
of tighter requirements or to facilitate the avoidance of difficult
decisions.
Legal Background
Whenever a new requirement is established by Congress (via statute)
or by EPA (via regulation or policy), it becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the requirement provides otherwise.
When Congress enacts a new statute, it applies to all matters then pending
before an agency unless Congress specifically provides otherwise in the
statute. The Agency has no authority to grandfather any matter from the
new statutory requirements without explicit provisions in the statute.
i
When EPA issues new regulations, they are also generally applicable
unless the regulations themselves include grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not explicit in the regulations and absent
a contrary interpretation by the Agency, courts will apply the new rules
to matters pending before the Agency. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of
-------
Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969). However, an agency does have some
flexibility to provide grandfathering provisions in new regulations.
Generally, such provisions are appropriate where they meet a four-part
test. First, the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well-
established practice. Second, affected parties have relied on the
old rule. Third, the new rule imposes a large burden on those affected.
Fourth, there is no strong statutory interest in applying the new rule
generally. Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert, den.
468 U.S. 1204 (1984). In the past, EPA has generally included explicit
grandfathering provisions in new regulations where appropriate. Under
this guidance, EPA will affirmatively consider the need for grandfathering
provisions in all new regulations.
An agency has very broad authority to decide how and when to issue
new guidance, since as a purely legal matter guidance is not absolutely
binding on subsequent proceedings. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. FPC,
506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Historically, EPA has provided only limited
grandfathering from revised guidance. This document establishes a detailed
framework for grandfathering pending SIP revisions from all future EPA
requirements.
The Guidance
;
The following will be considered in deciding whether to apply grand-
fathering to an individual SIP revision and in developing appropriate
grandfathering provisions for each 'EPA SIP requirement:
A. General Guidance: A SIP revision generally will remain subject to the
requirements in effect either (a) on the date that the State adopts the
SIP revision (provided a complete, fully adopted revision is submitted
promptly, generally within 60 days of the adoption), or (b) on the date
that the USEPA proposes the SIP revision under the parallel processing
procedure. However, in specific cases, EPA will apply different dates as
appropriate (e.g., see memorandum, J. Tikvart to Regional Modeling
Contacts, January 2, 198S, concerning grandfathering modeling requirements).
A discussion of what constitutes a complete, fully adopted SIP revision is
found in the memorandum, G. Emison to Regional Air Directors, March 18,
1988.
8. There are certain exceptions to the general grandfathering guidance:
1. Grandfathering should not be considered if the State has not acted
in good faith in preparing and submitting a SIP revision. For example,
an incomplete revision hurriedly submitted to avoid coverage under a new or
revised EPA requirement should not be grandfathered. Similarly, grand-
fathering should not be considered when a SIP revision is submitted
-------
substantially in excess of 60 days after State adoption as specified in
paragraph A.
2. Grandfather!ng of SIP revisions may not be appropriate or possible :
when a court.ruling has explicitly changed a current federal requirement
or has convinced EPA that a previous requirement is no longer supportable.
Under these circumstances,-the Office of General Counsel (OGC), in consul-
tation with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), will define the limits of
the court's decision and how it may affect EPA's requirements-and SIP
revisions, including previously approved SIP revisions, pending SIP
revisions, and SIP revisions which are to be submitted in the future.
OGC will make its best effort to issue such an opinion within 60 days
from the date of the court's decision.
Based on this analysis, OAR will issue a decision on the appropri-
ateness of grandfathering and the continued use of the pre-court ruling
requirement on pending and future SIP revisions. This decision will
generally be issued within 90 days from the date of the court's decision.
OAR will also issue a decision on the appropriate action to take, e.g.,
notice of SIP deficiency or "no action" needed at this time, on previously
approved SIP revisions.
3. The Administrator may determine that grandfathering is not
appropriate under a certain new policy. He could conclude that the old
policy was ill-founded, or simply not wish to grandfather due to the importance
of the new policy to EPA's programs. Where a new policy issued by
the Administrator specifically states that grandfathering is not appro-
priate or establishes a particular grandfathering provision that differs
from this guidance, such provisions would of course supersede this guidance.
4. Grandfathering of a particular SIP revision or requirement is
not appropriate if a decision to grandfather it would have an imminent
and substantial adverse environmental impact or could permanently foreclose
the continued use of the provisions and/or sanctions of Part D of the
Clean Air Act, e.g., changes in Section 107 designations or the full
approval of Part D plans, both of which may foreclose the future use of
sanctions to assure the correction of any deficiency arising from the
change in EPA requirements.
5. Action on a SIP revision which comports with the revised require-
ments but not the original requirements may be based on the revised
requirements.
-------
6. If a SIP revision complies with the original but not the"
revised requirements, and such lack of compliance renders the SIP as a
whole substantially inadequate to assure the attainment and maintenance
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the revised
requirements, an individual analysis of the appropriateness of grand-
fathering under the four-part test established in the Sierra Club case
discussed above under Legal Background must be conducted. If the analysis
concludes that grandfather!ng of the particular SIP revision is appropriate,
action may be based on the original requirements. In such an event,
however, additional actions may be necessary depending upon the nature of
the SIP revision being considered.
a. For SIP revisions (e.g., variances and interim emission
limits) which would have an effective lifetime of 2 years or less from
the date of EPA final rulemaking, no additional action will generally be
taken, because of the length of time it would take for the State and EPA
to change the action to comport with the revised requirements. Any
subsequent requests for the continuation of grandfathering (i.e., beyond
the effective lifetime of the original SIP revision) should be rejected.
b. For SIP revisions which would otherwise have an effective
lifetime of greater than 2 years, other rulemaking actions will be necessary
to assure that the SIP ultimately comports with the revised requirements.
(i) Elements in plans that have been "conditionally"
approved will be approved subject to the further condition that the
plan as a whole be corrected as necessary to assure full compliance with
all requirements of the Clean Air Act. For a discussion of EPA's original
policy on conditional approval, see 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), 44 FR
38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67182 (November 23, 1979).
(ii) Elements in fully approved plans will be approved with
the simultaneous issuance of a CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) notice of deficiency.
Under either of these circumstances, the approval of the particular SIP
revision should contain a sunset provision that terminates the effectiveness
of the approval within a predetermined period, generally 2 years. In addi-
tion, the Region should make an affirmative effort to assure that the
timeframe (generally 2 years) for complete, fully adopted State rulemaking
action involved with either the notice of SIP deficiency or conditional
approval is strictly adhered to. If a State does not adhere to this
schedule, the Region will initiate appropriate steps to ensure ultimate
compliance, e.g., performance-based grant actions, sanctions, and EPA
promulgations.
-------
7. Certain classes of changes are only indirectly related to
attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Such changes may involve PSD/NSR rules, stack height provisions, permit
fees and similar generic requirements which are clearly not intended to
be permanently grandfathered. Changes of this type are to be handled as
described in.paragraph 6 above. -
C. All new requirements issued by OAR or OGC will address their impact
on SIP revisions previously approved or pending, and SIP revisions to be
submitted in the future. New requirements will contain provisions incor-
porating the general grandfather!ng guidance (paragraph A above) whenever
appropriate and possible. Generally, changes in EPA's requirements will
have effective dates which are 60 days from the date of signature to allow
States to adjust their pending rulemaking actions before they are finally
adopted and submitted..- Longer effective dates should be used when the
changed requirements affect fundamental, long-term air quality strategy
development tools and the requirements of the change are resource inten-
sive.
D. SIP revisions framed to meet major requirements currently being recon-
sidered by EPA or currently under litigation should proceed and will not
be held back from rulemaking until the issues are decided. SIP revisions
approved under these circumstances will be addressed, if necessary, as
described in paragraph B(6)(b) above for revised EPA SIP requirements and
by paragraph B(2) for requirements being changed because of court decisions,
E. Staff personnel making grandfathering decisions should coordinate with
Offices of Regional Counsel or OGC on application of this guidance as appro-
priate, especially in connection with the analysis required under paragraph
B(6) above.
F. Each Federal Register notice for action on a SIP revision will state
the rationale for which requirements were applied.
-------
PN 165-88-07-05-032
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
V Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
,v^
JUL 5 1988
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Air Quality Analysis for Prevention of
Sign1ficant Deterloration (PSD]
From: Gerald A. Emison, Directj_
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MO-10)
To: Thomas J. Mas! any, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
Your memorandum of May 9, 1988, pointed out that two different procedures
are currently being used by the Regional Offices in certain PSD permit analyses.
The inconsistency Involves the question of how to interpret dispersion modeling
results to determine whether a source will cause or contribute to a new or
existing violation of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
increment. This memorandum serves to resolve the Inconsistency by reaffirming
previous Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards guidance provided in a
December 1980 policy memorandum (attached).
As you know, the regulations for PSD stipulate that approval to construct
cannot be granted to a proposed new major source or major modification if it
would cause or contribute to a NAAQS or increment violation. Historically, the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) position has been that a PSD source
will not be considered to cause or contribute to a predicted NAAQS or increment
violation 1f the source's estimated air quality impact 1s insignificant (i.e.,
at or below defined de minimis levels). In recent years, two approaches have
been used to determine if a source would "significantly" (40 CFR 51.165(b)
defines significant) cause or contribute to a violation. The first is where a
proposed source would automatically be considered to cause or contribute to any
modeled violation that would occur within Its Impact area. In this approach,
the source's impact Is modeled and a closed circle is drawn around the source,
with a radius equal to the farthest distance from the source at which a
significant impact 1s projected. If, upon consideration of both proposed and
existing emissions contributions, modeling predicts a violation of either a
NAAQS or an increment anywhere within this impact area, the source (as proposed)
would not be granted a permit. The permit would be denied, even if the source's
impact was not significant at the predicted site of the violation during the
violation period. You have indicated that this is the approach you currently
use.
-------
-2-
The second approach similarly projects air quality concentrations
throughout the proposed source's impact area, but does not automatically
assume that the proposed source would cause.or contribute to a predicted NAAQS
or increment violation. Instead, the analysis is carried one step further in
the event that a modeled violation is predicted. The additional step deter-
mines whether the emissions from the proposed source will have a significant
ambient impact at the point of the modeled NAAQS or Increment violation when
the violation is predicted to occur. If it can be demonstrated that the
proposed source's impact is not "significant" in a spatial and temporal sense,
then the source may receive a PSD permit. This approach is currently being
used by Region V and several other Regional Offices, and is the approach that
you recommend as the standard approach for completing the PSD air quality
analysis.
In discussing this matter with members of my staff from the Source
Receptor Analysis Branch (SRAB) and the Noncriteria Pollutant Programs Branch
(NPPB), it appears that different guidance has been provided, resulting in the
two separate approaches just summarized. We have examined the history and
precedents which have been set concerning this issue. I also understand that
this issue was discussed extensively at the May 17-20, 1988 Regional Office/
State Modelers Workshop, and that a consensus favored the approach being used
by Region V and several other Regions. Based on this input, as well as your
own recommendation, I believe the most appropriate course of action to follow
is the second approach which considers the significant impact of the source in
a way that is spatially and temporally consistent with the predicted violation.-;,
By following the second approach, three possible outcomes could occur:
(a) First, dispersion modeling may show that no violation of a NAAQS or
PSD increment will occur in the impact area of the proposed source. In this
case, a permit may be issued and no further action is required.
(b) Second, a modeled violation of a NAAQS or PSD increment may be
predicted within the impact area, but, upon further analysis, it is determined
that the proposed source will not have a significant impact (i.e., will not be
above de minimis levels) at the point and time of the modeled violation.
When this occurs, the proposed source may be issued a permit (even when a new
violation would result from its insignificant impact), but the State must
also take the appropriate steps to substantiate the NAAQS or increment viola-
tion and begin to correct it through the State implementation plan (SIP).
The EPA Regional Offices' role in this process should be to establish with
the State agency a timetable for further analysis and/or corrective action
leading to a SIP revision, where necessary. Additionally, the Regional
Office should seriously consider a notice of SIP deficiency, especially if
the State does not provide a schedule in a timely manner.
(c) Finally, the analysis may predict that a NAAQS or increment
violation will occur in the impact area and that the proposed source will
have a significant impact on the violation. Accordingly, the proposed source
is considered to cause, or contribute to, the violation and cannot be issued
a permit without further control or offsets. For a new or existing NAAQS
-------
-3-
violation, offsets sufficient to compensate for the source's significant
impact must be obtained pursuant to an approved State offset program consis-
tent with SIP requirements under 40 CFR 51.165(b). Where the source is
contributing to an existing violation, the required offsets may not correct
the violation. Such existing violations must be addressed in the same manner
as described in (b) above* However, for any increment violation (new or
existing) for which the proposed source has a significant impact, the permit
should not be approved unless the increment violation is corrected prior
to operation of the proposed source (see 43 FR p. 26401, June 19, 1978; and
45 FR p. 52678, August 7, 1980).
Your memorandum also states that other air quality analysis issues exist
within the NSR program which need consistent national guidance. You recom-
mend a more coordinated effort between SRAB and NPPB to review outstanding NSR
issues. We agree; however, rather than establishing a formal work group as you
propose, we are optimistic that the formal participation of representatives
of the NSR program in the Modeling Clearinghouse will help resolve coordination
problems. Earlier in the year, the Modeling Clearinghouse was officially
expanded to include representation from the NPPB to coordinate PSO/NSR issues
which have a modeling component.
I trust that this is responsive to the concerns which you have raised.
By copy of this memorandum, we are also responding to a Region V request
for clarification on the same issue (memorandum from Steve Rothblatt to
Joe Tikv art/Ed Lillis, dated February 18, 1988).
Should you have any further questions concerning this response, please
feel free to contact Gary McCutchen, Chief, New Source Review Section, at
FTS 629-5592.
Attachment
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
D. Clay
J. Calcagni
J. Tikv art
E. Lillis
G. McCutchen
D. deRoeck
-------
PN 110-88-11-21-099
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
NOV 2 1 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revision to Policy on the Use of ^ML0 Measurement Data
Iff /}_
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, DirectpC^^ty^^—"
Office of Air Quality P*fanning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: See Attached List
A joint Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS)/Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
committee has evaluated the issue of potential uncertainty in
measurement data produced by PM^ samplers. They considered
modifications and/or clarifications to existing Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) policy contained in the PM,. SIP
Development Guideline (Section 2.3), the supplementary Response
to Questions Regarding PMlff State Implementation Plan
-------
Appendix K to 40 CFR 50. Data collected by nonreference
samplers may only be used to supplement and to corroborate data
collected by reference samplers where such data are
insufficient in quantity to make a determination of whether or
not the area is attaining or not attaining the standard.
Moreover, data collected by some nonreference PM10 samplers
shall be interpreted using gray zones to indicate the potential
uncertainty in these older data, which was the policy used for
determination of Group I, II and III areas. These details for
using data produced by nonreference samplers in order to
interpret status with respect to the 24-hour and annual NAAQS
are contained in Attachment A. Three situations are discussed:
attainment, nonattainment and indeterminate. The latter
situation is one in which sufficient reference and nonreference
data are not available to make an unambiguous attainment or
nonattainment determination.
Regulations in 40 CFR 58 require that State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Networks be established by
August 1, 1988; therefore, data collected after this date by
nonreference samplers shall not be used. If a nonreference
sampler without further modification is designated as. a
reference sampler in the future, then all of its historical
data is retroactively defined as data produced by a reference
sampler.
A table providing a general overview of this new policy
for interpretation of PM^ measurement data is included as
Attachment B. The treatment of reference and nonreference data
is described according to the dates associated with its
collection.
COLLOCATED PM^ SAMPLERS
In the event that more than one PM10 sampler is operating
concurrently at a location, data from reference method samplers
always takes precedence over data from nonreference samplers.
If multiple samplers are collocated for data quality assessment
purposes (i.e., precision and accuracy), similar sampler types
must be used and one sampler must be designated a priori for
data reporting purposes (Appendix A to 40 CFR 58). Further-
more, if more than one type of sampler is used by a reporting
organization, collocated precision sites should be established
for each sampler type.
In order to sample more frequently than every 6" day, more
than one sampler may be operated at a monitoring site. This
group of samplers, plus any samplers sited for data quality
assessment purposes, shall represent a single monitoring
-------
station. When more than one sampler (or group) is operated
independently by one or more monitoring agencies concurrently
for attainment assessment purposes, each sampler (or group)
shall represent a different monitoring station. The data, from
each monitoring station shall be used separately to assess
attainment or nonattainment with the NAAQS, provided that
the data meet all the requirements for SLAMS specified in
40 CFR 58, includes quality assurance and siting, and a quality
assurance program that has been approved by the appropriate
Regional Office.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director/ Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, X
Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-VIII, X
Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX
cc. G. Foley, AREAL
A. Eckert, OGC
bcc. D, Novello, OGC
J. Bachmann (MD-11)
PMXO Measurement Data Working Group
PM,8 Monitoring Contacts
PM10 SIP Contacts
-------
ATTACHMENT A:
USE OF NONREFERENCE PM.. DATA TO SUPPORT AND CORROBORATE
REFERENCE PMlfl DATA
COMPARISONS WITH THE 24-HR NAAQS
Data produced by nonreference samplers may be interpreted
subject to the following conditions: (1) Exceedances measured
with certain PM10 dichotomous samplers1 shall be treated the
same as exceedances measured with reference or equivalent
method samplers, but only when there also are one or more
exceedances subsequently measured with reference samplers at
the same location. (2) Data produced with other nonreference
samplers shall be interpreted using gray zones (as previously
defined in the PMtt, SIP Development Guideline and which were
used for SIP area grouping) as follows - (a) an exceedance
measured.with a nonreference sampler outside its gray zone can
be treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS, only when there also
are one or more exceedances subsequently measured with
reference samplers at the same location, and (b) a PM10 value
produced by a nonreference sampler which is in its gray zone is
not treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS nor is it treated as
a nonexceedance of the NAAQS (i.e. it is treated as an
uncertain data value for purposes of making comparisons with
the NAAQS), but it does count as a measurement used to satisfy
data completeness and compute annual averages.
Accordingly, data produced by nonreference method samplers
in combination with data produced with reference method
samplers may be used to identify the following situations:
24-hr NAAOS - Attainment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonreference samplers results in an estimated
number of exceeedances to be less than or
equal to one (subject to the rounding
conventions and adjustments specified in
Appendix K), ,(2) uncertain data values
produced by nonreference samplers as defined
above do not exist, and (3) the combined data
produced by these samplers satisfy the data
completeness requirements in Appendix K and
are in accordance with the established EPA
guidelines, i.e. Guideline on Exceptions to
Data Requirements for Determining Attainment
of Particulate Matter Standards (EPA-450/4-
87-005, April 1987), then the State can
'Samplers with inlet models SA246B, GMW9200 and WA10.
-------
solicit approval by the appropriate Regional
Administrator to demonstrate attainment with
.the 24-hr NAAQS.
24-hr NAAOS - Nonattainment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by a reference sampler
results in an estimated number of exceedances
to be greater than one, or (2) one or more
exceedances are observed by a reference
sampler and the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonref erence samplers results in an estimated
number of exceedances to be greater than one
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then
the State should acknowledge. that a
nonattainment problem exists and take
appropriate action.
24-hr NAAOS - Indeterminate Situation
If the total number of'observed exceedances
results, in an estimated number less than or
equal to one, but the available data is
insufficient to demonstrate attainment as
judged under Appendix K, the State or local
monitoring agency must continue PM10 sampling
until attainment or nonattainment of the
NAAQS can be established.
COMPARISONS WITH THE ANNUAL NAAQS
When insufficient reference data are available to
estimate the PM^ expected annual mean according to Appendix
K, then nonreference data can be used to supplement and
corroborate data produced by the reference samplers. In
order to facilitate this discussion, the following
definitions are introduced:
(1) x, and x,™ represent the annual means computed from data
produced by reference and nonreference samplers,
respectively.
(2) X'M, represents the nonreference mean adjusted for the
effect of the gray zone, as follows:
-------
x'™ = 1.2 X,,, if nonreference data is Wedding1,
= 0.8 x,™, if nonreference data is Sierra
Anderson3,
= x^, if nonreference data is produced by certain
dichotomous samplers specified in footnote i..
(3) x and x' represent the range of estimated annual means
resulting from a combination of data produced by
reference and nonreference samplers and the effects of
the gray zones:
. x = p. * x» + (l-p) * x,, and
x'= p * x'ra + (l-p) * x.,
where p is the relative weight placed on the
nonreference data (e.g. p = 1/3 When 1 year of
nonreference and 2 years of reference data are
available).
Annual NAAOS - Attainment Situation
If x, is less than or equal to 50 ug/m3 and both
x and x' are also less than or equal to 50 ug/m1
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
nonreference data have corroborated that the
expected annual mean is less than the level of
the NAAQS and the State can solicit approval by
the appropriate Regional Administrator to
demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS.
Annual NAAOS - Nonattainment Situation
If x, is greater than 50 ug/m3 and both x and x'
are also greater than that concentration level
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
State should acknowledge that a nonattainment
problem exists and take appropriate action.
Annual NAAOS - Indeterminate Situation
If (1) x, is less than or equal to 50 ug/ra3,
and x or x' is greater than 50 ug/m3, or (2)
x, is greater than 50 ug/ra3, and x or x' is
less than or equal to 50 ug/m3, then the
JGMW9000 or any comparable Wedding designed high volume
sampler without a cleaning port.
'SA321A
-------
status with respect to the annual standard is
indeterminate and the State or local
.monitoring agency must continue PM10 sampling
until attainment or nonattainment of the
NAAQS can be established.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED POLICY FOR INTERPRETATION OF PM10 MEASUREMENT DATA
DATA COLLECTION TIME PERIOD
Prior to
Aug. 1, 1987
(effective
date of
promulgation)
Aug 1, 1987
to
July 31, 1988
From
Aug. 1, 1988
, Sampler;
Reference
Samplers
Face Value
Face Value
Face Value
Unapproved
Samplers1
SA & Wedding
(older)
Dichots
Gray Zone7
Face Value
Gray Zone
Face Value
Not to be
Used5
Not to be
Used3
1 Data produced by unapproved samplers may only be used to
support and corroborate data produced by reference
samplers.
2 A zone of uncertainty within which PM10 data are used with
less authority, as discussed in Attachment A; Gray zone
limits were defined in the PM,. SIP Development Guideline.
3 For attainment/nonattainment and design values only;
Regional Administrator approval for other SIP purposes
(40 CFR 58.l4(b)).
-------
2138
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Pinposed Rules
Authority: Sees. 1-19. 48 Sut. 31. as
d: 7 CSC. 601-674.
2. Section 959.229 is added to read as
follows:
S 959.229 Expanses and aaaaaatnant rat*.
Expenses of $379.675 by the South
Texas Onion Comnittee are authorized
and an assessment rate of SOjQSS per 50-
pound container or equivalent quantity
of regulated onions is established for the
fiscal penod ending July 31. 1069.
Unexpended funds may be carried over
>ilo.
; >..; .- r- I)- ij'\ C;f*.-:nr. fruit an!
. .:~.:,* 11, tl.n.
' 1 UflC d9-l.!SO Filed 1-1B-B9: 8:45 xra|
r.viHlG COOt MW40-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
3 EPA and ar* a\!^;,. Of.'ice of Air
Quality P!anr:r.2 snc S:«;=dardi ,'MD-
11). L'.S. Env.rcnrr.er:c!i Protection
Agency. R«s«ercr. Triangle Park. North
Carolina 277H: Telephone (919) 341-
5642 or (FTS) 629-5642.
CUPPLCMENTAMV INFOMMATION:
Background
The 19TO Clean Air Act {CAA.)
established the air quality management
process as a basic philosophy for air
pollution control in this country. Under
this system. EPA establishes air quality
goals (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards—NAAQS) for common
pollutants. Them are now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide.
particulate matter (PM(«. and lead.
States then develop control programs to
attain and maintain these N'AAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Pl.ins ISIPsi which are
approved formally by EPA and art
legally enforceable bv the Ager.cv.
Under section HOIrflC!. a SIP must
demonstrate at'.air.rr.snt. deidibc d
control strategy contain legally
enforceable regulations, include an
emission mventnr; and procedures for
new source re\i««w. oa'lire a program
for monitoring, jnd shov. adequa«>
resources. In adJi'.icr. th««rp can be
many other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. Under
section 110!a;i3;. revisiurs to a SIP JT,UM
not interfere with the SIPs abilitj to
meet these retirements. The
consequenr.(»« o? Strtf failure to get SIP
approval ma> — senous: they include
Federai promt:.;.idon of contra!
regulations ar.ii ftcnnomic sunctions.
Affirmatr.e action is required by EPA
on essentially all aspects of every SIP
and SIP revis;or_ Sinte EPA's final
decision comes after a resruianon
already is adopted and implemented at
the State level, excessive delay in the
review process often is a mator source
of friction m EPA s relations with State
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January IS. 1989 / Proposed Rules 2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA hat a schedule goal of 5/2-5/2 for
final action. That is. the Regions
nominally have 5 months to review
submittals in both the proposal and
promulgation phases: Headquarters
nominally has 2 months in each phase.
However. SIP actions often take
considerably longer than the total 14
months allocated to publish a final
decision.1
The lengthy decision process has
resulted in strong criticism from sources
both inside and outside the EPA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
commissioned in July 1987 a senior level
task group to assess the problems
inherent in the process and to
recommend solutions. The task group
conducted its assessment and presented
recommendations to the Deputy
Administrator. The recommendations
were approved fully and are described
in a companion notice in today's Federal
Register. One of these recommendations
concerns a procedure and criteria for
identifying a "complete" SIP package.
thereby providing States with guidance
on preparing adequate SIP revisions and
EPA with a clearly defined mechanism
to keep essentially unreviewable SIP
revisions out of the review process.
This is important because if a State
submits a SIP change without properly
stated emission limits, legal authority or
compliance schedules, or which
contains other obvious deficiencies, it
can enter the full EPA review system.
Such a SIP either will be eventually
disaoproved. or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months later) to
suopiy essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
procedures did not provioe in any
comprehensive way prompt reiecnon for
incompleteness. Independently.
nowever. some Regional Offices have
tried to deal with this problem, and have
developed procedures wherein SIP
submittals are judged against a set of
comoleteness criteria. The purpose of
thebe procedures has been to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system, thereby saving
both EPA and tne State valuable time
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
to institute an EPA-wioe procedure for
Nui'-tnai section IKXjiirioi'the Clean Air AI.I
uirei thai 'The Administrator snail, wnnin lour
~* alter ihe date required {or juorm»t,on oi«
i'! .rvrcve. of disapprove such ISIPI for net)
~ • -n 'hereof." Under me Af«ncy • pmeni
cmm« workload, tucn a itmc limit it hirnllx-
jir 10 m*ei {or all but tnc molt trivial of
imu l>4 maintain! thai thu deadline boet not
nu •« SIP trvuioni but rather only to the initial
r » ••mittedafter EPApromultate«a NAAQS.
• -Jurti have supported EPA i ootiuon. omer
• nave n«id irwi., «-monin review penuu
' •-»
-------
2140 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Ruies
documents that demonstrate that the
State has properly followed the
administrative requirements called for
by the Clean Air Act for the adoption of
State implementation plans. These
include a letter from the Governor or his
dcsignee requesting that EPA approve
the SIP revision, and evidence that the
rrvision has been adopted by the State
in final form, either as part of the State
code if the revision is a regulation, or as
appropriate source specific
documentation in the form of a permit
order, or a consent agreement The State
also must provide documentation that
the necessary legal authority exists
within the State to adopt and implement
the plan revision, must include the
requisite copies of the actual revision
(regulation, permit order, etc.). and must
indicate that the revision is enforceable
by the State. Finally, the State must
submit information indicating that the
program administrative procedures have
been followed, including evidence of
public notice and hearings, a
compilation of the public comments, and
the State's response to these comments.
Technical Support
The purpose of the technical support
information is to identify the State's
view of the impact of the revision on the
environment. The components are
intended to demonstrate that the
applicable requirements, such as those
for attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards, increment
consumption, and control technology.
are in confonnance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for EPA
iu maxe a reasonable decision
concerning the adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum must be included in each
sunmittal. Therefore, for purposes of
oiMermmina the completeness of a SIP
submission the implementation pian
rrvision must include an adequate
aubcnption of the:
la! Pollutants involved:
(b! Source location and attainment
status of tne area:
(c) Emissions chances:
(a) Demonstration :hat standards/
increments are protected:
ic) Information used for any modeling
drmonstration:
If) Evidence of continuous emissions
cn-irols:
(gj Evidence of emissions limitations
ana other restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
(h) Compliance strategies: and
(.) Technological and economic
justification for the change where
applicable.
'Jpon receipt of the pian revision, the
Regional Office will obiectjvely examine
the revision for inclusion of the
administrative and technical support
information. When the revision is
determined complete, the formal review
of the adequacy of the information and
the approvability of the revision will
proceed. In those situations where the
submission does not meet the basic
criteria as discussed above and set forth
in Part 51. Appendix V. the submission
will be returned to the State with a letter
indicating the deficiencies found. In
accordance with the change proposed in
40 CFR S1.103(a). any submission that
does not meet the criteria of Appendix V
will not be considered an official
submission triggering the Act's
requirements for EPA review and action.
The basic requirements are similar for
sequential and parallel processing.
varying only in form dictated by the
method of processing. In order to be
effective, the determination of
completeness should be made
expeditiously. The Regional Office
generally will make a determination of
completeness within 45 days of
receiving a SIP revision, using the
criteria to make an objective decision.
After the decision has been made on
completeness, the Regional Offices will
process the SIP revision if the
submission is complete, or return the SIP
revision to the State if it is incomplete.
A letter will be sent to the State.
informing the State of the completeness
status of the SIP revision. If a SIP
submittal is incomplete, the deficiencies
will be detailed in the letter to the State.
If a SIP submittal is complete, the
Regional Office will include EPA's
expected processing schedule in the
letter to the State.
Administrative Requirements
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of these SIP processing changes. The
docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the notice
preparation and comment process. The
docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the SIP processing changes and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket, except for
interagcncy review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(see Clean Air Act. section 307(d)(7)(A).
42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(A).
Section 317(a) of the Clean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 7617(a). states that economic
impact assessments are required for
revisions lo standards or regulations
when the Administrator determines such
revisions to be substantial. The changes
described today do not change the
substantive requirements for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase in cost as a result
of complying with the changes described
today is expected: moreover, the
monitoring, recordkeeptng. and reporting
requirements have been determined to
be insubstantial. Because the expected
economic effect of the changes is not
substantial, no detailed economic
impact assessment has been prepared.
The information collection
requirements of these changes are
considered to be no different than those
currently required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA procedures. Thus, the public
reporting burden resulting from today's
notice is estimated to be unchanged
from existing requirements. The public
is invited to send comments regarding
the burden estimate or other aspect of
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing any burden, to
the docket and the following: Chief.
Information Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460: and
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Office of
Management and Budget Washington.
DC 20503. marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is
required to judge whether an action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis (R1A). The Agency has
determined that the SIP processing
changes announces today would result
in none of the-significant adverse
economic effects set forth in section ifb)
of the Order as grounds for a finding of
"major." The Aaency has. therefore.
concluded that this action is not a
"major" action under Executive Oraer
12291.
This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act. A copy of the craft
rule as submitted to OMB. any
documents accompanying the draft, any
written comment received from otner
agencies (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the docket.
The Rfcfiulatory Flexibility Act of :?80.
5 U.S.C. 601-612. requires the
identification of potentially adverse
impacts of Federal actions upon small
business entities. The Ac: requires the
completion of u regulatory flexibility
analysis for every action unless We
Administrator certifies :ha! the action
will no: nave a significant economic
impact on a s-ostarudi ncmoer c:"s.Tiaii
-------
F«d«ral Register / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989 / Proposed Rules 2111
entities. For reasons described above. I
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
DJte: |«nuary 9. 1969.
Lte M. Thomas.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Pan 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART SI— (AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part Si
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Thil rulemaking is promulgated
under authority of Section* lOl(b)Cl), 110.
160-w. iri-l'a. and 301U) of the dean Air
An. 42 U.S.C 740lfb«1). 7410. 7420-7429.
7501-7506. and 7001(a).
2. Section 51.103 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
} 51.103 Sufoflriwton of ptara. prttifntnery
review of plan*.
(a) The State makes an official plan
submission to EPA when the plan
conforms to the requirements of
Appendix V to this pan. and the State
delivers five copies of the plan to the
appropriate Regional office, with a letter
giving notice of such action. The State
must adopt the plan and the Governor or
his designee must submit it to EPA as
follows:
* * • • •
3. Pan 51 ii proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read as
follows:
Appendix V— Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions.
J 0 Purpose
This Appendix V seu forth me minimum
cniena for Determining wnetner a State
irr.oiementatton pian submitted for
consideration by EPA t< an official
suonsssion for purpose of review under
S 51.103.
1.1 The EPA shall return to tne submitting
nfficiai any plan or revision thereof which
Um 10 meet :he criteria set fortn in this
Appendix V. or otnervvise request corrective
«c::on. iflemifymg the components! abseni
or insufficient to perform a review of the
«uommed pian.
:.;. The KPA (nail inform (he submittms
c:*:":ciai when a pian submission meets the
requirements of tms Aopenuix V. such
cr'ermnation resulting in the plan oems an
'M<"...,<>; iuomusion for purposes of ) 51.103.
Tie following shall be included in pian
•-..'"nissionj for review by EPA:
: 1. Administrative Materiali
'3' A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor or his desismee, requesting EPA
acrrovgt of tne pian or revision tnerenf
". -ujfter "ine p>ar.")
(b) Evidence that the Stale has adopted the
plan in the Stale code or body of regulations:
or issued the permit, order, consent
agreement (hereafter document) in final fora.
That evidence shall include the date of
adoption or final issuance as well as the
effective date of the plan if different from the
adoption/issuance date.
(c) Evidence that the State has the
necessary legal authority under State law to
adopt and implement the plan.
(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
document submitted for approval and
incorporation by reference into the plan.
including indication of the changes made to
the existing approved plan, where applicable.
The submittal shall be a copy of the official
State regulation/document signed, stamped.
dated by the appropriate State official
indicating that it is fully enforceable by the
Stata. The effective date of the regulation/
document shall whenever possible, be
indicated in the document itself.
(e) Evidence that the State followed all of
the procedural requirements of the State's
laws and constitution in conducting and
completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.
(f) Evidence that public notice was given of
the proposed change consistent with
procedure* approved by EPA. including the
date of publication of such none*.
(g) Certification that public heanngd) were
held in accordance with the information
provided in the public notice and the State's
laws, and constitution, if applicable.
fh) Compilation of public comments and
the State's response thereto.
2-1 Technical Support
(a) Identification of all regulated pollutants
affected by the plan.
(b) Identification of the locations of'
a fleeted sources including the EPA
attainment/nonattainznent designation of the
locations and the status of the attainment
pian for the affected areas(s).
(c| Quantification of the changes in plan
aliowaoie emissions from the affected
sources: estimates of changes m current
actual emissions from affected sources or.
where appropriate, quantification of changes
in actual emissions from affected sources
througfl calculations of thr differencial
between certain baseline levels and
allowable emissions anticipated as a result of
the revision.
(d) The State's demonstration that the
National Amoient Air Quality Standards
prevention of significant detenoration
increments, reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
the pian is approved and implemented.
(e) Modeling information required to
support the proposed revision, including input
data, output data, models used justification
of model selections, ambient monitoring data
used, meteorological dau used, lustiflcanon
for use of offsite date (where used), modes of
models used, assumptions, and other
information relevant to the determination of
adequacy of the modeling analysis.
(f] Evidence, where necessary, that
emission limitations are based on continuous
emission reduction technology.
(gj Evidence that tne plan contains
emission limitations, work practice standaros
and recordkeepmg.-reportmg requirements.
where necessarv. to er.sure emission levels.
(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies.
including how compliance will be determine J
in practice.
(i) Special economic and technologic.!
justification! required by any applicable EPA
policies.
13. Exception*
2J.1. The EPA. for the purposes of
expediting the review of the plan, lus
adopted a procedure referred to as -parallel
processing.- Parallel processing allows a
Staje to submit the plan prior to actual
adoption by the State and provides an
opportunity for the State to consider ERA
comments pnor to submission of a fmai ?nn
for final review and action. Under these
circumstances the plan sub—.:t:ed wil! n»; be
able to meet all of the requirements of
paragraph 2.1 (all requirements of pane- :oh
12 will apply). As a result, the foliowi-;
exceptions apply to plans submitted
explicitly for parallel processing:
(a) The letter required by paragraph :.-.:-.)
shall request that EPA propose approval of
the proposed plan by parallel processing
(b) in lieu of paragraph 2.1 Ib) the State
shall submit a schedule for final adoption or
issuance of the plan,
(c) la lieu of paragraph 2.1 (d] the plan •,.-.«,".
include a copy of the proposed/draft
regulation or document.
|d) The requirements of paragraph] 2-1 id-
2.1(h) shall not apply to plans suotrutted for
parallel proceaamg.
2Ji The exceptions granted in paracrr.pr.
til shall apply only to EPA's determuut.ur.
of proposed action and all requirements of
paragraph 2.1 shall be met pnor to
publication of EPA's final determination o'
plan approvability.
[FR Doc. 89-1001 Filed 1-18-89. 8:45 am]
•HUM coot iaao to «
FEDERAL. EMERGENCY
MANAGEMEKT AGENCY
Federal Insurance Administration
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-4M61
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Prnno«ed rule.
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are solicited on the proposed
base (100-year) flood elevations and
proposed base tiood elevation
modifications listed below for selectee
locations in the nation. These base (100-
yearl flood elevations are ihe basis (or
the floodplatn management measures
that the community is required to eith-'
adopt or show evidence of being airebc;.
in effect in orcer to quahh or remair.
qualified for participation in the
-------
Federal Barter / Voi S4> Ne. 12 / Thartday. fronary 19. H» / Notice*
dOCMlNo
CV7.22
CW7-23
CW7-J4
O*7-»
CI87-IB1
CW7-361
CW7-M1
CM7.»t
CW7-261
CM7-W1
CM7-H1
CO7.281
^
*ff
do
no
Ml
— ,
^_
•m
«•
<•!
— ,
MM
«M1
•n
NO.
a
a
a
a
a
a
91
92
a
*
a
—
Oo.
Do.
OB.
Oo.
Oo.
Oo.
Oo.
Oo. __
Oo.
Oo.
Do.
Oo
Do.
|FR Doc S»-ia« Fifed 1-18-S* M> Ml
ENVMONMCNTALPHUIECTION
AGEHCT
ling
State I
AGENCY: Eaviranaeaul Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Note* of procedural ebensje*.
suMftUftY: This notice describe* changes
bemg implemented in the way Stale
implementation plan* fSIPi) are
processed at EPA. The Act require!
States to develop plan* (or attaining and
maintaining the six national ambient air
quality itandardi established by ftTA.
These SIP*. including all revision* to
such plant, are reviewed and approved
or disapproved by EPA. Tata procMi of
State plan preparation, submittal to
EPA. and subsequent EPA rrriew has
been very time-consuming and resource-
interuive, The EPA is concerned that
uncertainty and mi enui delays. hi
processing SIP* fnutrate the
development of an optimum Slate/
Federal partnership, causa confusion tor
sources regarding applicable
regulations, and generally dampen
inmiative in State regulatory program*.
Prompted by this concern, the Deputy
Administrator called (or an assa*«ment
by senior officials of the processing ef
SIPs at EPA. The purpoae of the
assessment was to identify probiem*
and propose solnnoa*.
The problem* identified centered on
an excessive- cooecrn by EPA lor the
potential preo*dcxu-eettae> *•!•» of
mdividswl SIP nvuMat-BMoiicMd by
many Sff actieae^nd uv4iacanaM«r on
the paC-qf«o»ree»*i>dat»Wl»c«.i
imprcmemed. deacnbod in detail hrJmi
fnnis nn tiiUmnf gPA raview t»ltM
•igoificance of ihv etfkHBi'VDBlealieme
to e*tablUkad proeerfurea to y-"——f
SIP* within EPAJn-erdss to pnnptiy
identify problems with SIP submittal*
and to geneelly improve the eeraintT of
the proceea itwtt. T*m*.cbasi|n
include, aaaejg usj»»s. maiii otSO
ter
specific CTUBOB,
modificetsaerel
EPARegnael Adsnauatnton fcer a
range ef SIP ec**ee» wreca> crvaot
natiooatty •*t"'^'"«* as»d prewislieai far
the ootatat »e -gtsajdratreBr" Sa?
•ubuttaU tket ware •wstacad in good
faith by a Stale but union, nay become
deficient to some degree because of a
change in EPA pofecy awbeequent to
State adoption.
EPA believe* tsiet these changes will
produce a number of important benefits.
SIP submittals should be processed
more efficiently end ie»ie» dguiium
made more quickly and equitably;
overall the quality of SIP suomituls
•bonid be improved. By working more
doeeiy. relations between EPA Regional
Offices and State/local agencies will be
improved, enhancing the effectiveness
of air quality management program*
generally. Finally, the chenje* should
retail in a more accessible end
accountable system, enabling parties
outside EPA to detenune more easily
the sums, of SIP su
: Thi* action witt he effective
January 11.1888. AU coeament* should
be wbaitted to EPA at the addresa
shoem betas* by Maicb«>iaH.
, kiiiuiiud pirtetmay
Public 1
Dodost
:a*t Ne. A-»-n at-Cectrei
^A-orr). tee*
EnvnooaMetal Protection Aeencv.
Atteatioa: Docket No. A-tt-16.401 M
StreeuSW. Wa^ungtoo. DC 20460.
Material* relevant to thst notice have
been placed ia Docket No. A-86-18 by
EPA and are available for inapection a:
the above address between too a.m.
aed 3c3D pjk. Monday throtaih Fnd«v
The EPA may chaxge a reasonable ice
for copying.
r*cr.
Mr.^jew WeegeML Office of Air
Quality PUvang aad Standards IMCV-
11], U. S. Eovmnmentei Protection
Agency. Research Tnangle Park. North
CuoUaa 27711; Telephooe (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 829-5642.
AKT
Background
The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA)
established the err quahty management
process as a basic philosophy for air
pollution control in this country. Under
this system. EPA establishes air aualin
goals (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards— NAAQS) for common
pollutant*. There a re now standards fi
6 pollutant*: ozone (Oil. carbon
monoxide (CO), suitor dioxide (SCh).
nitrogen dioxide, parttcuiate matter
(PMn). and lead. States then develop
control programs to attain and maintai
these NAAQS. These programs are
defined by Stale Implementation Pun:
(SIPs) which ere approved or
disapproved formally by EPA and. to i
extent they are approved, are legally
enforceable by EPA. A SIP mast
demonstrate attainment and
meHHeneneeof-the-eppncable NAAQ
deruibe a control strategy, contain
4eg»trytnfbreeebJe regulations, mcluc
an eotiMioB eeamjcy and procedure
f^f
-------
Fadanl
/ V«L M. No. 12 / Tkoraday. January «. M» / Notice*
2215
resource* far the Suu to hnpWaiant tha
SIP. to addition, Am CM be Ban?
othtr requirement* •pacific to the
pollutant btiof cooiidared. The
consequence* of Stttt failure lo fit SIP
approval may ba eariooa. iaflnrling
Federal promulgation of control
AffirBatrva action Is IVO^IIIMO by EPA
on amntiaOy aO aspect* of every SIP
action. Since EPA'i final decision crone*
aftar a refutation already U adopted
and Btptanantad at tha Suta level
excessive delay te tha review procaat
often ia a major sccrce of fractal in
EPA's relationi with State and local
afmciet.
There can alto bt difference* of
opinion between EPA'* Region*) OfRees
and Hesdquarter*. Region* provide
fuidance and mpport la Slates in
writing SIP* and then must review them
and recoiMoend apprmal or
disapproval. The need for flexibility in
dealing with each State and situation t»
important to the Regions. On the other
band. Headquarter!' office* have a
major reeponalbUlty to eaaare baeic
national conaiatency oa lafei policy.
and technical tseati. Ttras. SIP detdaon*
are under oooaunt araaeure baeane
wfflba than the total M month* allocated to
they aa* vaabie and qvaetttattv* testa of
the eluarve balance aeeght batweea
State flexibility and the firmness and
consistency provided by BeBuaal
directives.
More than 1600 SIP reacted aetton*
have been procoeud from IMS to the
pieseaL swaging ahnoet 3*B per year.
Many of these iniol^d multiple ieeae*.
About 75 percent of the action* fall into
three categories: stummert
demonstration*, single smrce actions.
snd (although technically not SIP
revisions) actions invernng
redesigaation of atuimnem status. Moet
of the remainder involved new soarae
review action* aid tnrietmii UeiUi
A rough assessment has been Skade af
the future SIP load With the
promulgation of a national avbiesrt air
quality standard for PMi*. and the
proposed post-1967 oxone and CO
attainment policy, the number at SJP
submittals will increase significantly
over the next few yean. About 100
attainment SIPi and more than 160
"eommittaT type action* for PM* will
have to be reviewed. Shortly tharaaftar.
attainment SIP* for oxen* (60-70 ana*)
and for CO (another 50-60 areas) will be
sumitted. Potential rrvisiooa.to-EPA'i
IMS aiack height regulations rewriting
fron fc* coun dedasM B NRDC f.
Thomat. t» T. 3d-12» (DuC. Ck. 1MB).
could raa«ga*a\ ay the Rational
Adnucssttatar. tfg»apropaaei. and
sent on for rewaw by SPA
Headquaran. TbeJiaa^aaTten' afBce*
therecpon vubMDBtaB evaioatioD of
the Regional OtBaepadof*. regardless
of the atantftcaBa* of tb* Sff arton.
{SI Tbe Office of AjrQBatitjr Ptanaing
and Standard* fOAQPS) B Dorham.
North Caniioa manage* the
Headquarters' review, coordinating the
««*4mir»i policy >TV^ i*g«i evaluation
with afl ndavant Haadquartars offices.
These may include the Office of General
Counsel and tha Office of Policy.
Planning and Evaluation, as wall as
several groups within the Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR).
Each group, concurs with' "a"||i*n^i or
nonconcurs. Negotiation with the
Regions over STP Issoes or interpretation
frequently is s part of Hesdquarters'
review.
(4) Proposals sre sent to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation for
concurrence. Disapproval* and partial
approvals of SIPi most undergo Office
of Management and Budget review
(under Executive Order 12291) before
being sent to the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) for publication.
(5) Aftar review by the Assistant
Administrator lot OAR. all final action*
go to the Administrator for signaBw*
and then an seat to the QFX.
SIP pcaceeeinf at EPA ba* a
•chedtOed goal of S/2-4/2 far final
action. That is. the Reaon i
have C Baa***, to <
bo* i
.
The lengthy decision process has
molted m *trong crittcnm from sources
boa teaid* and outside the EPA. In
response, the Deputy Administrator
eoramiaaioned in |uty. 1M7 a senior level
taak greop to asses* the proWemi
taherentto the process and to
leuimiiicnd toiotions. The task groap
conducted its assessment and presented
recnrnmenfUtions to the Deputy
Adariaiatrator.'The recomnendations
wara apprev»rf ftfly and are described
hercm. Ilowem. before discussing the
•tap* batmjtajqva by EPA to reform its
SIP procnatnv procedures. H is useful to
examine (he approach taken by the task
, ami the problems uncovered.
Tie
The project involved a three-level
approach, h included (l) fonnstion of a
sentoT-lerei task group on SIP
Processing watch met throughout the
foor-oionth protect. (2) direct
discussions with staff intimately
involved in SIP processing, both
individually (or in small groups) and at *
day-)oo| Headquarters/Regional Office
workshop, and (3) interviews wUh
senior executive* (Deputy Regional
AdminiatraionL Office Directors) now at
EPA. and former policy makers wub
EPA and State air agencies. In sddtuon.
a few Limited analytical assessments
(eg. historical SIP activity, number and
distribution of SIP* currently at EPA)
were done to better characterize the
iaaue.
Tha taak group consisted of senior
officials from EPA's Regional Office*
Headquarters' group* associated with
SIP processing, and Stale air sgenciet.
The group met three times, first to
discuss the general problem to be
addressed, agree on * course of action.
and assign special short-term protects.
The second meeting was primarily
concerned with proce** updst* snd «mh
presentations by Regional Office snd
State agency representative* to give
their uuqo* timpsiunei on the iisues.
9 TieUKZI of tht Qnn Air An
raewra* RKI Th« Mmmatni* ihtKI. vtitufl four
••fti tiimitm tiunr "~ ''
|SO>V •pprav*. wdtttvpn** *«Bk |S1P| iorMcri
u»»pf." Uuia *« A»«ocx i pn*«ii
l i«rti i flm 1- ' "l
lUpon of te T«k CMVM SIP I
tier. A •aiU.bcaMd IB (k> A^ut
-------
2216
F«dml R»ftot«r / VoL 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 1980 I Notices
f»
Finally. «t the third meeting, molts of
analytic studies wen presented, and the
range of options for improving the
procets WM discussed. These meeting*
led to the SIP processing changes that
are being announced today.
The work of the tack group was
reinforced by discussions with people
directly involved with SOP review in
order to get an operations view of the
issues. This included a comprehensive
one-day workshop attended by
approximately SO EPA staff personnel
This group, intimately familiar with the
processing and review of SIP packages.
exchanged ideas on both issues and
potential solutions during the workshop.
To gain yet another perspective, a
series of interviews was conducted with
persons currently or recently involved
with SIP processing from a broader
policy sense. For example, the persons
interviewed included a former EPA
Deputy Administrator, the former headj
of State and local air program*, senior
industry officials, several past EPA
Assistant Administrators, and four
current Deputy Regional Adminiatraton.
(The complete list of persons
interviewed and their summarized view*
are contained in an appendix to the taik
group report)
Significantly, there was a noticeable
degree of consistency among those
interviewed both in terms of their
perception of major problems and in
terms of the general thrust of solutions
to be pursued. Almost all believed that
EPA is too cautious in making SIP
decisions, that SIP* vary widely in
importance and EPA should tailor its
review accordingly, and that the current
SIP review system is operated too
informally, they also believed that the
"moving target" problem (a change in
the technical or policy basis for EPA
decisions after s SIP has been
submitted) needed to be addressed.
Problems Identified
It is clear that the process of
reviewing and judging SIP* has beeo a
constant itruggle for EPA and the State*
and is a source of increasing tension.
Concern* voiced by participants during
the assessment indicated problems at
each level of SIP preparation and
review. Some cited abuse of the system
by the States to relax source limits.
Others believed EPA was too inflexible
and overzealous. resulting in major
processing delays for minor benefits.
It is likely that present problems, if
left unattended, will become worse
because of continuing resource
constraints and plans that call for
significant increases in SIP activity over
the next few years, particularly in the
complex areas of ozone. CO.
la a relatively recent development some
enforcement actions have bean affected
by courts which have ruled that EPA
cannot enforce the current federally
approved SIP against a source for
violations occurring more than four
months after a SIP revision affecting the
source has been submitted to EPA.
unless EPA has finally acted on the
submittaL
As a result of the discussions and
projects described earlier, it was
possible to identify a number of
fundamental problems that appear to be
associated with SIP processing. Some of
these problems are concerned primarily
with the procedural aspects of SIP
review, while others relate more to the
underlying philosophy of the SIP review
process (Ue_ what is the process
supposed to accomplish), and the
attitude* of the SIP reviewer*. For
ex*—ate. there is within EPA a strong
cor m for consistency in SIP decisions,
anc a fear that each decision may have
important consequences in terms of
establishing national precedent
However, such concern may be
appropriate for only a small percentage
of actions reviewed. Moreover, it
appears that the SIP process has been
depended upon as a vehicle to identify,
resolve, and articulate national policy
issues, often at the f*p*qT* of timely
decision making.
The issues identified fall into three
basic categories: inordinate concern for
the consequences of individual
decisions; excessive EPA review,
including full review for minor or clearly
deficient actions: and uncertainty
concerning the outcome of review.
These problem categories are discussed
briefly below.
A. Inordinate Concern for Individual
Action*
As noted, the current process places a
premium on consistency. «lemming in
large part from a fear that a decision
statement or explanation concerning a
specific Statt or source may force
similar decisions in other States for
similar sources, Although there is a need
for consistency at some level (e.g,
concerning the basic components of an
ozone attainment program or a new
PM* SIP), it may not be necessary for
the results of all decision* to ba similar
State to State and source to source. It
must be remembered that SiPs are
intended to ba tailored by the States to
their specific air quality problems, and
the mix of sources from which emissions
reductions can be obtained, within the
constraints of the Oaac Air Act (such aa
the requtremeat for reasonably
available control tscnoology in
BonattaJnment areas). Although it is
important for policy and broad technical
requirement* to be applied consistently.
U is not necessary mat the result of their
application to localized problems turn
out the same.
Because of the emphasis on
consistency and the fear of setting
precedent with individual decisions. SIP
leviewers have been reluctant to risk
making mistakes on any SIP change:
this, considering the number of actions
EPA most review, inhibits rapid review
and decision rj*»
-------
/ VoiSi. Nsxtt/ Thursday. I«
submits a St?
stated amnass'
dafe
caneniarthetyttsnaadbaaafa^otea
complete EPA rara.ii erai disapproval.
EPA's proosdnas did net |
comprebe&sive way for immediate
refectioea fori
Inriapaodaody,
Office* have tried e» deal wMk this
probkm. For en»nk. Raejon I baa
developed s set af oomplrieneas criteria
their States saaet foUow. Hegsoa Vfl
provides Stales wilkaa
Region wiBlaak far ia a wide eaageo
SIP actions. The purpose is to keep
incomplete package* oat of the more
extensTM review system.
On the other hand, evaa if the
submittal is prepared correctiy.i
actions seam aasratsd far full I
lachidemeap
ofi .
changing modsfanj er stack test i
tocoAfor«tanm*edfiMg«ideim«s.ln
such actions, the State is doing exactly
what is reqaaed esid appropham.
Althowjasschcaeagasceabe
processed u direct final even that is
probably more lessMO* >a tensive tisaa
they are worth. Itewaeac. there is
prnaatly no better way to traM each
, eraaaptaasi
out of the system entirely.
Finally, several taemban of the Teak
Croup befceved that, in adataon to bang
coneetaad with Sff praceseinf^ ETA
•hoajdauso exasune DM Sff pvooeas ia a
more basic way. SpeciBoaMy. there w«*
debate andiBterau expceaaad by aoaM
Ul pFOaflDC^Bf QWCf ACBBfrte^etOel O>
operaoac penutii cr o4ner Steac tmaic
source emeuMa beam. This wouid be
condiaoaed oa EPA approval etf tha
Sttte'i overall framework and smoagy
for echiermfl an ambient air quality
standard, EPA's *—«*»"'"t rote would
be to track a State's eww/aU pmpees
and penadieaiiy avdit Iba Slate's
unpieaMBtatioa of the panniLpraoeaa.
ukiaa carraON* ackoa as i
Stata/KPA nftealiem aad I
chanfas to ctber pans of ece-Mbaeai air
pTOfraa,eadmayraqure.chaava«to
the Oats Air ACL
C- UlKJtftOUIty GottOVTUOf tbf OUfCODW
ofthifm*
It BiB^tba axaactad that wooaaaiM§ a
reviaioa to a SIP. g«m the EPA's yaars
of experience, would be~a faidy roatine
praoaas. tiawevar. that ofian U aot the
case. HM boa of a fjvan SIP-fevisioa, in
terms of both the natm and ttaiai of
th* ultjmale daQaio&» CSJB ba BBfiartain
for a Ti*H^r of peasons. t'np"'*""
informatkn necessary lor rtacisfam
makinc may be kft cstt oi • SIP package,
or the foonal ""* ^^r,aMiiig sjitLiu which it win begin
ujsptementing- today. The chsnges are
detigBed la miior SIP review to the
significance of the action involved sr.c
to improve tne certainty of tr*v SIP
review pieces*. The changes, including
the regal rationale supporting them, ire
described biitfly below snd in depth in
the next section of this notice.
A. Tailor Rfrttw u Significaoce of
Action
EPA he* devised s SIP review system
under which mcresiiagjy intense review
procedure* wffl be applied tc
increasingly significant actions. Mine
actions will undergo relatively little
review while me for sctions will continue
to receive fuD Regional Office snd
Headquarter* review. By tailoring the
intensity of review to the significance of
the action, thi* hierarchy of procedures
will generally decrease SIP proceasiag
times by drama M rally ahoneai&g review
period* for minor SIPs and freeing EPA
resources to enable major SIP
processing to proceed without existing
delays.
1. Compietenets Criteru
EPA found that many SIP revision
submittais were processed through full
EPA review deapita ths fact thai they
were missing mapr components which
eSectiveJy prevented EPA approval. For
example, a Stas* might submit an
ttntisiffn limitation without compliance
tasting procadura*. To free EPA
resource* that would otherwise be
consume*1 processing such deficient
StPv EPA has created a coapieteoess
review process which i* being proposed
for public comment m sn sccompsnyuig
notice in today's Fedatal Registar. Under
this procasa. a -StPwill be reviewed foi
completeaaea Jipimit certain ba«c
critaaa waeatrtarBUt*Dy submined »
mpl)n-^^.k«» aeea isrlaaad to
deciaioti oa te sabstaacs of «a* Sff
-------
2218
Ktgfrt-g / Vol M. No. 12 / Thmiday. |«nu«ry M. IMP / Notices
revision. This wffl be • quick proem
that will look at the revwwabilily of an
SIP tubnituL not its approvaUlity. EPA
will then promptly inform the submitting
SUM by letter wh«th«r EPA will
proceed to process the SIP revision or
whether It nut be returned to the State
because it u incomplete.
EPA is among this completeneM
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Dean Ah-Act which
authorizes me Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as ue
necessary to carry out his functions
under tbe Act EPA is Interpreting the
terms -plan" in section ttfl(a} 0) and U)
and "revision" in section 110UK3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain aU of the components necessary
to allow EPA to adequately review and
take action on such plan or revision.
EPA believes that Congress would not
have intended to require EPA to review
and take action on SIP submittala that
were limply not reviewable because
they were lacking important
components. Therefore, the
Administrator osBdudes that section
IKXa] requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.
EPA recently issued a guidance
memorandum to the Regional Offices
establishing this completeness review
procedure, including a list of
completeness criteria, on an interim
basis pending notice and comment
nileraaking. See Memorandum. Gerald
A. Emit on. Director. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Office Air Division Director*.
March IB. 1988 (a copy is included in the
docket ai item B-B-ti The Regional
Offices are currently using this guidance
to conduct completeness reviews.
However, elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. EPA is proposing to codify
these criteria in regulatory form to
provide clear benchmarks for States in
preparing complete SIP submittals.
Specifically. EPA proposes to add the
completeness criteria to 40 CFR Part 51
as Appendix V. EPA also proposes to
amend I 51.103(s) to specify that State
submissions will not be considered
official SIP submissions upon which
EPA is required to set under section
110(a) unless they meet the requirements
of Appendix V. The details of the
completeness criteria are described fully
in the accompanying notice.
2. Letter Notice
EPA is creating a new SIP processing
procedure for relatively insignificant SIP
revisions that the EPA believes are of
essentially no interest to the general
public. Historically EPA has processed
all SIP revisions through full notice and
comment ruiemaking ID the Federal
r insignificant actions of no
public interest this has been costly and
benefit Under the new letter notice
piuuedure far socn insigntftcaBt
revisions. EPA will simply inform the
Sute and directly affected parteae by
letter that the subordtted SIP revision has
beea approved. The EPA may not
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
and opportunity lor pobUc comment or
an individual notice of final rulemaking
in the Federal Register.
EPA's duties to publish, proposed and
Baal rulemakmf notices and provide
oppottnfalty lor pnnp*r oooDast slant
from the AilmlinslieBve Procedures Act
(APA). However, the APA spedflcally
provides that an agency need not
provide notice of piupoeed rulemaking
or opportunity for public comment when
the agency for good cause finds that it is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to tbe public intent See 5 U.S.C section
«3{b). EPA conchsdes that it is
unnecessary to provide for comment on
h1«iyd("ii-^t sip revisions bees use they
are of no Interest to the general pobUc.
Further, in sach cssss, the delsys
associated with uruiulBg for comment
where none would be forthcoming
would be contrary to tbe public interest
in expediting SIP processing.
Tbe legislative history of section 553
radicals* that the good nose rxrmntiori
from- notice and comment requirements
appropriately applies to Irujgnlfinant SIP
revisions. See Senate r-"r""" on the -
Judiciary. Administrative Procedure Act
Legislative History. S. Doc. No. 246.78th
Cong. 2d Sess, 200 (1946)
("Unnecessary" means unnecessary so
far as tbe public is concerned, as would
be the case If s minor or merely
technical amendment in which the
public U not particularly interested were
involved. "Public interest" supplements
tbe terms "impracticable" or
"unnecessary"; it requires that public
rulemaking procedures shall not prevent
an agency from operating and that on
the other hand, lack of public interest in
rulemaking warrants an agency to
dispense with public procedure). A
number of courts have also held that
notice and comment procedures are not
required in analagous circumstances.
See. f-g- National Nutritional Food*
Association r. Kennedy, 572 F.2d 377.
385 (2d Or. 1978): Texaco. Inc. r. FPC,
412 F-2d 740.743 (3d Or. 1979): United
State* v. US. Trucking Co. 317 F. Supp.
eS.71(SJ).N.Y.lS70).
Although *EPA will not seek comment
on letter notice actions or publish
individual notices of ft"*! rulemaking. in
order to keep the general public
informed ol ail SIP actions EPA will
pubbah periodically in the Federal
Regktsr a summary list of all actions
taken under the letter notice procedure.
Tne effective date of all letter nonce
actions wlIL however, be the date of the
letter Itself rather than that of the
subsequent summary Federal Register
notice.
EPA wffl only use the letter nonce
procedure lor
-------
Register / Vol M. No. U / Thursday. frno«f> It, UK / Notice*
Administrator*. Both propoaed cad final
Federal Into* totien for these
action* will henceforth be signed by the
Regional Administrators.
Section 301UH1) of tb« Act authorises
the Administrator to delegate toy of hit
powefs ud duties under tb« Act to
otfatr EPA employees except "the
nuking of regulations." to an Mtiy
interpretation of this statutory provision
EPA concluded that, white proposed SIP
rulemaking did aol constitute the
nuking of regulations", any final action
on a SIP would fall within thii
prohibition. Upon further reflection. EPA
now conclude* that the prohibition on
delegation applies only to regulation*
initially promulgated by EPA. not to
plans prepared by States that EPA
merely approve* or diMpproves.
The natural reading of the statutory
phrase "the nuking of regulations"
extends only to regulations that the
Administrator himself promulgates.
Although in approving a SIP revision the
Administrator does incorporate State
promulgated regulations into the
federally enforceable SIP. he still cannot
properly be said to be "making"
regulations within the *"••"'">. of the
section 90l(a) prohibition on delegation.
As a practical matter. EPA has
acquiesced in those judicial decisions
holding mat EPA must follow the
ruiemakiflg procedures of (he
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 5
U.S.C. 553, when it-approves or
disapproves Slate implementation plans.
However, even- if SIP review is
-rulemaking" under the APA. EPA
believes these actions do not constitute
"the making of regulations • • •" Thus.
while section 301(aHl) of the dean Air
Act prohibits the Administrator from
delegating his authority to make federal
regulations* it doe* not prohibit
delegation of his authority to act upon
regulations made at the State level.
The implementation section of thi»
notice contains a detailed listing of
those categories of SIP actions that the
Administrator currently is delegating to
the Regional Administrators, those
categories the Administrator is
delegating but which should still receive
some input from Headquarters at this
time, and those categories that will
continue to receive full Headquarter*
review for the time being. These
categories may change over time ai
Headquarters prepares additional
guidance and Regional Office* become
more familiar with new issues.
B. Improve Certainty of 'Pmceti
The second major focus of EPA's
change* in the SIP processing system U
to improve processing procedures so
that todMdaal actions can be handled
with greater certain ty. These change*
involve increased aaaBagement control
and datifled processing guideline*.
1* AflMIVDOsf to afOHMi PfOOsMtfM
BPA^has foe sometime had dettikd
rT**""*if>s far processing tilt's through
the existing SIP review system. Tbeee
procedure* is)cbjds tine schedules.
default provision*, and issue resolution
mechanism*, llowevar. tor a number of
reasons these procedures have often not
been followed precisely in the peat
With the adoption of the processing
reforms described herein. EPA will be
revising Its pro
> to establish
guidelines for each type of SIP review
mechanism. When the new guidelines
are issued, senior management will
make clear that in the future they are to
be adhered to more rigorously, this will
ensure that State submittal* move
quickly through EPA's review process,
with any major iasue* being raised
promptly lor resolution.
1 Crandfathering Policy
In the peat a muiber of States have
submitted SIP revisions that were
consistent with EPA requirements
(reguiatioaa. policies, legal
interpretations, etc.) in effect at the time
of State adoption of the revision.
However.-to somr case*, because of
processing delays ud policy evolution.
the applicable requueiaeua would
change before the reviaieas received
EPA approval Tba'EPA'cpast
procedure was to morn the plan to the
State for rrnsioc or disapprove the
action. Not only did this add more time
to an already lengthy process, it also
strained EPA/State/local agency
relation*. Moreover, there was ma basic
question of fairness involved. In such
cases, the State submitted the revision
in good faith and in accordance with the
rule* and police* in effect at the time of
submission, only to see months go by
and find out the change was rejected
due to factor* totally beyond Its control
EPA has determined that In general it
would better serve the State* and the
interests of the SIP processing system to
continue to process most State
submittals based on the requirements in
effect st the tune the State adopted the
change to the SIP. To this end. EPA
recently issued guidance on
grandfathering entitled "Grandfathering
of Requirements for fending SIP
Revisions'*, sent from Gerald Emison,
Director. OAQPS. to EPA Regional
Office Air Division Director*, fun* 27.
1968 (a copy is included in the docket as
ltemD-B-5).
The guidance provide* a structure for
* SIP action* to
the exteat allowed by law. The law in
this area indicate* that whenever a new
requirement ia created by Congress (via
statute) or by EPA J via regulation or
policy), tt become* generally applicable
•alecs the autaoriry establishing the
uirement provides otherwise. When
.
Congress enacts a new .unite. It applies
to all matter* then pending before an
agency unless Congress specifically
i otherwise m the statute. The
EPA ha* ao authority to grandfather any
matter from the new statutory
requirements Without explicit provisions
in the statute.
When EPA Issue* new regulation*.
they an also generally applicable unless
the regulations themselves include
grandfathering provision*. If
grandfathering provision* are not
explicit in the regulation*, court* will
apply the new rules to man en pending
before EPA. Thorpe v. Homing
Authority of Durham. 393 U.S. 288
(1900). However, an agency does have
some flexibility to provide
grandfatbemg provision* • new
regulations. Such provisions are eauaUy
appropriate where they meet a four-part
teat First the new rule represent* an
abrupt departure from weU-estabnsbed
practice, Second, affected pane* have
relied on the old rule. Third, the new
rules impose a large burden on those
affected. Fourth, there is no strong
statutory interest in applying the new
rule generally. Sierra Club v. EPA. 719
FJd 436 (D.C. Cir 1982). cert den. 408
U.S. 1204 (1984). In the past. EPA ha*
included explicit grandfathering
provisions in new regulation* where
appropriate.
An agency ha* broad authority to
decide how and when to i**u« new
guidance, since as a purely leg*! matter
guidance is not absolutely binding on
subsequent proceedings. Pacific Cos
and Electric Co. v. /PC 306 FJd 33 (D.C
Cir. 1874). Historically, however. EPA
has provided only limited
grandfathering from significant guidance
primarily due to the importance of the
aew guidance to EPA's control
»* V^p ea.4***>»
EPA'* expanded grandfithering
guidance states that complete pending
SIP action* generally should be subject
only to the requirements in effect at the
time the State submittal was prepared.
However, the guidance include* a
number of exceptions to the general
rule. The EPA would not grandfather s
pending actioo-where a court ruling has
changed a requirement, when a court
has convinced EPA that a requirement is
no longer supportsbia. where the
Administrator determine* mat
-------
2220
Feajerul JUfjaler / Vol Si. Na If / Thuraday. frmury it. IflBB / NotietJ
grsndJatbering is not appropriate, where
an imminent and substantial adverse
environmental impact would result.
where erandfatheriag would fortdosr
EPA's ability to exercise its authority
under the dean Air Act or where the
State has not acted in good faith ia
submitting a plan.
The guidance abo state* the EPA will
analyze the need for grandfathering
provision! in all new EPA requirements.
and win include such provisions in aD
cases to the extent appropriate.
3. Improved Guidance and
Communication
In order to facilitate implementation
of the various SIP processing changes
EPA is instituting, existing guidance wO)
be upgraded and new guidance prepared
wherever needed. Headquarters offices
have committed to provide adequate
guidance to Regional Offices and to be
available for consultation to aaaiat the
Regions in impiementiaf the new
programs.
EPA will also be lm|HBiiug
communication* pmneeii Headquarters
and Regional Office*, aad anmj
different Regroaal Offices, toeJfeefivefy
implement the deoentreneee'SP
processing sya»anv.Improved
communication teiJiuliiuet. desuibetl in
the implementation section, include
identifying regional SIP contacts, the
"regional staff expert" concept a SIP
clearinghouse, a computerized tracking
system, periodic conference calls, and
national meetings.
4. SIP Processing Management System
The final change EPA is instituting in
the SIP processing system is a new SIP
processing management system. Under
this system EPA managers will maintain
cioce supervision over the SIP
processing system to ensure that SIPs
move smoothly through the new
procedures. The new management
system, described in full in the final
section of today's notice, includes both
an internal aad external audit system.
an expanded computerized tracking
system, and a SIP processing deviation
review systi
The following discussion focuses on
the more significant aipeeu of the
implementation of (he SIP processing
change* announced today; ***• fj"*!
portion addresses imacavemenu In4he
being
A. Tailor Review to Significant* of
Action
1. Completeness Criteria
Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable SIP package.
that wtD avoid obvious madequacJes.
end nut can be Applied uniformly with
baited subjective judgment and review.
The criteria were developed by EPA
Regional Offices already using a list of
criteria to determine completeness of
SIP packages in aa informal way. The
Jti of ni
benefits of
in
i criteria
to reject deficient packages mchide
improved commrtancy end quality la the
State submitteaT received for proceseing*
fewer SfPa disapproved far fundamental
inadequacies, more effective use of
limited raau ureas at both the Federal
and State level end impiufeU guidelines
fornew State personnel on how to
prepare adequate SIP*. Aa noted earlier.
an interim poncy for determining
completeness of SIP submrKali was
issued to the EPA Regional Offices. The
policy include* basic criteria for
determining completeness, and sample
leans for aoaaptatf ead njerritu SIP
instituted to Assure the snrwnuvsH
changes are properly iotpiesBeMed.
i ia today's I
r. the ^rtiiiuiaauaaM ia proposing
to add tbaee criteria aad peoeadara for
detarmijnog but eomaketeaesa of State
submttieia »4DCnt Part K. EPA will
cuBoaua SB uaa the anerim policy to
aaseaa SIP submmais aaol final
fujemftiugf acnon is tekyn OB today's
accompanying propeeal
Tae.criiens for determining wbetber a
subnuttal by the State is complete have
been eapeuaud into two categories: (a)
Admmiatra&ve information and (b)
technical support mfonaauon.
Admonatnove mfozmanon includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedure* have been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies the technical
components of the plan submission.
2. Letter Notice
Using a letter notice for non-
substanual actiooa. which EPA will
beeni doing after today, is a new
process where EPA will merely inform a
State and directly affected parties by
letter that EPA asi approved a given SIP
revision. The objective of the letter
notice approach is to achieve prompt
action by EPA on Dea-eubataatJal
actions wssue tae public interest is not
served by rail notice and coenment
processing. By usmg letter notice*.
EPrTs iiaaued ra*oene» cac be allocated
to metexpedHioua proceseing of more
Under letter notice, ea soon as a
revision has been deemed approvable.
the Regional Administrator or hii
deetgnae witteand a tetter to the State
aad affected parties, informing them of
tae approval The EPA may not publish
a notice of proposal and provide aa
GC^ortBttity for public comment beyond
that already provided for by the State.
In order to keep me public informed of
these actions, IPA will publish
periodically (amwelly at a minimum) in
the Fedaeei mejteaar a summary list of
all letter •fltmcacnons recently taken.
widi tafanHtseo concerning the change
and the sources effected, as appropriate.
These aesioa* will be affective from the
date of the letter notice, rather than the
eventual summary publication date. The
Regional Offices will make the decision
whether lo process a SIP revision as s
letter notice.
EPA Intends to use discretion in the
application of letter nonce processing to
insignificant SIP revision*. The
following are examples of soch
revisions. Pmjnenfly. States/local
agencies will raeodfiy existing
regvmfions teto 4*new s^scttzre or to
improve the understanding of the
program. These cLaugi* are superficial
from the perspective of the air quality
management program and are of little
interest to the general public. Other
revisions to implementation plans
incorporate amended or revised national
guidance documents pursuant to EPA
directives and are made merely to
umfuiu to revised requirements, hi
other cases, many States hare programs
using renewable operating permit! for
the purpose of source regulation.
Usually, the permit is renewed without
change and the permit action is of little
public interest.
Technical amendments.
administrative actions, and minor
wording changes are further examples of
SIP revisions that are surtsble for
processing by letter notice. It is
expected that the list of SIP revisions
that can be processed by letter notice
will be expanded as experience if
gained with the process. EPA
specifically requests comment on the
appropriateness of using letter notice
processing for these and other potential
categories.
3. Increased Use of Direct Final
On June a. 1*82 (47 FR 27073). EPA
announced procedures to shorten and
streamline the SIP review process. One
of these sus.iumes was (fee dfrect rmal
rutemaenig approach. This program has
been shew* tvieeajce the SO3 tmxgMmg
-------
/ VoL H. No. U
)maiy IB. 3BBB f
2821
review time by about MperaaoLSeaca tad th*A4Bb^atntiaris today
its ineeptioc. many m isluaai have b»ta rtiligsiing sjaaaton anlhrriij fnr i
published aaearaotamwlrw»B*rtni vary Sgisi»iasai lhai a»eao«ofi
f «w receiving notice tea the public of
tbe daaira to comment. Tba loilowiag
are some types of SD>i that haw baa
processed wccauiaUy as diract finals:
ts EP A
«. fci. X»A«.lt%»^f y> «^»Iimi« MM
•AMiMeMeaa *be
pfOCeOJUVjS tO tttMBfla &Cw EPA
guidelines
• ItevisiOMtobvofpanle
BStBOQS DJT MMHB09
• jinjls »m lira TIT laria inns rtiit onlro
• Suit's i
stsioysat
• Public availability of i
• Permittee*
• Compliance schedula* for sactioc
UlfD) plans
• Visibility plans
• Volatile organic oompoond (VOQ
consent orders
• Prevention of significant deterioratioa
(PSD) modeling regulations
• Minor change* to inspection and
maiaienaace 0/M) programs
• New opacity ragohrfoaa
• Vsrienaes
• Operating, permits for lead SIPv.
Of 134 SlPreviiiiau pniaaaaad m
rtceatly u dgortfiaiU, only two
aiidOhanaiaaantpUaa
•OOi
•etpt tbota nUtie« \o
oaly pioMaau or hat spau
approval/ illi aji|i 1 1 il MKhortty for tbe
majority etaPXHbt M»*fl
te the
) iaitwjia* tboM rmultuu
IKPs
iVOCraewat»m|*4.ptr
Otfii
past Tbe
tbaStaat
i ataa OM RafMMUl
bccaufts of public
of v«y Unit public COOMBI-OB d»ct
final rulei mqiitad tbvt EPA could Ha*
thi* rf»cti»t tool •••« aftaa to apMd op-
the SIP prooaa*.
For this raasoa. EPA teMMd a
memaraadim datad Dacanbar Zt. 1917
tntitled "Expanded Ua« of Direct Final
SIP Proceuing." from Gerald A. EmiaoD.
Director. OAQP5. «• B>A'* Regional
Ofiicai (a copy t* «"^-<**^ is tba dockat
a« item D-B-2). For tb»t*aaoBi atctad
above, thii menorandua noomcaesdvd
that tht dmct final nilamotinn
approaek could bt naad nara
by tht Regional Offioaa. It is pesaibia
that EPA's plaa to aaqaaad tba
applica&oa of tfaa diract final rulemakiot
approach may rasult in an taovaaa in
tbe number of SIPs bstaf wrtbdrawn
and tubiactad te fullMttoe aid
comment mlamairiaj bacauaa of tbe
desirt by tbe pablic to ooonnaat
However, any inraoaaa in tba Bumbar of
direct fl»**i ^tin<^ witbdrawv «n/i
t attavalitT o»a>»iiiBB notti
u b«i«d on
tht an af neo-atnnxml aodcU or
• SSPrevMoaawtMreBPAUoDoeri coun-
uUHea' adiea'ate (e*_ ladisni SOi StPi
• BOiStttawtotpUsstaUateBcnu)
• SIPi br new fcaerte State-wide pmyiinu
a Rapooal Offio.
and a Haada,aanan review: tba letter
will enewe oonaisiaBt pobcr atelioateoB
for tbase na txmaUy sifuificaat SIPs. SIP
actxto* which mioiaMy will oomi*ua to
be decided by tba Adatiaaaratar an
listed in Table 1. This list and tba veW
lists daaodbad below at« oet iataatdad
to be pannasMtt lint U. SIP categories
vay be shifted amoag tbam aver tua.
For eranpta ft to EPA'staiaation to
delej stt aona of tka SIP caiafonss H
Table 1 to tba Kaaaoaal Adauaostrators
as experience with tbe aawprocaaa ia
conwtad to prvvoaak abould be more
than offsat by tfaa overall improvamant
to umaly procaaatai af total SIP action*.
1 TTTTirislfi nislhnirr
A comanlofla of*na
ncommendatiau of the SIP proceasiog.
gained aad policies maiura. Convaraaiy.
tf the Refjooal Offiflaa bare difflealty
with a deksatad catoforv. s«ca SIP
actions my be withdrawn ten
delegation aod be sublet to Ui
Headquartaes
• Aar S8> irnaiaa. cspTOwt/dM^raTml o(
wSKh meM TAa-'^T"ttT ttcvMM frocn
flsTOoOB poifcy
A second category of SIP revaiont.
listed in Table 2. are actiaoi where
some Headquarteri review u seemed
appropnata prior to final action. Thii
category was developed to addreit
those SIP* where guidance u reliuvely
new and thus it-is prudent for
Haadqvartaa to monitor the decision
pracaaa at tbe Regional Office level
Thle category aerves as a transition
between Headquarters review and
B^yyw..! Office rariew and will provide
an opporronirr for Hasdouartcn
oversight without adding a significant
rrriew requirement. Although the
Regional Administrators will have
deaaxta antberity for theas SIPs, the
HaadoMTtcn offices will have 30 day.
from the ska fea SIP in '
(indodiaf tbedxsrf; Fadatal Rn«*«
notca tad tafftri s^isnil) is racerred
TABUl
bat arfbar Sa
-------
2222
Fadanl
/ VoL M. No. 12 / Tburtday. January 18. 1969 / Notice*
opportunity to provide comment* to
Regional Office decUionmaker*.
TABLE 2
Tht following SP scn'ons are delegated for
Regional Administrator deowoc and sjgnofl
(proposed and fmsllbut leeuiie • 90-day
opportunity for HeaoqWters' review before
»sno0.
• Paniculate natter emiMioM relaxation*
• VOC revisions with extended compliance
schedules effecting nonstuinment area*
CO attauimem plans deauag with i
• CO redesignsnon* relating to point unites
only problems and hot spou
• SOi area-wide and source-specific SIP
revisions snd redesignattons. where the
sourceis) or background sources ia the
aggregate nave allowable smissinns of
2UXB TPY or more (except primary
nonferraus smelters or emission tredmgj
• SOi revisions with (a) avefaftai times
trtaier than the short-term SOt-NAAQS:
(b) revised emission limits dae to
chsntei in suck height credits
• Visibility SIPs involving regional naxe
• Direct final rulcmskini in categories
identified for Admuustrmtor stcaofl (see
Tsfaie 1)
• Any other scnon not listed elsewhere
Decision authority for all remaining
SIPs is being delegated to the Regional
Administrators, with no requirement for
consultation with Headquarter* prior to
signoff. The primary criterion uaed to
judge which SIP* could be delegated to
the Regional Adminiatrator for derision
was the significance of the action.
Another criterion was the availability of
appropriate policy memoranda/
guidance to the Region* for making
decisions on the approvability of a SIP.
The categories of SIP* initially to be
delegeted to the Regional Administrator
for final approval authority are listed in
Table 3. Although these revision* are
being delegated for the Regional
Administrator'! signature, the
Headquarters SIP reviewer* will be
available for discussions with the
Regionel Offices on any of the
categories of SIP revisions. The Regional
Office* also have the option of tending
SIP submissions which come under any
of these categories to Headquarter* for
the full review, especially where the
Regional Office review* indicate that
national issue* may be of concern,
TABLES
The following STP actions are delegated for
Regional Admmntrttordecutao end stgnoff
(proposed and final). Headquarters review ia
not required bat may be requeued by the
Regional Office.
• All ether bubbles aad an other eugie-
• VOCextenosdt
(except tbeea aflecnag i
.Lsadettatament plane,
• AD ether SO, SO*. I
mUsignsHons: ambient Monitoring
plans: maJrancnoo iwlec SUM AAQS
• Sut* suck he^tragttlstioo* and ne*atr»e
B. Improve Certaznfy eftht Pnctu
\. Adherence of Formal Procedures
• AB ether PSD/NSK SIP*
• Afl other vmbJntypUa*
• llKdlplaaa/nttaoradecUiattow
• Aflotber direct teal ttieaataag
• All tetter nonce i
SIP fame* (aad revulon*) in
categoric* of potential national
reviewed to Headquarters and signed by
the Administrator. Toe categories of
SIP* delegated to the Regional
A4minj*m tor fvdexasion aad sign-off
are inherently localised to scope and do
not have potential for.natieoal impact.
(Obviously, an •""»«fej SIP revision in a
delegated category could involve broad
issues: the change* in procedure
ennc. sed today provide for full
conic. .* non between the Regional
Office and Headquarter*, and even for
the forwarding of each an unusual
action for full Headquarters review.)
Thus, except focumeual cases,
deoaion* made by a Regional
PMM Croup n end IB HPi TV
radeweaation*
factors, nflact local iaaaac. aad may
. indeed yield varying navha, although
Regional Office* will apply policies
consistently. Socfa rtariainaa are,
therefore, intended to be now-
transferable, U- do net set precedents
for other Rations. For example, an
emission Umit far a paniculate matter
source in a State may require a specific
value to-confonn to. the State's
demonstration of attainment. The same
type of plant in another State, however.
might have a different limit Imposed
based on it* location and sUe-tpeciflc
factor*. In abort it i* expected that the
outcome of the deoaion process for
limilar SIP actions can vary from Region
to Region. Each such local action must
be judged on its own merits. This ia
acceptable, provided that national
policy and guidance applicable to auch
action* are applied consistently by all
Region* involved.
To provide the Regional Office with
the neceeaary support. B>A is
completing a comprehensive
compilation of policy statements.
guidance, and memoranda applicable to
those action* when ««w«iBf««t
Headquarter* review i* being
eliminated. Moreover, to '"nf""*"
oversight of this deceBtralired proces*.
EPA will institute more intensive
management system*, designed to
•nsure national consistency in policy
application (see diacuaaion oo
Meniftmem System* later m this
notwo).
Detailed pre
re* exist for
procewing and reviewing SIP revision*.
Among other thing*, the procedures
provide for firm achedule*. default
provision*, and mechanums for issue
rceohition. The procedure* frequently
are not following for a variety of
raaaon*. In tome cue*, a Regional
Office may balirre that infernally
workmt/netottrtng with the State
would provide tafgrmation or result in
change* tettw itfniuton that would
enable £TA fa approve the plan
revuuons. Thto caa occur because there
it aa teherent rcmetaace by reviewen
to disapprove a plan into which a State
or local agency has put considerable
effort The goal of this informal
approach waa to enhance the
relationship with the State, although the
ultimate effect may have been the
opposite.
The current guidance and procedures
far SIP processing are being reviewed.
modified a* necessary to stress the need
for more formal implementation, and
will be reaubnahed with a clear senior
management directive on their
importance. Further, the management
•ystem decribed below will help ensure
that the reviewing office* follow the
formal procedure*. This, along with
increased management attention to the
SIP process. *hould enable those
interested in the results of the SIP
review process, internally and
externally to EPA, to follow more
effectively the progress of individual
action*.
2. Crandfathering Guidance
EPA Issued grandfathenng guidance
to the Regional Office* a* described
earlier. The guidance is to be considered
in each rulemaking action on a SIP
revision and in all new or revised
requirements for SIP* issued by EPA.
EPA believes that it deals with the
fairness Usoe, will not have noticeable
environmental impact and will
•trengthen EPA'* working relationskipi
with the State* and local agencies.
Under the guidance,, a SIP revision may
remain subject to the requirements in
effect generally on the date of State
adoption of the change. The decision to
grandfather will be made by either the
Administrator or the appropriate
Regional Administrator where decision
authority has bee* delegated.
All SIP revision* potentially subject to
erandfatberinj vatti be reviewed to
determine to what 'extant the submission
complies with the new aad revised
requirement*. For each revisions. EPA
-------
it
t
will addrae* die
fn
afthe
(P
InadcUMNLihebectefBri
fttture aubmiuaU wtt ba aaeuibad a i
addressing the impact on pranaeaiy
approved, pearring, taAnmly mhaHfted
SIP*. Such gfaadlatharfeg pnwiaioM
feaanJrjr vffl have aOBOtiwe tfatas
which aratBaaysfraartha data of
signature to allew Mates to have a
raaaoaahk Baa to cnnalete titni eaiia»
and SMhsit rrnaiaos to SPA that may
In nilijirl in paailfeiliatlij
Altfamtgti greartfifhetBH witt he
aquicy eoaaidarateaBs aad ahorMarai
anvwooaantal impact*, it «• *ot
automatic aad may Dot ha appiopciete
in all amrmitencea. ThaavaadBae
situations whan:
1. The State hee not acted fa goad faith
to aubmcnag • plan:
2. A coort ruling has changed a iedeol
requireaMot or hee ainiutfad IPA
that a pre»ioai raqvoaaant is no
lomjereuppertabia:
3. The A4aiaie0a4cra\eaaRna»ea that ft
andaraDewBPApoiier.
4. AdaoMOBtogMad
an ittBiAaot aao\
advarae
alteraebvas te
tystetaatBTtadatr
proo
ba
«eal
the Reaio
•pplioatlon oipoikqr
Thii (nidac* brnld*
inodfathtriaf guidance («.|_ air qvality
diipercioa modclinf] to «KifaUih the
(eaeral ooaoepi of an«4k MMnaf-wkw*
equity dtcutca taca aeaao.
When fmdfataaBHV would randtr
the SIP as a wtekt MfaataBttatiy
inadequate to yrowt ttae MAAQ5 ar
oth«rwi*» to ooaptrwi* la* Act
ptadfaththac aay aa afloww* mtr <
(uttified by
be aaaurad. Seiaral
tindarwey-in tok raaanl _
The cjdatiat SV tcaduai ayataai. "Sff
TRAX" whirTi piMantlj. apn folio*.
SIP nrbeaiTbd* ban ftairraeaia< at
Headquartatm. is baiaa •°T">/UA to
tnck a SIP eofamittal &x>m aeeaipt by tBe
Reaiflnal Office te f*fr»***«t»
the four-part Sierra Qua taet aaecrihad
earlier, and the grandfamanag actioa
would have only a Mai tad ffle (gemecally
two yean). WJfcm that toe. the
grandfatherad rarteton must terminate
(*4, expirattcai of a temporary
variance), or the Stitaaiatt safamltra
complete, aaeaonhie lemaaoo ta th« fgf
tebnngitintetaMrtimfiHaereanaall
tuwtoryi
•Vana|«aiirii Syatau'below). Data
rnrrntnatl hi ftn ijatein x(TI lie refined
and adtutad a» erpariance 1» gained
under the new prooedure*. In parallel
wiCb txttf tovcjo&f aTfartwsj CHffoyr
greateretaphnirwIU bt placet! on the'
*ey Scr contact9* pcraoiB ID the
Refiona) OAcas. Afandy to piica, thne
peraou wtfl bam <
* av ne Rapoixai OScM oo
more of the-daaaioiBnaUBioirSrP
nboiKaia. R to a^eetad (hat mart
iTV^QCA VaW v* COBI flVQCV f*p%r
betwwn MDW ortfifiajfiam. wffl be
mada. and a troricdrnp on Sff
OOOJUDCVQB WHx VV
RepooaiOBe* a* prafraax ttaff
.....
«aat Caranm.
place
•wtaWManant oft KcfioBa! Office SIP
CoondL Such • Council would be
cotnpoaad of Rational Office SIP review
•mft caaired on a rotatmf batu by one
of the office*. The chair would MtablUb
• Baattnf fraqt>cacylBa*uleconfereace;
which eould be monthly or at tome
•teflar refuixr period. The purpote of
the matting* would be for each Region
to dttcutt SIP pracaMini •ctivitia* for
the period, to hfehliiBt oaaiual iwuai
that aroaa. aad to idanltfy/raiolvc
point* of taiieiiUuB between Regions.
Haadouartan etaff-woold participate in
thaaa CaaadLaaat^f* a* advieoa and
to pawvida aaatay^aaakiucal expartiae.
SejalBram •tiikiWeach raeetnc*
wadfoa pMied-aa aa aiactronic
buUatn board lor future reference and
guidance.
Othar ioitkitivat a»e betag coojidercd
Thaea ieduda aaanou of "policy
' eatabaabmg Haadquanen
axpem in oanaea pcogram area* lo
provide quick taeponee to Regional
Office iBqanm. A* aa axtanMon of thii
concept. Regional Office "expert*" are
etyarrerf to a«arfa over nae who
would earre *e aatae faction for their
coUeejue*. Artiaejh *e faH icope of
improved coeaBMeicattoQ* techsiqw*
hamm bean faty «aAe«dtt tint time
(nvBaad. anoeld awar be noehzed tincc
faffnffiuraoaflflea flow ailteieiiuy inimio
be dfaaaic^ EPA hi eware of the
importanoe •< Me faoction and ii gtving
it ffifh |HI4HltJ).
t of the SIP
review by both the Regkwal Office* and
H«ixtq»«n«n. t* vtlal to ennre thai
impieuwniatJUD piaos tuLuuiiced by
State* are yicir.eeeHd exprdltjouity. As
pan of thu action to improve SIP
pieoeaeing wttfain ff A. the mtnvgement
vyttaa-a bernj revived to monitor the
prooeeaing of inpicmentation pl«n
revi»>oBi ui***> the change* described
today. A basic goal of thii revu«d
aaanagesnetrt eyvtzm U to ensure ID
appropriate degree of consistency
between all ie^m»m in imerpreting
and implementmj the SIP processing
gnidaaca aod air onality miaegement
program policy. The management
•ynem will also evaluate the reviewers'
conformance to ettabtithed review
ptocaduici. In addition, an outgrowth of
the manafetBRit tjnaa win be the
identification ofla*8M and problams in
implanaraa&CB pta^auidance. policies.
and prooadaBe* st-feca HMdquners
and ReghmaiOacaa. Witt voch
informatioa. 0A caa casua the timary
vpdate ofpoBcy end processing
-------
.2224
Fedenl
/ VoL M. No. U / TtaCTday. January It, M» / NotioM
The management program is designed
to ensure the adequacy of the processing
procedures and to facilitate the review
of implementation plans. Identification
of program deficiencies is not intended
to result in recriminations but to
improve the process. The effect of the
unproved management program should
be increased public confidence in the air
quality management program, and more
certainty on the part of States and
industry regarding the operation of the
SIP review process.
Audits
A-key feature of the management
system is the developmentof an audit
program. The audit program is designed
to review actions, generally after
processing is complete and final action
i* taken, to determine whether
processing procedures aad program
policy have been adhered to during the
review of the implementation plan. It U
not the intent of the management
program to review, or second-guess.
every SIP action thst is processed within
EPA.
The frequency of program audit* will
be based upon several factors. One
factor is the total number of
implementation plan revisions
processed by s particular office. This is
important bcnnsr significant processing
deviations are more nksly to result
when the number of actions is high. A
second fsctor to be ronsidrrrrl in
determining the frequency of the audit
cycle is the type of actions processed—
newly implemented programs with s
significant level of complexity should
receive greater attention than programs
which are well established. Another
element in determining the frequency of
audit* will be the prior performance o
the reviewing office. Those that have
demonstrated problems should receive
greater attention and thus more frequent
audit than ares* with demonitrated
capabilities. A* * corollary, in addition
to examining performance of specific
organizations, the audit program will
identify program aress where several
organization* are demonstrating s lack
of understanding, indicating the possible
need for improved guidance.
The audit program mutt be designed
such that the interval between audit* U
not too lengthy. With reasonable-
frequency, the management system must
be able to obtain an overview of the
basic program and the personnel
responsible for implementing the
program. Such a review is necessary to
ensure that the skills and knowledge to
effectively proceu all types of plan
revisions are maintained; thi* U
necessary even where few and/or
routine plan revisions are received.
The audit program will employ two
M of infer
basic SOWOM of information: (1) Records
and documents enbmined or prepared
as part of the formal sabmittal aad
review process; sad (2) discussions with
the individuals SB Headquarters and/or
i Office* involved
familiar with the program requirements
reviewing • eetorted-pornonof the
revisions processed by (he SIP review
naff. The Regional Offices will focus
their internal audit efforts on those
actions to be signed by the Regional
I of pknt in general and
I with specific Sg actions.
Through review of the processing
documentation and the implementation
plan suheritUl the auditor can
OettsPsBstPst toOsfp€DOsa8luy tfakf proOtGBTM
stional policy
i with the
individual isjenonaioss«Br tns nrooasainsj
and-review of SB» actions wlB provide
information related to Deficiencies that
exist to the processing guidance,
difficulties in conforming to prognon
policy for specific actions, and elements
missntg from EPA guidance that should
receive attention st the national level
The Regional Offices wfll need to
^Mtntafy|. tfa^ rul] documentation mn^
history of each SIP action processed. In
the majority of cases this will not result
in any extra work load since most of
this information is contained m the files
already maintained by the epproprist*
Regional Office, fa addition to the
currently maintained manual record*.
EPA ^MTT*^* to erpand an IST t^,^rtnM^
microcomputer-based system for
lining the ststus of currently
active implementation plans. The
current system tracks SIP revisions for
yi^jiflt^trtin* fam *tatns of SIP actions
upon receipt of the package by
Headquarters and contains no
information on plan revisions at the
Regional Office: the system will be
expanded to maintain information on
the status of SIP actions under review
by any EPA organizational element. This
will permit the rapid transfer of
information between Regional Office*
and Headquarters on the ttstus of all
actions which are active within EPA.
There are two types of audit functions
anticipated by this program—internal
and external An internal program audit
involves the routine audit of the SIP
review process by those individual*
within the reviewing organisation who
are directly responiible for the review of
the SIP. Thi* internal audit will occur at
both Headquarter* and the Regional
Office* on an ongoing basis. Rather than
mandate the procedure* to be used by
each Regional Office and appropriate
Headquarters office for the internal
audit, each office will establish audit
procedures that are appropriate based
upon resources, capabilities, and the
nature of SIP revisions processed. For
example, it may consist of senior staff
The external audit is designed to
obtain an independent overview of the
program. This audit wfll be conducted
by Headquarters individuals with
expertenoata IIP review but who do not
take an actvHsseo the process. The
external s*e»ftp address si facets of
the programMMsAog adherence to
IRA policy, the hsoMCt of sir quality
•liiiafsimnl. sad the effectiveness of
the revised procedures to expediting the
Hiireeilin of State submission*. In
addition. Headquarters offices will be
audited on how well new pottcy is
distributed and explained to the
Regional Offices, Audit guidelines will
be developed and distributed to all
offices responsible for SIP review.
identifying in advance the major point*
of emphasis in the audit program. The
extsnal audit will •»•'"•"- not only
program deficiencies but also the
pos.tiv*-a*pscts of fanpiementation of
the program, providing a report both on
how ptugisa. defiaeadea can be
unproved and on how innovative
solatiOM nerve increased the efficiency
of the SIP review process. An important
output of the audit program is the
identification of training needs for those
Individuals responsible for SIP review.
As previously mentioned. EPA ha*
implemented a microcomputer-baaed
data system for tracking toe progress of
SIP* during Headquarter* review. Thii
system. "SIP TRAX" currently track*
specific milestones of the Headquarters
review process. These include:
(1) When th« revision was received in
Headquarters:
(2) Dste of staff concurrence;
(3) Date of approval by the Assistant
Administrator/Administrator:
(4) Date published in the Federal
Register.
The system U accessible by the
Regional Offices through a
microcomputer-based bulletin board
system and is updated on a weekly
basis. SIP TRAX will be expanded to
incorporate the initial phase* of SIP
review that occur in the Regional
Office* before esc implementation plan
is forwarded to-ttaedquarters for
review. This is ta&pora*t since the
proceu af trsnster or80> decision
responsibilities will result ta many SIP
-------
/ V«L.M. MB.;
Mt coming to Headquarters tad
ouldjwtb* eatered in • system
thus
tracking only Headquarters review.
Then an several naaona for
maimaiaing such a system. to order lor
the various Hasrtqnartan offices
responsible for program dsvsioaneat to
maintain • sense of the major SIP Jaeoaa
being addressed. a method el
«nmmari»iiig Jfp aCtJOBS prOOSSSSjd Is
accessary. The development of a data
b*M tytum that can provide such
information will reduce tfat resource
burden of soliciting input iron Regional
Offices. In addition. EPA U frequently
asked about the (pacific itatua of
implementation plan revisions la
process by the public, mdnstrlas, and
members of Congress. Siacs the vystsm
will be regularly updated to contain
information on all SIP action*, the data
base wfll be more complete and.
accurate than one solely relying on
Regional Office*' response* to periodic
inquiries. Overall an integrated system
will allow EPA to determiDe •ore
accurately the •tabu of. and time and
resource- commitments allocated to, SIP
review wherever it <
.SIP
aoaoopilr impact aMa*«meet hat been
actiMM that/an bkaly to affect the
program oa • aatioaal baaia wfll caeehre
fuO EPA iwWw md decision by the
Adateiatratot.AaapaHlt.the«ctaal
In addition to the basic program
oversight, an important function of me
audit will be to tdentSy 1
orci
rta
rfri
processing guidanet have ootuned. •
Thin imreinni rtrrladnae Tilll tit
exaoBad from the perapaetin of the
potemtial impact of the action. The
identification of prnrassan deviation*
could reault in varying raspoases.
ranging from limpla improvement! in
the review procaaa to thoaa few cum
expected where the State may be
required to lubmit a corrective SIP
action to resolve a deficiency. Tht
specific corrective action to be taken
will be determined on a case-by-ca*e
baiu.
The majority of implemenunon plan
reviiioni submitted by States era
associated with source specific action*,
are administrative in nature, or are in
direct response to EPA mandate* to
incorporate explicit regulatory
provision* or language. In most case*.
the environmental affect of SIP
processing deviation* an expected to be
iMtgjifl'^fi'*, MU| ttmf there shoukfbe
no need to require the State to cubmit
additional information or to make
further revision* to a specific *ubmittaL
However, for reoomng problem*, the
State will be notified that a particular
aspect of aubmitttmi *"'|>*"Mr'tittTi
plan revision* should ha ******** to
avoid the )—*-'fms lifantlisrl
Mere important deviate** may •
include action* where the potential
deviation ahoolel be Matted.
ik
i atbtatioaa so
that ejppfosjajato ajsjttooa to nan las
iatpact caa ba tana avasBBtty* la ttias*)
the probtam. For propossd actions. EPA
may rteed to withdrew the proposal aod
reverse the proposed approval/
disapproTv acUoai Altataatlvafy* w/nava
EPA has-My prBcaaeed aad appwaal a
nrrWoa to the tepieaaeatatton piaa. It •
may be aaoeeaary to **•*• a aottce of
SIP datkiency nquniag the SUto to
submit a renaion to comet the
idcatir v proousa. The reapoaee to each
ease » * M daodedfeased apoa the
specific merits of the piaa swiaiaa
involved aad the potential
environmental
Admteiatntve
Tka docket ia aa ocgaoind aad
iptetsL&k pf alltbavl
oooaidared byB'Am the dafaiopraoBt
of thaae. SIP. (avoaacag chMgvb Tta
docket 1* a dTaamvfiiiitoMaaaa^ . -"•
material U added throughout the 801101
docketing ij ffau «itetoa^ mdaaQtoa
tarrohred to idasfifr aad locate
participate in the praoaaa. Along with
the statement of ban* and purpuea of
the SIP prooaaaing rhing** and EPA
response* to «g«'fi«"» comments, the
oooteatj of the docket, except far
interafency review material*, will aanrs
a* the record in case of Judicial review
(aee Qean Air ACL aactioo 307(dK7XA).
..
The effective data of the** change* ia
January IB. 1998.
Section 3171*) of the Oaan Air Act 42
US.C T8I7(a). nates that ecoaomic
impact aaaeaaments an required for
reviaion* to ataadarda or regulation*
when the Administrator determine* mch
revision* to be aubetantial The change*
described today do not change the
substantive requirement* for preparing
and submitting an adequate SIP
package. No increase ia the coat aa a
mult of complying with the change*
described today is expected; iaureu»et.
the monitoring, noordkocping. aad
reporting requirements have bean
determined to be maabatantiaL Because
the expected economic affect of the
chaagea i* not tobetaatiaL DO detailed
The fcafermation collection
requirement* of these changes sn
coaaldsrerl to ba no djgerent than those
camatty nqmnd by the dean Air Act
aad EPA procedures. Thus, the public
uuorUng burden resulting from today'*
aotice is estimated to be unchanged
from existing requirement*. The public
ia invited to send comments regarding
the burden estimate or other aspect of
. including
t any burden, to
'the following: Chief.
Branch. PM-223. VS.
in Agency. 401M
*. Washington. DC ZMflfr. and
to (be Office of Information and
Regulatory Afiain, Office of
Management aad Bodget Wathinstoc.
DC 30600, marked -Atlantic* Desk
Officer (or EPA."
Under Executive Order 12201- EPA i*
required" to judge whether an action i*
"major" aad therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
amaryais OUA). The Agaacy ha*
dauaajDad that the SIP r»i««iirn
caaagjes Jtaaoooood today would reault
m aone of the aigaificaat advene
eonajoiair affarti sat forth in *ection l[b)
of the Order, sat greund* for a findwg of
"majat." DM Atttney ha*, thenion.
coooiooeri oat This action U aot •
aetioa-vaoar Exacotivt Oraar
Ttos-aottoe-wa* suboutted to OMB for
review "»«'T**«« with section 307fd) of
the dean Air Act, A copy ef tn* draft
notice a* aubmnted to OMB. any
document* accompaByiag the draft, any
written comment received from other
ageBde* (including OMB), and any
written response* to tho*e comment*
have been included in the docket
The Regulatory Flexibility Art of 1980.
8 U.S.C eoi-912. require* the
identification of potentially *dven«
impact* of Federal action* upon until
bustaes* entities. The act require* the
completion of a regulatory flexibility
aaarysia for every action unleti the
Administrator certifie* thai the action
will not have a «|pif"--«nt economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For reason* described above. 1
hereby certify that the final rule will not
have a *igai£caat economic n&psci on *
substantial aesBsber of tmali entitle*.
Pair liaeaifj. ism
LaaM.1
IF* Doe.
-------
0/Hx So/6,?!
j*'«°J*'vr PN 165-89-02-15-042
! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.
'•v. ,-f WASHINGTON O C 20460
'
FES I 5
Mr. John W. Boston ^,--..1.,,
Vice President . «•*-*••*•. •••>-,,..*ei.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company -.;
Post Offi-re Box 2046
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 52301
Dear Mr. Boston:
This is a revised final determination, on reconsideration,
regarding the applicability of the Clean Air Act's New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) -provisions to the proposed life extension
project at the Port Washington steam electric generating station,
which is owned and operated by Wisconsin Electric Power Company
(WEPCO) . This determination supplements the determination set _«/•..
forth in an October 14, 1988 letter to you from Lee M. Thomas,
which in turn incorporated my September 9, 1988 memorandum. I
find it necessary to reconsider EPA's original determination and
issue this revised determination in part to address matters
raised by, and new information submitted by, WEPCO
representatives since the October 14 letter. WEPCO believes that
these/new aspects call into question the accuracy of EPA's prior
determination.
For the following reasons, EPA today reaffirms, with limited
exceptions detailed below, its earlier findings regarding the
Port Washington life extension project. I hereby incorporate by
reference the October 14 letter and the September 9 memorandum,
and reaffirm the findings and conclusions in those two docvunencs
except where they are specifically superseded below.
This action constitutes final agency action for purposes of
judicial review under section 307 (b) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7607 (b) .
I. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
EPA explained in its earlier determination that under the
General Provisions of the NSPS regulations, a physical or
operational change which increases emissions at an affected
facility is a modification subject to NSPS. "See 40 CFR 60.14(a).
However, 40 CFR 60.14(e) provides certain exceptions to that
general rule. In particular, section 60.14(e}(2) provides that
an increase in production rate at an affected facility would not,
by itself, be considered a modification if that increase is
accomplished without a capital expenditure.
As has been discussed in recent meetings bet-ween WEPCO and
EPA, the October 14, 1988 letter from Lee M. Thomas was based in
-------
- 2 -
part on information supplied by WEPCO in a letter dated October
11, 1988 which indicated that the increase in production rate at
each of the five units would be accomplished with a capital
expenditure. On October 13, 1988, and November 22. 1988 WEPCO
submitted revised capital expenditure calculations. EPA has
carefully reconsidered its earlier determination based on those
two additional submissions.1 However, as explained below, they
provide no grounds on which to alter EPA's earlier finding on
capital-expenditure.
The" modification provisions are designed in part to subject
to NSPS those emissions increases caused by an increase in
production rate that is in turn attributable to a significant
investment in improvements to the capital stock. Consistent with
this intent, capital expenditure calculations employ the total,
as opposed to annual, cost of a given project at each affected
facility.
Thus, the December 16, 1975 preamble to the promulgated
definition of capital expenditure states that "...the total cost
of increasing the production or operating rate must be
determined. All expenditures necessary to increasing the
facility's operating rate must be included in this total" (40 FR
58416) (emphasis added). The total cost of the planned work at
each .f/acility -is then compared to the product of the existing
facility's basis and the annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage used by the Internal Revenue Service for taxation
purposes. If the total project cost for each facility exceeds
ihe product of the basis and repair percentage for each facility,
ther.e is"a capital expenditure at that facility. See 40 CFR
60.2.
It is appropriate to accumulate, for capital expenditure
purposes, the cost of the renovations necessary to increase the
facility's production rate, because the overall work necessary to
increase a facility's production rate pursuant to a particular
renovation project is the same whether the work is performed in
one calendar year or during two (or more) years. The use of
annual cost* could encourage sources to distort normal business
planning.by artificially stretching out costs over time as a.
means of. «vading a finding of capital expenditure and consequent
NSPS
1 The October 13, 1988 submission was not received in
time to b« considered in issuing EPA's letter of October 14,
1988.
2 Indeed, it appears that WEPCO may have extended the planne-
length of the Port Washington life extension project for
precisely this purpose after being informed by EPA in the Octobe:
-------
Rather, the purpose of the exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e}(2)
is to exclude from NSPS coverage increases in production rate
that are accomplished without "an expenditure for long-term
additions or improvements." See 39 FR 36948 (preamble to
proposed NSPS regulations). Where the economic realities of the
case are that increased production and, hence, emissions, are due .
to normal fluctuations in the business cycle rather than a
considered decision to invest in substantial capital
improvements, the NSPS do not apply.
The letter submitted on October 13 from Neil Childress of
your staff to Gary McCutchen of EPA presented updated basis
figures (determined by multiplying the original capital
investment in the facility by a coefficient"representing the
inflation in construction costs between the year of the
investment and the year in which the capital expenditure
calculation is made) for each of the emissions units at Port
Washington. These figures included costs of repair or
replacement of equipment, such as steam turbines, that is not
part of the existing affected facility for NSPS purposes. Since
applicability determinations under the NSPS modification
provisions are based on the existing affected facility, capital
expenditure determinations likewise are limited to costs
associated with the affected facility. For NSPS Subpart Da, the
affected facility is the steam generating unit as defined at 40
CFR 60.40a. Therefore, EPA staff requested WEPCO to limit the
basis figures to the steam generating unit.
The November 22, 1988 letter from Neil Childress to Walt
Stevenson of EPA presented revised cost figures on the renovation
work on steam generating units 1-4 related to the capital
expenditure calculations. These November 22 basis figures are
understood to be limited to costs associated with the affected
facility. The November 22 letter also presented a revised and
extended schedule for the renovation work, under which the costs
of repairs in any one year would not exceed the product of the
annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage, which is 5%
for electric utility steam generating units, and the basis of
each unit. Mr Cnildress' letter concluded that since 5% of each
14, 1988 letter that there would be a capital expenditure using
the original schedule. The unit 1 renovations have been extended
from four years to five; unit 2 has been extended from four years
to six; unit 3 has been extended from three years to six; unit 4
has been extended from two years to four. (Compare Telecopier
Transmission, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Gary McCutchen, EPA,
October 11, 1988 (table attached' to Response to Question No. 4)
with Letter, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Walt Stevenson, EPA,
November 22, 1988, at page 2.)
-------
- 4 -
unit's updated basis is not exceeded by the cost of renovation
work in any one year, there would not be a capital expenditure at
any of the units. The revised figures also show that the total
costs for each unit over the entire renovation period would
exceed the 5% basis figure by 50% to 325%.
As explained above, it is the total'cost,' not the annual
cost of a renovation project that determines whether a capital
expenditure has occurred. Accordingly, based on the calculations
and total project costs in WEPCO's November 22, 1988 letter, the
proposed project would result in a capital expenditure at each of
the five Port Washington units, and those units would not qualify
for the exemption in the NSPS modification provisions at 40 CFR
60.14(e)(2).3 As to unit 5, WEPCO did not submit cost data
limited to the affected facility. Thus, I have no reason to
alter EPA's original determination that WEPCO has not
demonstrated that the increase in production rate at unit 5 can
be accomplished without a capital expenditure.
In addition, I have determined that it is more appropriate
to utilize the original basis of each affected facility (as
adjusted to reflect past capital improvements), expressed in
nominal dollars, rather than the updated basis, expressed in
current dollars, in determining NSPS applicability. Thus, even
if WEPCO were correct that annual renovation costs, rather than
total costs, should be used in capital expenditure calculations,
in this case a comparison of annual renovation costs and the
3 'WEPCO has argued that since the definition of capi-ai
expenditure at 40 CFR 60.2 refers to the IRS "annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage" (emphasis added), EPA is
bound by the literal language of its own regulations to use
annual rather than total project costs in making capital
expenditure calculations. However, the regulations do not
dictate such a result. Instead, on their face they call for a
comparison-between total renovation costs and the annual asset
guideline. Had EPA intended the result suggested by WEPCO, it
would have explicitly called for comparison of annual costs of
the change for projects exceeding one year with the annual asset
guideline. This it did not do. In addition, as indicated above
the purpose of the capital expenditure provision would not be
served by annualizing project costs for capital expenditure
purposes.
-------
(adjusted) original basis of each affected facility shows that a
capital expenditure would still occur.«
In staking a more detailed inquiry into the capital
expenditure matter in response to WEPCO's request, I have found
that neither the NSPS General Provisions nor the preamble thereto
contain any discussion of the matter of original versus updated
basis, and that EPA has rarely been called upon to address this
issue.. However, upon review of EPA's past practice in this area,
I have found that in developing performance standards for
particular industries, EPA has provided the regulated community
a mechanism to calculate the original basis in making capital
expenditure calculations. See, e.g./ "Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refining Industry — Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-81-015b, December 7, 1983.=
This suggests that EPA intended the original basis to be utilized
to determine whether a capital expenditure is going to be made.
«
Moreover, I believe that the use of original basis is
consistent with the overall purpose of the NSPS modification
regulations in general, and the capital expenditure provisions in
particular. The effect of using original basis is that the
greater the age of an affected facility, the more likely it is
that a/given investment resulting in increased production will be
deemed a capital expenditure and trigger NSPS. This is
consistent with Congress* intent in adopting new source
performance standards. Older facilities -are more likely to use
outdated equipment which does not reduce pollution to the extent
more current technology does. Congress included modified sources
within the new source performance standards of section 111 to
ensure the use of new technology on such sources. See CAA
§§ 111 (a) (2) , 111 (a) (4) ;
II. AIR HEATER RENOVATIONS AT UNIT 1
In January 1989, WEPCO asked EPA to determine whether
replacement of the heat transfer surface elements on the unit 1
air heater would trigger PSD or NSPS applicability. However, in
a letter dated February 3, 1989, WEPCO withdrew this request,
4 It is worth noting in this regard that if EPA were to
adhere to a literal reading of IRS guidelines as urged by WEPCO,
it would have no choice but to use original basis as well as
annualized costs in making capital 'expenditure calculations for
Port Washington. Using this formula,"WEPCO would exceed the
repair allowance percentage at units 1-5 for most_years, and
NSPS would still apply.
3 This Background Information Document provides an
alternative to th« method prescribed in the General Provision
when it is difficult to determine original costs. The formula
uaea replacement costs and an inflation index to "approximate the
original cost basis of the affected facility."
-------
- 6 -
asserting that it could not receive, approval in the time
necessary, while reserving the right to renew it at a later time
as to unit 1 or any other unit at Port Washington. Because this
issue may arise again, and because I believe it bears upon the
project as a whole, I find it appropriate to address the matter
of air heater element replacement. Based on the information
submitted regarding this new plan, as well as the earlier
information submitted regarding air heater replacement work, I
conclude that if WEPCO were to proceed under its revised and now
withdrawn plan, it would not alter EPA's earlier finding that PSD
and NSPS would apply.. In order to explain this finding, it is
useful to first summarize the relevant facts.
Originally, WEPCO advised EPA that it planned to replace the
air heaters at units 1 - 4 in their entirety. As WEPCO
explained:
Air heaters are subject to the erosive and
corrosive effects of the flue gas passing through them
and require regular maintenance of the heat transfer
surfaces.
The plate-type air heaters on Units 1 - 4 do not
lend themselves to replacement of the individual
elements. Worn sections have been patched and blocked,
'where accessible,.over the years. Now, however.
overall corrosion and perforation ii^s passed beyond the
.practical point of repair, and replacement of the air
heaters is the economical way to maintain the air
preheater system..
The air heaters on Port Washington Unit 5 and the
other units on the Wisconsin Electric system [other
than Port Washington units 1-4] are of the Ljungstrom
basket design, which allows the heat transfer surfaces
(L .okets) to be replaced easily. ***
See, e.g., List of Port Washington Projects, p. 6 (Attachment to
April 22, 1988 latter from John W. Boston, WZPCO, to Gary
McCutch«n. SPA) .
On January 11, 1989, WEPCO informed the State of Wisconsin
that it was considering replacing all the plate elements at unit
1. In a letter to the State of Wisconsin, WEPCO described this
project as routine repair work, "necessary to halt the continuing
decrease in the capability of Unit 1," and submitted a list of 40
generating units where significant portions of the air heater
have been'replaced. See Letter, with attachment, from Mark P.
Steinberg, WEPCO, to Dale Ziege, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, January 11, 1989.
-------
In a telephone conversation with EPA staff the next day,
WEPCO indicated that it desired to perform the unit 1 plate
replacement work during a current unit outage; that it intended
to replace only half, not all, of the elements, at a cost of
approximately $500.000; that it intended to later scrap this work
and replace the entire air heater as described in the original
scope of work, at a cost of $2,600,000; and that it was
considering performing the same work at unit 4 also. See Record
of Telephone Conversation between David Schulz, EPA, and Mark
Steinberg. Neil Childress, and Walter Woelfle. HEPCO, January 12.
1989.
In a meeting on January 17, 1989, WEPCO related that if it
replaced half of the plate elements nov, it probably would
replace the remainder as part of the total renovation project at
a later date and not replace the air heater in whole. WEPCO also
related that complete replacement of the plate elements should
increase unit 1's capability to the original design capacity.
Finally, WEPCO stated in response to questions 'from EPA staff
that none of the air heaters or plate elements at units 1-4 had
ever been replaced in the past. See Memorandum, Meeting with
WEPCO regarding the Port Washington Generating Station, from
David Schulz, EPA, to Files, January 27, 1989.
•' In addition to the above information, I note that WEPCO1 s
list" of 40 units at which air heater element replacements have
occurred include no units containing plate elements such as those
on units 1 - 4 at Port Washington. Instead, all of the examples
submitted are of the Ljungstrom basket type or the tubular type.
I conclude that those examples are too dissimilar to the plate-
type elements in use at units 1 - 4 to support WEPCO's contention
that the work in question is routine.*
Based on all of the foregoing, I find no reason to depart
from EPA's earlier conclusion that PSD'and NSPS would apply to
the air heater work on unit 1. It appears that despite WEPCO's
recent recharacterization of this work as a separate project, it
is properly viewed as an integral part of the overall Port
Washington, life extension project. WEPCO cannot evade PSD and
NSPS applicability by carving out, and seeking separate treatment
of, significant portions of an otherwise integrated renovation
program.''""Such piecemeal actions, if allowed to go unchallenged.
could readily eviscerate the clear intent of the Clean Air Act's
•Further, even the list of air heater replacement work
submitted by WEPCO did not establish this as routine repair work.
Those 40 units comprise only a small fraction of total operating
utility units, and even at the 40 units, air heater repair or
replacement appears to have been a one-time occurrence, not
routine repair.
-------
new source provisions. Accordingly, if seen as part of WEPCO's
previously proposed renovation project, the recent
recharacterization of the unit 1 air heater work does nothing to
alter the factors determinative of PSD and NSPS coverage.
III. CAPACITY TESTING FOR UNITS 1 .- 4
A. Impact of Test Results on NSPS Applicability.
In Lee Thomas' October 14, 1988 letter, EPA stated that
baseline emissions for NSPS purposes are determined by hourly
maximum capacity just prior to the renovations. EPA relied on
actual operating data to determine that current maximum capacity
at units 1-4 has significantly deteriorated, such that the
restoration of original design capacity through the life
extension project would result in corresponding emissions
increases. As to unit 5, EPA stated that current capacity at
unit 5 is zero because it is physically inoperable. EPA rejected
WEPCO's unsupported assertions that all five units could be
operated at high capacities, but held open the possibility of
further discussions on that point. Subsequently, in November and
December of 1988, following discussions with EPA, WEPCO conducted
capacity tests to determine current actual capacity.
/
Based on its review and analysis of the test data, EPA finds
that the tests adequately demonstrate that units 2 and 3 can be
operated at their original design capacity on a sustained basis.
Accordingly, I hereby supersede SPA's earlier determination and
find that NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of the
proposed renovations so long as the capacity of these units after
completion of the work is no higher than demonstrated in the
recent tests (694,000 and 690,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively). As discussed in more detail below, this revised
NSPS determination does not affect our determination that the PSD
provisions would be applicable' to the proposed work on these two
units.
During the tests on. units 1 and 4, WEPCO was able to operate
these units at 497,000 and 586,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively, representing 72\ and 89* of these units' respective
original design capacities. These tests are adequate to confirm
EPA's original determination that units 1 and 4 are not capable
of operating at their original design capacities, and that
restoration of the lost capacity through the life extension will
trigger.NSPS coverage. EPA today also determines that these
tests are not adequate to show that current actual capacity for
purposes of establishing the NSPS baseline is as high as the
levels achieved during the recent tests. Rather, I reaffirm thai-
baseline for those units is determined by the lower capacities
reflected in recent actual operating data as set forth in Lee
Thomas' October 14 letter. EPA must reject the testa for
-------
- 9 -
purposes of establishing actual NSPS baselines because during the
testing discussed above, there were significant, measured
exceedances of the applicable particulate mass emission limit,
and several measured exceedances of the applicable opacity limit
contained in the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan. One of the
purposes of these tests was to determine the maximum actual
capacity of the Port Washington units that can be achieved in a.
lawful manner. As a consequence' of the measured exceedances,
WEPCO's tests cannot be relied on to demonstrate that the company
could lawfully sustain..the levels achieved during the testing.
Regarding unit 5, I find that by declining to conduct or
schedule capacity tests, WEPCO has effectively conceded that unit
5 is at present inoperable. Therefore, I reaffirm that its
baseline for NSPS purposes is zero.
B. Impact of Test Results on PSD Applicability.
In its February '3, 1989 letter, WEPCO asserted that EPA's
October 14, 1988 determination assumed that the emission rate of
each unit would increase following the renovations. Thus, WEPCO
claims, EPA did not address the question whether units that are
not increasing their emission rates following renovation can be
deemed- to trigger PSD. WEPCO is incorrect on both counts.
-' EPA's prior.determination explained that under the PSD
program, unlike NSPS, baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emissions prior to the physical or
operational change. Accordingly, the results of testing
conducted by WEPCO, intended to determine current maximum hourly
capacity, have no impact on the existence of a significant net
emissions increase for PSD purposes. Hence, those test results
provide no reason to alter EPA's prior determination regarding
PSD applicability.
Actual emissions are the product of the emission rate
(amount of pollution per unit of production or throughput, e.g.,
pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton of coal combusted) , the
production rate or capacity utilization (amount of production or
throuc/hptit per hoar, e.g., tons of coal combusted per hour), and
the hour»--of operation (e.g., hours per year). In its prior
determination, EPA explained that an increase in any one of these
three factors, if attributable to a physical or operational
change, can trigg'er an emissions increase for PSD purposes, and
rejected WEPCO's contention that only increases in the emission
rate were determinative. In so doing, EPA explicitly assumed
that emissions increases at Port Washington would come not from
an increase in emission rate, but rather from increases in
production rate or hours of operation. See Memorandum from Don
R. Clay, September 9, 1988 at 8.
-------
• - io -
WEPCO further implies in its February 3. 1939 letter that
the demonstration that units 2 and 2 can operate now at -.axi~.u~
design capacity means that there will be no increase in
production rate for PSD purposes following the renovations. This
is not the case because PSD baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emission rate, production rate, and hours
of operation prior to the physical change. Representative actual
emissions are determined by examining the actual emissions
during a representative two year period, (See 40 CFR
52.2Kb)(21)(ii)) which in this case the Administrator determined
to be 1983 and 1984 (See Lee Thomas' Oct. 14 letter, at 5). The
hourly capacity demonstration for NSPS purposes is not relevant
to the PSD analysis.
IV. NSPS OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS
In my September 9, 1988 memorandum, I pointed out that an
affected facility cannot avoid NSPS applicability by offsetting,
through the use of fuel with a lower sulfur content, an increase
in the emission rate that would otherwise occur due to a physical
or operational change. As I explained at that time, 40 CFR
60.14(e) provides that use of an alternative fuel or raw material
— such as higher-sulfur coal — which an existing facility was
designed to accommodate before a physical or operational change
does not constitute a modification for NSPS purposes. It follows
that the facility cannot avoid NSPS by switching to lower-sulfur
fuel to counteract a prospective increase in emission rate
because, under the regulations, the facility would always have to
option to switch back to a higher-sulfur fuel at a later date
without triggering NSPS.
Subsequent t'o the issuance of EPA's October 14, 1988 letter,
WEPCO inquired whether it might be able to utilize lower-sulfur
coal to avoid NSPS at Port Washington, notwithstanding the
regulatory provision explained above, by agreeing to federally
enforceable permit conditions that would bar the company from
switching back to higher sulfur coal in the future. Restrictions
of this nature are acceptable for netting transactions under the
Act's PSD provisions. However, the statute reflects a basic
political decision that fossil fuel-fired sources not rely only
on natural occurring less-polluting fuels to comply with the
NSPS. Instead, Congress declared that compliance must depend in
part upon the application of flue gas treatment or other
pollution control technologies. Thus, section 111(a)(1)(A)(ii)
defines "standard of performance" for foaail fuel-fired sources
as
requiring the achievement of a percentage reduction in
the emissions from such category of sources from the
emissions which would have resulted from the use of
-------
11
fuels which are not subject to treatment prior to
combustion ....
Congress further clarified this point in a later paragraph of
section 111(a) by adding:
For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(A)(ii), any
cleaning of the fuel or reduction in the pollution
characteristics of the fuel after extraction and prior
to combustion may be credited '... to a source which
burns such fuel.
This core policy judgment is reflected as well in the
legislative history of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. For
example, the Conference Report states:
The Senate concurs in the House provision with
minor amendments. The agreement requires (1) that the
standards of performance f.or fossil fuel-fired boilers
be substantially upgraded to require the use of the
best technological system of continuous emission
reduction and to preclude use of untreated low sulfur
coal alone as a means"of compliance; ... (3) that for
fossil fuel-fired sources, the new source performance
standards must be comprised of both a standard of
performance for emissions and an enforceable
requirement for a percentage reduction in pollution
from untreated fuel.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 130.
Because the will of Congress is so clear that lower-sulfur
fuels alone will not suffice to comply with NSPS, it would be
inconsistent with the legislative intent for EPA to allow sources
to use -lower-sulfur fuel to avoid coverage of NSPS in the first
instance in the manner suggested by WEPCO.. If EPA were to follow
such a course, numerous modifications to existing facilities
could esc»p« coverage in a manner contrary to the statutory
purpose. —••
V. THE TIMING OF THE LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
In discussions with EPA, WEPCO has challenged, on grounds of
timing, EPA's position on baseline emissions for NSPS purposes.
In its prior determination, EPA explained that under the NSPS
regulations, baseline emissions are determined.by hourly maximum
capacity just prior to the renovations. Thus, the baseline for
unit 5 at Port Washington is zero because the unit has been shut
doxn for several years due to safety concerns. In response.
-------
- 12 -
WEPCO has presented the hypothetical question whether EPA would
still have found a zero baseline if unit 5 had been shut down on
a Friday due to some unexpected or catastrophic failure of a
major component previously in good working order, and WEPCO had
sought to replace that component on the following Monday. WEPCO
asserts that in such circumstances. EPA should have established
baseline emissions using the emissions rate just prior to the
breakdown.
I find it unnecessary to engage in speculation by addressing
the hypothetical situation presented by WEPCO. because it is far
removed from the true circumstances surrounding the proposed Port
Washington life extension project. In fact, unit 5 has been shut
down for over four years, not a veekend, and that is the
foundation cf EPA's analysis and determination.
In conclusion, with limited exceptions, EPA today reaffirms
the decisions reached in the October 14 determination. In
addition. EPA has concluded that the work on each unit
constitutes a capital expenditure and that the proposed air
heater plate replacement work on unit 1 would trigger PSD and
NSPS. As a result of the capacity test demonstration, however,
I find that units 2 and 3 at Port Washington can be operated at
their design capacity on a sustained basis. Therefore EPA's
earlier determination with.respect to NSPS applicability is
superseded and NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of
the proposed' renovations so long as the capacity of these units
after the completion of this work is no higher than demonstrated
in the recent tests. This determination does not affect PSD
applicability for these two units. If you should have any
questions about the foregoing, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Don R.
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air & Radiation
-------
^
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
*
-------
Nationally, States and EPA Regional Offices have utilized
several interpretations which have lead to a consistency problen
in implementing the requirement for a NAAQS demonstration under
40 CFR 51.166(k). Some States presently accept the use of actual
source emissions for existing background point sources, and
reference EPA guidance to support their position. Regions, on
the other hand, encourage the use of emissions estimates more
closely reflecting legally allowable emissions.
Available EPA guidance for PSD, which dates back to 1980,
supports the use of actual emissions to project the air quality
impacts caused by existing point sources. Specifically, the
"Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual" (EPA-
450/2-80-081, October 1980) states that "actual emissions should
be used... to reflect the impact that would be detected by
ambient air monitors" for the PSD NAAQS analysis. However,
because many sources typically emit at rates well below their
legally allowable emission rate on an annual basis, we now
believe that the use of actual emissions to demonstrate NAAQS
attainment could substantially underestimate the potential air
quality impacts resulting from existing sources.
The EPA's policy for demonstrating stationary point source
compliance with the NAAQS for SIP purposes clearly requires the
use of emissions which are more closely tied to allowable
emissions. The model emission input data requirements for such
SIP demonstrations are contained in Table 9-1 of the "Guideline
for Air Quality Models (Revised)" (GAQM), EPA-450/2-78-02R, July
1986. For "nearby background sources" an adjustment to the
allowable emission rate* may be made only for determinations of
compliance with the annual and quarterly NAAQS, and only with
respect to the annual operating factor. For "other background
sources" an adjustment to both the operating level and the
operating factor, as explained in Table 9-1, could be made for
determinations of compliance with the long term and short term
NAAQS.
The referenced model emission input data requirements for
existing point sources are contained in the GAQM which has
undergone rulemaking and is incorporated by reference in EPA's
PSD regulations under Parts 51 and 52. Although a footnote in
Table 9-1 indicates that the model input data requirements may
not apply to PSD NAAQS analyses, we now believe that such
requirements should be applied to PSD rather than using actual
emissions as indicated in the 1980 PSD guidance. Thus,
1Emission rates for model input consist of three components:
1) the emission limit, e.g., //mmBtu; 2) the operating level,
e.g., mmBtu/hour; and 3) the operating factor, e.g., hours/day,
hours/year.
-------
compliance demonstrations for PSD and for stationary source
control strategies under SIP's will be accomplished in a
consistent manner.
In order to apply Table 9-1 in the GAQM to PSD NAAQS
analyses, certain clarifications need to be provided. First, the
proposed major new source or major modification must be modeled
at its maximum allowable emission rate. Second, the existing
facility to which a major modification has been proposed, but
whose actual emissions (not including emissions from the proposed
modification) will remain unchanged, may be considered as the
"stationary point source subject to SIP emission limit(s)..." to
determine the model emission input requirements. Portions of the
existing facility where the emission rate is expected to increase
as a result of the proposed modification should be modeled at the
allowable emission rate. Finally, background point sources 1)
havi-ng already received their construction permit but not yet in
operation, or 2) with less than two years, of operational history,
should also be modeled at their allowable, emission rate.
Of course, an analysis which demonstrates no contravention
of the standards, based entirely on maximum allowable emissions
rates (including full operation for the entire year) for all
modeled point sources is acceptable. If a violation of any NAAQS
is revealed by this type of analysis, then the adjustments
described above may be made in cases where it can be shown to the
satisfaction of the permit granting agency that historical
operating levels and/or operating factors will be representative
of future conditions.
This use of Table 9-1 of the GAQM for accomplishing the
required PSD NAAQS analysis will supersede the various procedural
interpretations presently being applied. Since different
procedures are currently in use, we believe that it is necessary
to provide a grace period for implementing the required
procedure. Consequently, modeling analyses for any PSD
application submitted to the reviewing agency on or after
October 1, 1989 should be based on legally allowable emissions or
must use the model emission input data requirements contained in
Table 9-1 of the GAQM as clarified above for PSD purposes.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
New Source Review Contacts
Regional Modeling Contacts
E. Lillis
J. Tikvart
T. Helms
B. Bauman
-------
-•<«
-------
I realize that information needed to model background
sources is frequently not contained in the State's existing
emission inventory. In some cases the applicant will need the
reviewing agency to assist in collecting the data. However, I am
not convinced that we must undertake a national effort to issue
regulations or to fund the States/Regional Offices to collect the
data. It is important to note that the PSD rules place this
burden primarily on the proposed source, not the regulatory
agencies.
Your memorandum suggests that the PSD analyses could ignore
building downwash effects. I do not believe that the PSD rules
and the Guideline allow this alternative. Further, since it is
not unusual to find a national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) violation caused by downwash, the PSD analysis must
carefully consider that possibility. If a proposed source
contributes to a NAAQS violation caused by downwash from a
background source, the permit cannot be issued. On the other
hand, not every source potentially subject to downwash must be
evaluated. Therefore, we are pursuing alternatives to better
define the range within which detailed modeling should be
required.
In summary, please be assured that we are sensitive to the
issues raised in your memorandum and that we will coordinate with
Region VI in this effort. If you have any questions, please
contact me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at 629-5255.
cc: R. Bauman
D. deRoeck
E. Ginsburg
D. Grano
W, Laxton
t/E. Lillis
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
J. Yarbrough
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN 123-89-04-20-017
APR 2 '.
Mr. John P. Proctor
Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds
Law Offices
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
Dear Mr. Proctor:
Your letter of February 23, 1989 to Administrator Reilly was
referred to me for response. The issues you describe were
previously raised to the attention of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region III Office. You now question
Region Ill's rejection of your position that the best available
retrofit technology (BART) emission rate used in determining the
creditable stack height can be ignored for purposes of setting
the facility's operating rate as long as the operating rate is
consistent with the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The response provided to you by Region III on October
6, 1988 was extensively discussed with this office and with the
'office of General Counsel, and we fully endorse Region Ill's
conclusions and supporting rationale.
In your letter you stated that the sole basis for conducting
a fluid modeling study is to justify credit for stack height
above formula height, and that nothing requires States to rely on
the BART emission rate to determine the appropriate operating
rate. Actually, as noted by Region III, before such credit may
be considered, the preamble to the stack height regulation is
clear that the operating rate must be limited to the BART or new
source performance standards (NSPS) rate. The preamble to the
stack height regulation also notes that an emission limit more
stringent than BART/NSPS may be needed because the sources must
also meet the NAAQS and prevention of significant deterioration
requirements.
We agree with Region Ill's conclusion that NRDC v. Thomas.
838 F.2nd 1224 (D.C. Cir 1988), does not support your position.
In your February 23, 1989 letter to Administrator Reilly, you
raise a new argument not presented to Region III. You argue that
the court recognized that operating emission limitations are to
be determined after stack height credit has been calculated,
based on the court's acknowledgement that Congress imposed
technology-based limits in some situations, and EPA has authority
(to mandate such limits for modeling demonstrations to determine
stack height credit. From this you conclude that a technology-
based emission rate used for fluid modeling is relevant only to
that modeling.
-------
In response, we point out first that the court's discussion
of technology-based emission limitations (838 F.2d at 1241) was
in reference to NRDC's control-first position and not related to
fluid modeling as you suggest. We believe that the opinion
indicates clearly that the court regarded the presumptive NSPS
emission limit as a limit that must be complied with once the
fluid modeling was completed ("We find the attempt of industry to
bar control-first no stronger than NRDC's effort to require it in
the within-formula context." 838 F.2d at 1241; "... industry
petitioners assert that in order to use the NSPS presumption, EPA
roust be able to point to substantial evidence that it is attain-
able by most of the affected sources. But as EPA allows any
source to use a higher emissions rate when NSPS is infeasible,
there is no need for any sort of generic demonstration that it is
normally so." id at 1242).
Second, in quoting EPA's statement about the significance of
fluid modeling demonstrations, the court was merely citing with
approval EPA's rationale for refusing to grandfather demonstra-
tions undertaken and approved prior to adoption of the 1985
regulations. This in no way implies a finding by the court that
the presumptive NSPS requirement (or higher BART limit) is not
the constraining limit. Neither of these references provides
support to your position.
In conclusion, we are in full agreement with the position
taken by Region III that sources seeking credit above formula
height must meet an emission rate consistent with BART/NSPS.
While final action as to any particular source would necessarily
await a State implementation plan revision, I hope the above
responds to your inquiry. Staff in our Region III Office are
available to assist you and your client, and I suggest that you
contact them directly if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Emison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
cc: Charles Carter, OGC
Thomas Maslany, Region III
Marcia Mulkey, Region III
-------
'f
I)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
3 MAY 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ident^i^^^J^of New Areas Exceeding the NAAQS
FROM: JOTnCalcagn
/Air Quality./Management Division (MD-15)
TO: William Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division (MD-14)
This is in response to your earlier request for our
consideration of two modeling related state implementation plan
(SIP) issues. Specifically, the two issues are: (1) approval of
a proposed SIP emission limit for a source under consideration
when there are modeled violations of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) due to nearby background sources in the
surrounding area, and (2) the resource burden associated with
assembling the data necessary for modeling the background
sources. This memorandum restates the existing policy developed
by the Model Clearinghouse and discusses .limited exceptions to
the policy.
SIP Approvals
Our general policy may be summarized as follows:
1. Background concentrations are an essential part of the
total air quality concentration to be considered in
determining source impacts. Nearby sources which are
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient
in the vicinity of the source under consideration
should be explicitly modeled (as "background" sources).
2. Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, each SIP must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Where background sources are found to cause or
contribute to a violation, a SIP revision for the
source under consideration generally should not be
approved until each violation in the modeled Region is
prevented or eliminated through the SIP rules. This
policy avoids approval of a SIP revision which does net:
provide for attainment throughout the modeled area.
-------
I also recognize that section 110 allows for approval of
portions of SIPs. Therefore, exceptions to the general policy
nay be warranted in certain circumstances. Before any exception
will be considered, it must be clearly shown that the SIP would
be improved as a result of the partial approval. As a minimum,
the following factors should be considered in determining
exceptions to the general policy:
1. Approval would not interfere with expeditious
attainment (i.e., emissions from the source under
consideration do not cause or contribute to the modeled
violation).
2. There would be an environmental benefit (i.e., the SI?
revision would result in an actual emissions decrease
and ambient air quality improvement).
3. Enforcement of the SIP would be improved (e.g., without:
approval there would be no federally enforceable
measure for the source under consideration- or
ambiguities in the previous limit serve to frustrate
enforcement efforts).
Where it is found that an exception should be made based en
the above factors, we expect the proposed approval notice tc
specifically identify the background source violations and
clearly state that: the Stare retains an obligation to take action
expeditiously ro correct the background violations. The final
approval notice for the source under consideration should nor oe
promulgated before the Stare acknowledges rhe background
violations and sucnits an acceptaole schedule for corrective
action. The schedule would then be included in the final ncrice
as tne State's response to EPA's idenrificarion of violations. A
SI? call pursuant ro section 110(*a) ( 2 ) (K) should be issued where
a State fails to acknowledge its obligation and submit a schedule
for resolution of violations during the comment period.
Resources
The resource burden associated with assembling the necessary
data and modeling the background sources has been extensively
discussed through the Model Clearinghouse and annual modelers'
workshops. I believe that the resource burden associated vim
modeling background sources using current -modeling guidance r.eec
not be as grear as it potentially appears.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models (Guidelinpi srares tr.ar
the nearby (background) source inventory should be determined ir.
consultarion with the local air pollution conrrol agency.
Specifically, me^ Guideline srares mar "The number of
(background) sources is expected ro be snail excepr ir. unusual
-------
situations." In this and in other areas, the Guideline
necessarily provides flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency. The"resource burden may be
mitigated somewhat by application of this judgement.
In investigating whether more explicit guidance is needed,
my staff has coordinated with the Model Clearinghouse and the
modeling and S02 contacts in each Regional Office. Given the
flexibility that is provided by existing guidance and the
tendency for more explicit policy to reduce this flexibility, no
further guidance was judged necessary. The Regional Offices
generally have been able to work with their States to collect
sufficient data to support the necessary modeling. Consequently,
there was little support for the suggestion to revise the current
policy to more explicitly limit the number of sources that should
be modeled for downwash.
Conclusion
I believe that an exception to the general policv regarding
processing of SIP revisions may be warranted where it"is in the
best interests of air quality to approve certain SIP revisions
notwithstanding the existence of violations due to background
sources. However, the-affected State retains an obligation to
take corrective action in response to any properly conducted
analyses which demonstrate a violation. This policy is
consistent with the Guideline and Model Clearinghouse actions.
My staff is available to assist in application of this policy on
a case-by-case bas'is.
If you would like tc discuss these issues further, please
call ne or have your staff contact Doug Grano at extension 5255.
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
P. Embrey (OGC)
E. Ginsburc
. Grano
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefielci
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
Air Division Directors, Regions I-x
-------
I -i
• ««
d\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUN 30 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to PM-10 Control Strategy Issues
FROM: A Gerald A. Emison, Director
j'yv/Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand
TO: v Irwin L. Dickstein, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII
As you know, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is
currently providing technical support to Region VIII and the State of Utah in
response to their specific requests for assistance in the preparation of the
Utah PM-10 State implementation plan (SIP). On June 2, you wrote to me
identifying six issues which need resolution in order for Utah to proceed with
development of the SIP.'. The following is OAQPS' response to those questions:
la. How should secondary particulates be evaluated for modeling and control
strategies?
Section 4.3.1 of the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline states that no model
recommended for regulatory use at this time handles secondary particulate or
other transformations in a manner suitable for SIP control strategy
demonstrations. Thus, any techniques to be used in this regard need to be
justified on a case-by-case basis. Our staffs have discussed the May 10 State
of Utah proposal for assessing the impacts of secondary particles formed by
emissions from Geneva Steel. While little detail has been provided, we agreed
with your staff that the proposed technique to add secondary particulate from
chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling to the primary PM-10 impacts from
industrial source complex modeling in proportion to the ratio of secondary to
primary particulates identified in the CMB source profile appears viable.
A procedure to use the results of this modeling analysis to develop a
control strategy for secondary particles must also be justified on a case-by-
case basis. My staff will comment on Utah's proposed techniques for control
strategy development when requested to do so by the Region.
Ib. How much credit can be given to control strategies on "assumptions" of
source(s) contribution?
Credit will be based on the amount of emission reduction that can be
justified by the State in its SIP. The assumptions underlying the emission
-------
reductions would be different for each source category and, thus, would need
to be justified on a case-by-case basis. Discussion of credits for three
particular source categories is given in question #3 below. For sources with
stack test data, the effectiveness of the particular control device could be
used to estimate the post-control emissions and, thus, to determine the
emission reduction credits. The effectiveness assumptions should be based on
the best available information and post-control stack testing should be
required to verify the control effectiveness. In those cases where control
effectiveness values derived from AP-42 are deemed inappropriate for a
specific application, the State may, with appropriate justification and
Regional Office and emission factor clearinghouse concurrence, use a different
effectiveness value.
2. What should be the design value: modeled or monitored values?
Section 6.2 of the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline states that the
preferred approach for estimating a design value is through the use of an
applicable dispersion model corroborated by receptor models, any available
total suspended particulates data, and any available PM-10 data. It is our
understanding that, for the most part, this approach is being attempted in the
Utah (Provo) PM-10 SIP. If corroboration is not possible, we recommend that
the dispersion model be used except for periods of stagnation; for periods of
stagnation, monitored PM-10 data should be used to establish the design value.
3a. How much credit can be*given to mandatory wood burning bans?
A Residential Wood Combustion Workshop was held by Region VIII and OAQPS
in March 1989 in Missoula, Montana. The supporting document for the workshop,
"Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures,"
provides the guidance for determining credits. The State of Utah had a
representative in attendance at the workshop.
The guidance document describes the recommended features for mandatory
curtailment program elements. The essential elements include: a public
awareness program, a curtailment program, and an enforcement program. As
stated in the document, good programs could receive as much as 50 percent
credit for wood burning stoves. This credit is considered a starting point
and should be adjusted according to the quality of the programs implemented
and justification presented. The features which enhance or detract from the
effectiveness of programs are described in detail in the document. It is
important that in the course of developing a curtailment program and
determining (applicable) credits that the State use the "Guidance Document for
Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures."
3b. How much credit can be given to various street sanding/salting control
measures?
There is little quantitative information on the effectiveness of control
measures for street sanding and salting operations. Generally, the measures
would focus on reducing the amount of abrasive material used through improved
-------
planning and spreading methods, using better quality (e.g., more durable)
abrasives and more rapid and efficient cleanup. As you know, there is
currently an effort under way by the Colorado Department of Health to
investigate street sanding control measures further. Also, OAQPS' Emission
Standards Division is currently compiling information on the durability and
silt content of road abrasives. Results are expected in late 1989. Robin
Dunkins and Larry Elmore of my staff are preparing additional information on
the effectiveness of street sanding control measures which may be helpful
until these studies are complete. My staff will be in contact with Lee Hanley
to discuss this information in early July.
3c. How much credit can be given to diesel inspection/maintenance programs?
In previous conversations with my staff, Region VIII was referred to the
Office of Mobile Sources for assistance in determining credits for diesel
inspection/maintenance. I understand that you have been in contact with them.
4. Will EPA accept a SIP with only compliance schedules and specific overall
emission reductions for the stationary source categories that have been
identified as major contributors to PM-10 (e.g., not specifically defined
control measures)?
A SIP submitted to EPA for approval must meet the "Criteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions" as delineated in the Federal
Register January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2141). One completeness criterion is that
the State has adopted the SIP. There is an exception for parallel processing;
however, EPA can review and propose to approve a SIP through parallel
processing, even though the State has not adopted the necessary regulations,
if the technical support criteria have been submitted. The technical support
information to be submitted include:
identification of the affected sources (those to be controlled),
o quantification of the changes in allowable emissions from the
affected sources,
. procedures for determining compliance by the sources, and
o a demonstration that the PM-10 standards will be attained within
3 years if-the affected sources comply with the new allowable
emission rates.
The EPA will give final approval to the SIP after the State has adopted the
necessary regulations. We understand that regulation adoption may require a
protracted period before final approval can be granted.
5. What emission factor should be applied if such factor does not exist in
AP-42? Would the SIP have to be amended if, and when, AP-42 factors are
developed?
-------
Emission factors are useful tools that can be used to estimate average
emissions from categories of sources when developing emissions inventories for
geographic areas such as Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah. If factors are not
available in AP-42 for certain source categories, however, the following
alternative actions should be taken in order of priority to determine
representative emission rates.
a. Conduct source tests to characterize emissions. Tests may be
conducted by the source, provided that appropriate quality assurance
steps are undertaken. (This alternative may be employed even if
emission factors are available, but are disputed.)
b. Contact the EPA Emission Factor Clearinghouse if source testing
(alternative a) is not practicable to determine if an unpublished
factor already exists or can be derived from existing data.
c. If an unpublished factor cannot be obtained, select a default
emission rate in consultation with the State (and the source, if
appropriate) that can be used until a factor is developed by the
clearinghouse.
A SIP would not ordinarily have to be amended if AP-42 factors are
developed later. Factors are available in AP-42 or other EPA reports for
nearly all of the larger source categories impacting an area. New factors
becoming available for smaller sources should not significantly impact the SIP
control strategy. In the unlikely event that a new or revised factor could
significantly affect the SIP strategy, a case-by-case evaluation should be
made in consultation with OAQPS to determine whether a SIP revision is
warranted. If such a condition occurs prior to the proposed SIP being
approved by EPA, a case-by-case determination should also be made as to
whether the SIP strategy needs to be adjusted. Various considerations,
including the existing PM-10 air quality or air quality trend in the vicinity
of the source(s), might affect the need for a SIP revision.
6. How does the State enforce PM-10 emission limits without a PM-10 stack
test method? Since PM-10 stack test methods currently under review do
not consider condensibles for compliance determinations, should the State
address condensible PM-10 for stationary sources in its attainment
strategy?
In accordance with the SIP Development Guideline, the State of Utah may
develop a PM-10 compliance stack test method based on the modified Method 5
procedure described in Appendix C of that guideline. The procedure is also
described in the Federal Register of June 6, 1989 (54 FR 24213) as proposed
EPA Reference Method 201A for measuring PM-10 emissions from stationary
sources. A variation of that method which moves the collecting filter from
inside the stack to a heated enclosure outside of the stack may be used to
capture particulate matter that condenses above 120 degrees Celsius (120* C).
We understand that it may be necessary to regulate particulate matter that
-------
1. •
condenses below 120' C;.Gil Wood, Chief, Emission Measurement Branch, will
contact your staff separately to discuss techniques to measure these
condensibles.
I hope that the above discussion is helpful to you. We will continue to
work with you to ensure that the proper guidance is given to Utah to develop
an approvable PM-10 SIP. Please continue to contact Tom Pace for overall
coordination. I also encourage you to continue to work directly with the
technical support contacts which have been previously identified.
cc: G. Wood
J. Tikvart
M. Martinez
J. Calcagni
J. O'Connor
L. Hanley
D. Gillam
B. Blaszczak
Director, Air Division, Regions I-VII, IX, X
OAQPS:AQMD:SDPMPB:MD-15:TPace:lferrell:629-5585:6/21/89
Rev i sed:RBauman:PF i nch:629-5629:6/30/89
Disk: TP#1, Doc. DICKSTIN
iOAQPS-471 Due: 6/23/89
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1*5 JUL !990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PM-10 SIP Demonstrations for Small Isolated
Areas With Spatially Uniform Emissions
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief
SOj/Particulate Matter Programs^Br
Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
This memorandum is in response to recent conversations between the
Particulate Matter Programs Section and Regions VIII and X. The Regions have
repeatedly expressed the need for flexibility in control strategy
demonstration requirements when confronted with air-sheds where receptor
modeling, coupled with proportional (rollback) modeling is considered to be
adequate to identify source contributions and demonstrate attainment. The
purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the rationale and justification for
exercising this flexibility.
It is appropriate in certain situations to rely on a receptor model (RH)
;1 demonstration (i.e., use of receptor modeling, emission inventories, design
value obtained by air quality monitoring, and proportional modeling) as the
basis for a control strategy demonstration. This approach is an option
provided for in sections 4 and 6 of the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline.
While it is clear from the guideline that the use of dispersion models in
combination with receptor models is the preferred approach, in certain limited
situations, the use of an RM demonstration alone may be adequate to
demonstrate attainment. The State must obtain approval to use the RM
demonstration option prior to SIP submittal. The decision that an RM
demonstration is adequate to demonstrate attainment is the responsibility of
the Regional Office; however, the Region should consult the Model
Clearinghouse for advice in making this determination. The Region must
justify the determination and, in doing so, must consider all of the
following:
1. The spatial representativeness of the monitoring network and the
spatial uniformity of emissions. The PM-10 monitoring network must
be representative of the maximum air quality impacts from the
predominant (i.e., generally on the order of 90 percent) sources and
source categories in the PM-10 emission inventory. Emissions from
-------
area source categories are often distributed nearly uniformly across
the area. This implies that ambient patterns would not be
characterized by strong concentration gradients, thus lessening the
need for an extensive monitoring network. However, areas with point
sources will generally find an RM demonstration difficult to justify
because the concentration pattern would be characterized by local
"hot spots." In such cases, a dispersion model, along with
representative meteorological data are typically required.
In a few areas, emissions of antiskid materials from a small number
of road surfaces constitute the predominant PM-10 source category.
These emissions should be uniformly distributed along these road
surfaces. The monitoring network must be shown to be in accordance
with-'EPA's monitoring guidance :and -spatially representative of the
maximum.air quality-impact from .this source category.
2. TheTtemporVl >epresehtatj^^^ network. If the
24-hour-NAAQS is control!ing, the network1 must have 'samples
collected:at-sufficiently frequent-intervals to"ensure .that the
impacts from the governing emission^sources are "adequately
monitored.*
3. The impact of only a few, relatively well characterized source
categories. Receptor models can generally well characterize only a
limited number of chemically distinguishable sources or source
categories.
The above criteria imply that the area should be relatively small,
characterized by uniform areawide emissions of one or two source categories,
and geographically isolated from other PM-10 source areas. Examples of
circumstances where RM demonstrations may be justifiable are small air-sheds
where the only significant emission sources are residential wood combustion
and/or road antiskid materials. It must be noted that the prerogative to use
RM demonstrations should be exercised judiciously. Even when a RM is
employed, consideration should be given to initiation of basic meteorological
measurements as a contingency to the control program being found inadequate
and predictive dispersion modeling being necessary at a later time. The use
of dispersion modeling and receptorjnodeling in combination remains the'
preferred approach when both models a~fe~~appTicable to a particular
circumstance.
cc: T. Pace
D. Stonefield
D. Wilson
Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
PM-10 Contact, Regions I-X
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 46799
Chesapeake Bay off Fort
, Virginia: restricted area, U.S. Naval
i «nd Navel Surface Weapon Center.
| The area. Beginning.at latitude
i. longitude 7BTB'05"VV:
thence to latitude 37*00'38WN. longitude
78ir42"W; thence to latitude
3roO'39"N: longitude 7816*11"; thence
to latitude 36'59/18"N, longitude
76*ir52"W: thence to latitude
3roO"05"N, longitude 78'18'ir'W; and .
thence north along the seawall to the
point of beginning.
. • • • •
. Dated: October 4.1990.
Patrick J. K«lly.
Major General. USA. Director of Civil Works.
(FR Doc. 90-2SB7S FUed. 10-30-60: 8:45 am]
WLUNOCOOC tno-n-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart51
IAD-FRL-3855-7]
Preparation, Adoption, and Submtttal
of State Implementation Plans;
Correction* to PM-10 Areas of
Concern
Y: Environmental Protection
(EPA).
: Technical corrections to the
areas of concern for certain Group I and
n areas.
SUMMARY: The EPA published national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and implementation policies for
particulate matter (PM) with an
aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10
microns or lew (PM-10) on July 1.1987
(52 FR 24634 and 52 FR 24672). A notice
identifying areas with very high
probabilities (Group I) and moderate
probabilities (Group II) of violating the
PM-10 standards was published on
August 7,1987 (52 FR 29383). A notice
that the grouping of three of these areas
had been modified was published on
March 2& 1989 (54 FR 12820). Work to
develop State implementation plans
(SIFs) to attain the PM-rlO NAAQS
began immediately for mMSroup I
areas. Ambient PM-10 concentrations
have been monitored in the Group H
areas since 1967.
The EPA is, by this notice, clarifying
the descriptions of certain Group I and
Group n areas of concern •listed in the
August 7.1987 notice. This action is
«ing taken because the areas were only
icrally described in 1987 as cities,
'unties, or planning areas. The States
were given guidance in the PM-tt) SIP
Development Guideline (EPA-450/2-86-
002, June 1987) on how to further define
AUJ
«•
:
the extant of areas violating the PM-10
standards in the process of developing
PM-10 SIFs. Therefore, some States
have provided EPA with more detailed
descriptions of certain Group I and
Group n areas of concern.
DATES: These corrections are effective
October 31.1990.
ADDRESSES: Information supporting the
Group I and Group n area descriptions
can be obtained from the respective
EPA Regional Office which services that
particular State. The addresses of the
Regional Offices are:
• State Air Programs Branch. EPA
Region LIJJC Federal Building, Boston.
MA 02203-2211.
• • Air Programs Branch. EPA Region E,
28 Federal Plaza, New York, NY10278.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region
m. 841 Chestnut Building. Philadelphia,
PA 19107.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region ,
IV. 345 Courtland Street NE.. Atlanta.
GA 30365.
• Air and Radiation Branch. EPA
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, EL 60604.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
VI. 1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas. TX 75202-
2733.
• Air Branch. EPA Region YE, 728
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
Vffl, 99918th Street Denver Place-
suite 500, Denver. CO 80202-2405.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
DC 1235 Mission Street San Francisco,
CA 94103.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region X.
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle. WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth R. Woodard. Particulate Matter
Programs Section. Air Quality
Management Division (MD-1S), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
UJS. Environmental Protection Agency, .
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
On July 1.1987. the EPA promulgated
revised NAAQS for PM (52 FR 24634).
The standards incorporate a new
indicator of PM that includes only those
.particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
microns. -
Simultaneously. EPA published
revised requirements for SIFs to attain
and maintain the standards (52 FR
24672). In order to focus Federal and
State resources on implementing the
PM-10 NAAQS first in those areas of
the country believed to be violating the
standards, EPA classified all areas of
the Nation into one of three groups.
Group I areas wen those having a very
high probability of violating the PM-10
standards based on ambient air quality
data available for 1984 through 1987 for
PM-10 and total suspended PM. Group II
areas had a moderate probability of
violating the standards, and Group HI
areas were those believed to be
currently attaining the standards.
A list of Group I and n areas in each
State was published in the Federal
Register on August 7.1987 (52 FR 29383).
The remaining portion of any State not
listed as Group I or II in the August 7
notice was classified in Group IIL
A subsequent notice, published on
March 28,1989 (54 FR 12620), announced
that three revisions had been made to
the list of Group I and n areas.
Sandpoint Idaho, was changed from
Group I to Group EL effective August 31.
1987 following a determination that the
area lacked sufficient ambient data* to
justify a Group I classification. Porter
County. Indiana, was changed from
Group I to Group H effective November
29,1988 as a result of a settlement
agreement negotiated with Bethlfhem
Steel Corporation (see BeMeha* Steel
Corporation v. Thomas}. 87-2478<7th
Cir.). Mono Basin. California, was
changed from Group Ed to Group n,
_effectivejune 8,1988 following review of
the information used for the initial
classification.
2. Today's Action
The EPA is, by this notice, providing
technical corrections to clarify the
descriptions of several Group I and II
areas of concern. The EPA described the
areas of concern generally as cities,
towns, counties, or planning areas in the
August 7,1987 notice and stated that
these descriptions were only initial
definitions of the areas to be
investigated in the PM-10 SIP
development process. The EPA had
previously provided guidance on
procedures for determining the
boundaries of areas not attaining the
standards in section Z5 of the PM-10
SIP Development Guideline and in
section 6,3 of Procedures for Estimating
Probability of Nonattainment of a PM-
10 NAAQS Using Total Suspended
Particulate or PM-10 Data. EPA-450/4-
86-017. December 1986.
State air pollution control agencies, in
developing SIFs for Group I and certain
Group II areas over the past 3 years,
have been collecting data on source
emissions and ambient PM-10
concentrations, identifying control
measures, and predicting future PM-10
concentrations using dispersion models.
Consequently. EPA can now more
clearly define the extent of certain
-------
,Rggbtet / Vol. 55. No, 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rule, g^ Regulation*
Gamp I fend 0 area*. However, many of 3, Gnrap I Are* Deauiptiuus Register notice is revised to read as
the area description! published in the ^^ ^ of G^yp j ueu Of concern follow*;
Attgtnt 7,1387 notice reraafcfttachanged. pBbH«hed in the August 7.1987 Federal
GROUP I AREAS ».*.»
Areeoi
And*
Community of Eagle Rwer.
Oe/ o* Jwneau: Mendenhafl Valley area.
Coet*
Paul Spur/Oougia
ngi
: Township 23 south. Range 25 MM CT23S. R25E) T23S. R26E
Pima.
Manoopa «nd Wnal..
Ypma
Pmal andGaa.
Inyo
San Bamarduxx Inyo. and Kam.
Mono.
T23S. R27& T23S. R2&E T24S. R2SE T24S. R26& T24S. R27E T24S. R28E.
RiKto planning area: Townshps: T11S. H9E: T11S. R10E TllS. R11E; T11S. R12£ T12S. R8E
T12S. R9E: T12S. R10E; T12S. R11E T12S. R12E;
hoarw planning area: The rectangle determined by. and including. T6N. R3W; T6N. R7E, T2S.
R3W; T2S. R7& TIN. R8€-
uma plamng araa: Taimernji T7S-A21W. R22W; TBS-R211W, R22W. R23W. R24W; T8S-
R21W. R22W. R23W. R24W. R25W; T10S-R21W. R22W. R23W. R24W. R2SW.
Htydea/Uairi planning acec Townships: T4S. RTCE T5S, R16E. T6S. R16& plus th* poiDon of
Townsho T3S. R1«C. that does not ie on Qw Sen Carlos Inrien Reseranon. and tie
rectangle formed by. and inducing. Townships T1N. R13& T6S. R13E: TIN. RISE. TBS. R15E
Owens Valley piannng area: ttydrotogc Unit *16090103.
aartee Valley planrwig area: Hydrologc Unit «18090205.
FM*no.'Kam. tCoga. and Tulara.-
Rivarcide, Loa Angalov. Ocang* and San BamanSno.
Riverside
Import*! —
Cokxvdo:
ArchuMa..
Marat. Oenvar. Atapanwi. Jeftereon, Douglas and Boulder.
Mammoth Lake planning araa: Induda* tha following aacaons: a. Saetions 1-12. 17, antf 18 of
Township T4S. R28E; b. aactton* 2^-36 at Townahip T3S. R28E. c. S*ct»ra 25-36 of
Townenio T3S. R27E d. SacSona 1-18 d Township T4S. R27E; and a. Sectors 25 and 38 of
Tomnaho T3S. R2GE.
San Joaqun Valley planning uua. . ^
Soum Coast Air Basin.
Coachefta Vaffey planning area. '._
hnpanal Vafley ptani'imij area. :
Pagosa SpnriQs.
San Miguel
Prowers ____
Denver Ueiropolitan vaa: All of Denver. Jefferson, and Dougtas Counees. Boulder County
(excluding the Rocky Mountain National Park) and the Colorado automcoia nepecfion ana
readjustment program portions of Mams and Arapanoe Counter
Fraoont..
Connecticut
New Haven..
Idaho-.
Ada
Lamar.
Aapen.
Canon Oy.
City of New Haven.
Beginning at a point n the center of the enamel of T+ Boon
Bannock and Pa
Uadaan.
Maine: Aroostook.
Mfch^arc WB«M_
Ootor NonTwm Boundary
•nem tie in* beti»eoo aectDra IS and 16 in township 3 north (T3N). ranoa 4 ea*> (R4EX
cirnatM said Boise River thence west down the center of the channel o) the Boo* RSwr to a
point opposite tha mxrth of More's Creek: thence, n a sfaight fne north 44 d»y»e« and 38
mntrtM weet unH the said line intersects the north tow of T5N (12 Ter. Se*. 67); tteooe weal
to t» rarthvest comer T5K R1W; Western Boundary— Thence, sou* to the northwest comer
of TON. R1W: mence east « the northwest comer of secJcn 4 of T3N. RlW: thence south to
the aoulheast oomer of sacaon 32 of T2N. R1W: thence west to Ihe northwest comer of TIN.
RlW: thence, south to ffte souihweet comer of lection 32 of T2N. R1W. thence. WVK to th«
nm»i»en oomer o* TIN. R1W; thence south to the southwest comer of T1N. R1W-. Southern
Boundary— Thence, east to the southwest comer of aeckon 33 of T1N. R4E Eaaam
Bouaoary— Tnenca, noflft along, the north and south canter line of Townshcc T1N. R4£. T2N.
R4E. and T3N. R<£, Boise Mendian to the begnrvng poml n the center of the channel of th*
Boise River.
City of Pmehurst
Cay of Pocatefcx
a, Lyons Townahv; b. The araa bounded on the north by 7M> Staeet. on tha wect by Route 57.
on (he south by Stotey Boulevard and on the east by tha Uknoe/lndiana Stale Ine.
Qranfle Oty Townahc and Nameokj Township.
OSes of East Ovcago. Hamumd. Vrhftng, and Gary.
CXy of Praaqua Ma.
The area bounded by Michigan Avwue from to imaraaceoii w«h 1-75 weal to I-G4, 1-94
aoutMeat to Greenfield Road. Greenfield Road sou* to Sohaetar Road. Scnaefer Road sou*
and east to Jeflerson Avenue. Jefferson Avenue south (Biddte Avenue through the crty of
Wyanxmel to SWey Amjnue, SWey Avenue west to Fort Street. Fort Street south to Wng
Road. King Road eaat to Jefterson Avenue. Jeftoraon Avenue sou* to Helen Road. Helen
Road east extended to Trenton Channel Trenton Channel north to the Detrw River. Vie
Oetod FWer north to the Ambassador Bridge. Ambassador Bndge to 1-75. W75 to Vfccrngen
Avenue.
The area bound by the Mrnasvp Rwer from Lafayette to Route 404. Route 4»4 east to Rou«
91. Route 61 north to t-W. I-W we* to Lafayette, and Lafayeoe sou* to »>e tiijuam^ Rwer.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 45801
GROUP I AREAS 1.2.3—Continued
SUM and counties
Area of concern
Montana:
Flathead..
Lincoln..
Lake-
Rosebud..
Silver Bow..
Nevada:
Washoa..
Oark.
New Mexico: Dona Ana
Ohio:
Cuyahoga....
Jefferson
Oregon:
Jackson..
Jo*epr*ne.
Lane-
Klamath
Texas: El Paso
Utah:
Salt Lake
Utah
est Virginia: Brooke.
Washington:
King
Pierce.
Spokane.,
Yskima
Thurston
WsHa Warta
Wyoming; Shendan.
The area bounded by lines from Universal Transmercaior (UTM) coordinate 700000m£.
S347000mN. east to 704000mE. S347000mN. south to 704000mE. S34lOOOmN. west 10
TOaOOOmE. S341000mN. south to 703000m£. 5340000mN. west to 702000m£. 5340000mN.
south to 702000m£. S339000mN. east to 703000mE. S339000mN. south to 703000mE.
S338000mN. east to 704000mE. 5338000mN. south to 704000mE. S336000mN. west to
TtCOOOmE. S336000mN. aoutn to TOZOOOmE. S33SOOOmN. west to 700000mE. S335000mN.
north to TOOOOmE, S340000mN. west to 695000mE. S340000mN. north to 695000m£
S34SOOOmN. east to TOOOOOmE. 5345000rnN. north to 700000mE. S34700OmN
Ubby.
Ronan, Poison.
Township T13N. R19W. sections 2. 8. 11. 14. 15. 16. 17. East 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 27. 28. 29.
East 1/2 30. East 1/2 31.32,33. 34. and T12N. R19W. section 4. 5. 6. 7.
Lame Dear.
Buna
Reno planning area: Hydrography area 87.
Las Vega* planning area: Hydrograprue Area 212.
The area bounded by Anthony Quadrangle. Anthony. New Menco—Texas. SE/4 La Mesa IS '
Quadrangle. N3200—W10630/7.5. Townsrup 26S. Range 3E. Sections 35 and 36 as limited by
the Nex Mexico—Texas State line on the south.
County.
The portion of the City of Steubenville south to Market Street plus the area bounded an the
north by the southern boundary of the Gty of Steubenville. on the west by Oho Route = 7, on
the south by the southern border of Sieubenvrile Township, and on the east by the Onto/West
VJrgna border.
Medford-Ashland air quality maintenance area (including White City)
Grams Pass: The area withm the urban growth boundary.
Eugene/Springfieid: The area witNn the urban growth boundary.
Klamath Falls: The area within the urban growth boundary.
City of El Paso.
County.
County.
FoUansbee area bounded on the north by the Market Street Bridge, on the east by West Virginia
Route *Z. on the south by the extension of the southern boundary of SleuoenvOle Townsrup in
Jefferson County. ONo. and on the west by the Ohio/West Vvgirxa border.
The portion of the Gty of Seattle bounded on the east by t-5/East Ouwarmsh Greenbett. on me
south by 104th Street, on the west by the West Ouwamish Greenbert north to Fairmont
Avenue. SW., north on Fairmont to Elliott Bay. and Deertxxn Street from EKott Bay to 1-5. The
city of Kent and a portion of the Green River valley bounded on east and west by tne 100-foot
contour, on the north by South 212th Street and on the south by Highway 516.
Tacoma metropolitan area bounoed on the north by Marine View Onve from Commencement Bay
east to tne 100-foot contour, southeast along the 100-foot contour to 64th Avenue East, soutti
along 64th Avenue East extended to 1-5. 1-5 west to the 100-foot contour near Pacrfc Avenue.
and north along the 100-foot contour to Commencement Bay.
._ The area bounded on the south by a line from Universal Transmercator (UTM) coordinate
489000mE. S271000mN. west to 4S8000mE. 5271000mN. thence north along a Ime to
cooranate 4S6000m£. 5286000mN. thence east to 463000m£. 5288000mN. (hence north to
463000m£. S292000mN. thence east to 48lOOOmE. 5292000mN. tftence south to *«iOOOmE.
528800OmN. thenca east to 4«9000mE. 5268000. thence south to the begmning coordinate
488000m£. 5271000mN.
The area bounded on the south by a line from Universal Transmercator (ITTM) coordinate
6»4000mW. 5157000mN. west to 681000mW. 5157000mN. thence norm along a hoe to
coordinate 681000mN. 5172000mN. thence east to 69400OmW, 5172OOOmN. thence soutn to
th« begmning coordinate 694000mW. S1S7000mN.
Otws of Ofyrnpta. Tumwater. and Lacey.
WalUa.
City of Shendan.
1 For converaenoa. the ene>« list of Group I areas, as revwed is published above.
* When crtws or towns are shown, the area of concern • defined by the muraopal boundary limits as of the date of this notice.
' When a ptanrang area • shown, the area of concern includes the entre planning area unless the area is further defined (e.g.. by townshv. range, and/or
section).
4. Group II Area Description*
As a result of additi onal information
acquired by the States the descriptions
of certain areas of concern published in
the August 7.1987 Federal Register
notice are revised to read as follows:
-------
45M2 Federal Rggirter / Vol. 55. No. 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Gnoup tl AREAS
StaM and flounbo*
Ar«a of ooocem
Alabama: Jerfemn..
Alaska: Fatrbanki..
Arizona:
Coconno-
Graham
North Bin
gham and Leeds.
Farter**.
Flagstaff ptannmj area.
Safford planning area.
r Low and Joeeph CMy planning areas.
Santa Cruz..
rSma.
Show Low planning area.
Mogatee planning area: * The portions of me (oftowmg Townships wrwh are withm the SUM of
Arizona and *e e«st of nr longitude: T23S. H13E: TZSS. Rl*£: T2*S. R13E: T24S. RUE.
Ajo planning area: « Townenp T12S, R6W. and the Mowing sections o( Townsn^ T12S. I
Sections «-«. b. Sections 17-20. and c. Sections 29-32.
Pmal
California:
Santa Oara
San Joequn and Staraslaus
Tusoon planrsng area.
Casa Grsnoe plarmmg area-
County.
San Joaquin Vasey ptanr«ng
utheaat Desert Air B*s*i
Los Angetes.
Mono...
Colorado:
Adams
Boulder
Delta
Routt._
Weld
Guam: Fiti
Idaho:
Bonoer
Caribou
Hfinois:
Randolph
Uacon.
WH
SLCw.
Indana:
Manon
Vigo.
lowa.
Cerro Gordo
Unn_
Poft_
Kansas:'
Kentucky. Boyd _..
Maryland: Baftmore.
Mmnesouu
Hennepm.
St. Lout..
Doogtai
Lander. Humbott. Bko. A Eureka
New Jersey:
Hudson
Camdeo _
New Yorfc Onondaga „
Soutwst Desert Air Baem.
MonoBaan.
Bnghton.
Longrnont.
Delta.
VaC
CotOtBdo SpnnQS,
Oenwood Springs. Rifle.
Created Buna.
Steamboat Springa.
Grand JuncOon, Frurta.
Greetey.
County.
County.".
Condi
Oglesby* "ndudtng the following townships, ranges, and sections: T32N. R1£. Si; T32N. R2E.
S& T33N. R1E. S24: T33N. RlE. S25. T33N. R2E. S31; and T33N. RlE. S36.
Baldwin.
Oecatur.
Rock Island. Mo«
-------
legtoter / Vol. 55. No. 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rules and Regofsficms 45803
GAOUP * AREAS »• «• "—Confirmed
Ta
Of*x
Wr»ndDt_
TO**M»-
Corain—
ea»fi—
Sei»a
Ham
UaN
ea»-
Hontgoraary-
Hfcrtand
Star*-
Summrt-
Oklahoma: Cbmencfw..
Oregon
^Lan»—_
Aaegneny,—
Ent.
Puerto Rico;
South Data*
Texas:
San Juan—
rPearihotea
He*
lujbtxx*.
Nueces...
Virginia:
Washington:
Benton
King
Hancock..
Brooke..
Brown
Milwaukee..
Dane..
Wyoming: Fremont..
Area ol eone«m
Couniy.
County.
Coaaty.
County
Ciray.
N»»Bo«oo.
ShritMd To*mth«.
Thnmpaar* Townafaio.
Jacfcaon Township.
Ma
Cbkonbu*.
CnemM.
V
Otytwv
Cinton.
AJuon.
County.
aa wrthm fit urban growth boundary.
•Hat area, wowt fie ucfian erowth boundary.
a. The tnangutar «taa bounded on the north by aa aaitxnrl ana pasamg trrowok *» Horn
BtMdoct monitor (af 600 Anderson Street) and- jntaraacang. the cantor MB* of DM Momj^oHa
RWer. and on the east by a norm-south fine passing through tw East P*stogh mocra Uf me
Maaasctaa o< Off SBea< an* Oaper Street) and iotersecfloa tha center ln« o( the Mcnonga-
hala R»var. b. T*e ana induaag Uberty. lincoln. Port Voe, anrf Gtassport Borougns and ne
Crlyof Oertoa'
I Richmond
Sari Juatt.
Rat* CRy.
That portion of the City of Delias enclosed by Loop 12 hqhway.
The area bounded on tha norm side by a (me extendmg eartwd from Banner. Street sur=n$ ai
the Southern Pacific Ralroad Vacks at the imenMCtien of Donne* Strmt and Omerr Or* ana
i ef Benner and tegaet Slixaa. on •» east s«d» atoog Leoov So»ei
to CV«DQ Dn««. tbence eastward ta the. inleraectton of Maro She* Rcao. and
thence aouthward agaw to tw Snv Channel, an the south sxje. »errmni 31009 the woutn
edge of the Sh« Channel, including, Brady Island', to East Erath Street and connect^ wfy\ the
Southern Pacific railroad, on the west side, northward atong the southern Pacific Kama to
•e »nai3ec»jn of Onion- Owe and Bennet Street
Tkel per«o» of me CMy of LuUbock •• enclosed ay loop i
1 That porsoa ot ** Oty of Co«eue Ortstu boundad> by Nuacaa Bey on tb» norm. Ocean Crve on
the east. Highway 44 on the south, and a Bne due north from Highway 44 at tne mtersecron o<
Mlgfiway 3W to ffcieces Bar on the west
Ceun*
BeHevue.
Qty of Wiorton.*
Ram«*f.bar of county.
CtoPw*
Waukesna.
Superior.
Madoon.
Under.
1 For convenience, tae entire kst ef Group II areas, as revised, is puMerwd above.
* When cities or towns art shown, the area, of concern « deMed by (he mumapa' boundary limits as of the dale of tha aoace.
1 When a planning area ts shown, the area of concern nckides the entire planning, area unless the area is further defined1 (e.g.. by lownsrup. range. inoYor
4 The State has recorded. vxSaHoos of the PM-10 NAAOSaage* *iana*«naMy oata-Wnuoh December 31. 190*
kTlMS4a»ae*B»cerde«welMonra»t«em4-1or4AAOScased upon av quality data througn December 31. 1989.
-------
45804 Federal Register / Vol. 5S. No. 211 / Wednesday. October 31. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: Section* 110 and 301 of the
Clean Air Act give the Administrator
authority to adopt policies necessary to
implement NAAQS.
Dated: October 22.1990.
William G. Roieabwg.
Assistant A dministrator for Air and
Radiation.
JFR Doc 90-25518 Filed 10-30-90: 8:45 ami
WLLMa COOC M40-SO-M
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-fRU-3*56-4]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Chemical
Manufacturing Process Vents,
Industrial Solvent Use, Benzene Waste
Operations, Benzene Transfer
Operations, and Gasoline Marketing
System; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document clarifies the
applicability of 5 61.300(a) of the
National Emission Standard for Benzene
Transfer Operations which was
promulgated in the Federal Register on
Wednesday. March 7.1990 (55 FR 8341).
This action is necessary to clarify that
the benzene transfer rule does not apply
to the loading of crude oil. natural gas
liquids or petroleum distillates such as
fuel oil diesel or kerosene. It was never
EPA's intent that the benzene transfer
rule apply to crude oil, natural gas
liquids or petroleum distillates. The
benzene content of these materials is
well below the 70 percent cutoff in the
regulation and will never approach this
cutoff.
This notice also changes the
applicability date of { 61.300(e] of the
regulation as it applies to the loading of
benzene into marine vessels. This
change is necessary to allow facilities
adequate time to design, purchase and
install vapor control systems that
comply with the U.S. Coast Guard
standards that were issued June 21.1990
(55 FR 25396} and that are effective July
23.1990. This correction is consistent
with EPA's intent to provide an
industry-wide waiver of 1 year so that
facilities can take into consideration the
Coast Guard standards that address
safe design, installation and operation of
marine vessel vapor control systems.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7,1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Doug Bell at (919) 541-5568 or Ms.
Laura Butler. (919) 541-5267, Standards
Development Branch, ESD (MD-13). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711.
Dated: October 23.1990.
Michael Shapiro.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
For reasons set out in the preamble.
title 40, chapter L part 61 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 61—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 101.112.114.116.301 of
the Clean Air Act. a* amended (42 U.S.C
7401. 7412. 7414. 7416. 7601).
2. Section 61.300 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (e) to read
as follows:
§61.300 Applicability.
(a) The affected facility to which this
subpart applies is the total of all loading
racks at which benzene is loaded into
tank trucks, railcars. or marine vessels
at each benzene production facility and
each bulk terminal. However.
specifically exempted from this
regulation are loading racks at which
only the following are loaded: Benzene-
laden waste (covered under subpart FF
of this part), gasoline, crude oil, natural
gas liquids, petroleum distillates {e.g..
fuel oil, diesel. or kerosene), or benzene-
laden liquid from coke by-product
recovery plants.
• « • • «
(e) The owner or operator of an
affected facility, as defined in
\ 61-300(a) that loads a marine vessel
shall be in compliance with the
provisions of this subpart on and after
July 23.1991. If an affected facility that
loads a marine vessel also loads a tank
.truck or rail car. the marine vessel
* loading racks shall be in compliance
with the provisions of this subpart on
and after July 23,1991. while the tank
truck loading racks and the railcar
loading racks shall be in compliance as
required by § 61.12.
JFR Doc. 90-25731 Filed 10-30-90: 8:45 ami
BJUJNOCOOf U«0-*&-«
40 CFR Part 761
IOPTS-62035J; FRL 3*01-2]
Porychlorinated Blphenyls in
ElectricarTransf ormers; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule: correction.
SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule on
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
electrical transformers published in the
Federal Register issue of July 19.1988 (53
FR 27322). In the codified text of
5 761.30(a)(l)(v), EPA inadvertently
omitted subparagraphs (A). (B). and (C).
This document corrects that error by
reinserting these subparagraphs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is
effective October 31.1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael M. Stahl. Director.
Environmental Assistance Division (TS~
799). Office of Toxic Substances.
Environmental Protection Agency. Rm.
E-543B. 401 M St., SW.. Washington. DC
20460. (202) 554-1404. TDD: (202) 554-
0551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
EPA issued a final rule on PCB« in
electrical transformers published in the
Federal Register issue of July 19. 1988 (53
FR 27322). in which J 761.30(a)(l)(v) was
revised. It was not EPA's intent to delete
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) from
paragraph (a)(l)(v) when the Federal
Register notice was published. EPA
intended only to revise the introductory
text of paragraph (a)(l)(v). This
document corrects § 761.30(a)(l)(v] by
reinserting subparagraphs (A). (B). and
(C).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 7K1
Environmental protection. Hazardous
substances. Labeling. Polychlorinated
biphenyls. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 10,1990.
Charles L. Skins.
Director. Office of Toxic Substances
Therefore, 40 CFR part 761 is amended
as follows:
PART 761—{AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 761
continues to read as follows:
Authority: IS U.S.C. 2605. 2607. 2611. 2614.
and 2616.
2. In 5 761.30 by correctly revising
paragraph (a)(l)(v) to read as follows:
§761.30 Authorizations.
(a) * * *
(I)'"
(v) As of October 1.1990. all radial
PCS Transformers with higher
secondary voltages (480 volts and
above, including 480/277 volt systems)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
NOV ]4!990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Nonattainment Designations and Classifications
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Plannng and Standards
TO: See Attached List
The attached package deals with designations, classifications, and
boundaries, and has been developed with the intent of providing information
useful to you and the States for implementing requirements of the new Act. I
feel these areas are of particular concern because they require immediate
attention and election of choices by the State Governors that must be
submitted to EPA within 120 days of enactment.
The package was assembled from the perspective of providing you, in as
concise but comprehensive a manner as possible at this time, all the
information available for assessment of air quality and boundary issues that
might be useful in helping States reach their own decisions on these matters.
Included are three basic sections for each NAAQS: (1) air quality tables
reflecting attainment/nonattainment designations, classifications, and
boundaries—this is the key component of the package; (2) a discussion
describing the data and issues associated with each pollutant; and (3) a
technical appendix that provides^ more detail on air quality data computations.
I suggest you share this information with the States as soon as possible for
use as a tool in implementing the designations and classifications
requirements of Title I. Items 1 and 3 were sent to you previously. When you
complete your review of this information, please contact us so we can reach
agreement on any appropriate changes to the air quality tables. Contact Barry
Gilbert (FTS 629-5238) on 0,/CO, Eric Ginsburg (FTS 629-0877) on S05/Pb, Dave
Stonefield (FTS 629-5350) oft PM-10, and Tom Curran (FTS 629-5467) on the
technical appendix to facilitate this process and to discuss any issues that
surface as you work through the designation process with the States.
I hope this material is helpful and meets your needs. We will be
following up this information with more comprehensive guidance in the near
future. Toward that end, AQMD will be setting up.a conference call in the
next 2 weeks with the Regions to review the designations and classifications
procedure.
Attachment
-------
Addressees:
Air Management Division Director, Region III
Air and Waste Management Division Director, Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division Directors, Regions I, IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director, Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors, Regions VII, VIII, IX and X
cc: State Air Programs Branch, Region I
Air Programs Branch, Regions II-IV, VI, VIII-X
Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
Air Branch, Region VII
-------
03/CO/N02 NONATTAINMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS
Overview
The designation and classification requirements of the amendments are
summarized below for ozone (CL), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO-). The attainment/nonattainment status for the 63, CO, and N02 NAAQS is
shown in Attachment 1.
The listing is based on the most recent, currently available air quality
data in the AIRS system, i.e., 1987-1989 data for 0, and 1988-1989 data for
CO. We believe these are the appropriate years to use since 1989 is the last
complete year of quality assured data, and the legislative history indicates
that Congress intended the classifications to be based on 1987-1989 data. It
is EPA's intention to allow the use of all valid data for those years from
properly located monitors in developing nonattainment lists.
The new Clean Air Act (CAA) requires two basic procedures for
designating, determining boundaries for, and classifying 03 and CO areas.
First, as of the date of enactment, current section 107 designations of
nonattainment for all 0., and CO areas are adopted by operation of law,
including existing boundaries and classifications of nonattainment on the
basis of 1987-89 data (1988-1989 for CO). The boundaries for Serious CO
nonattainment areas and 0^ nonattainment areas classified as Serious, Severe,
or Extreme will be revised to include the entire metropolitan statistical
areas (MSA) or consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA). The EPA
will, upon satisfactory demonstration by a State that emissions from part(s)
of the MSA/CMSA do not contribute to the NAAQS violation, exclude that part(s)
from the nonattainment designation. States also have the opportunity, under
limited circumstances, to adjust the classification under the 5 percent rule.
Second, within 120 days of enactment, the Governor shall submit a list
of all areas, their designations, and their boundaries, in the State. Within
120 days, EPA shall promulgate this list, making appropriate revisions (after
notifying^the State). This process may result in the expansion of boundaries
for areas designated nonattainment by operation of law as of the date of
enactment. In addition, this process may result in the redesignation of areas
designated attainment or unclassifiable as of the date of enactment to
nonattainment based on current air quality. Areas newly designated to
nonattainment will then be classified, and any that are classified Serious or
higher are subject to the MSA/CMSA boundary consideration process.
Designations/Classifications/Boundaries at Date of Enactment
Any area currently designated nonattainment under section 107 at the
time of enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 is designated, by operation of
law, as a nonattainment area at the date of enactment. These areas are
identified on the attached listing.
Each area designated nonattainment for 0., will be classified at the time
of the designation (dav^e of enactment), by operation of law, as Marginal,
Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme on the basis of 1987-89 data. Table I
lists the design values and attainment dates for each category.
•
-------
Area Classification
Standard
TABLE I
OZONE CLASSIFICATIONS
Design Value*
Marginal
Moderate
Serious
Severe
Extreme
0.121 up to 0.138
0.138 up to 0.160
0.160 up to 0.180
0.180 up to 0.190
0.190 up to 0.280
0.280 and above
Primary Standard
Attainment Date**
3 years after enactment
6 years after enactment
9 years after enactment
15 years after enactment
17 years after enactment
20 years after enactment
* The design value is measured in parts per million (ppm).
** The primary standard attainment date is measured from the date of the
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990. Attainment should be as expeditious as
practicable, but no later than the date listed.
In like manner, each area designated nonattainment for CO shall be classified
at the time of the designation (date of enactment), by operation of law, as either
Moderate or Serious. Table II lists the design values and attainment dates for each
category.
Area Classification
Standard
TABLE II
CARBON MONOXIDE CLASSIFICATIONS
Design Value
Primary Standard
Attainment Date*
Moderate
Serious
9.1 - 16.4 ppm
16.5 and above
December 31, 1995
December 31, 2000
*Attainment should be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than the date
listed.
Boundaries
All areas designated nonattainment at the date of enactment take as their
boundaries their current boundaries.
-------
However, within 45 days of enactment, the boundaries for 03 and CO
nonattainmeni areas located within MSA's or CMSA's that are classified as Serious,
Severe, or Extreme are automatically revised to be the entire MSA/CMSA unless the'
overnor submits a letter by that time stating that the matter should be studied
urther. If the Governor submits the letter, the State may then submit specific
alternative findings demonstrating that the appropriate area is smaller than the MSA
or CMSA. If EPA concurs in those findings within 14 months of classification, the
smaller area will become the boundary; otherwise, the MSA or CMSA will become the
boundary. The legislative history indicates that Congress presumed the boundaries
would be MSA/CMSA, and the test for the State to narrow the boundaries is to be a
difficult one to pass.
For Marginal and Moderate areas, States can consider such factors as
population, population density and growth patterns, commuting patterns, commercial
development, industrial development,-topographic and meteorological conditions, and
pollution or precursor transport in defining the boundaries. The default area for
boundaries for 0^ and CO nonattainment areas should be the MSA/CMSA.
Classification Adjustments
The Amendments provide that the classification of 03 areas classified at the
date of enactment and all CO areas may be adjusted by the Administrator within 90
days to the next higher or lower category if the design value is within 5 percent of
the adjacent classification category. Adjustments of classifications for 03 areas
classified after the date of enactment may be made by the Administrator 90 flays
after classification, as described below.
The Amendments grant EPA broad discretion in making or declining to make the
.djustment. The EPA intends to examine the individual circumstances supporting a
request to adjust the classification. Factors to be considered include the design
values of the neighboring areas, the number of exceedances in the area in 1987-1989
(1988-1989 for CO), the design value and number of exceedances considering earlier
years, and the area's geographic proximity to and the prevailing meteorology between
other areas experiencing air quality violations to which the area under
consideration might be contributing.
••— State List-/EPA Promulgation Process
The Act provides that within 120 days after enactment, each State must submit
a list of all 03 and CO areas within the State, designating each area, and
determining the boundary for each area. The EPA must promulgate this list within
120 days (approximately 8 months from enactment), although EPA is granted broad
authority to make revisions (after first notifying the State). If the Governor does
not submit a recommendation for an area, the Administrator shall promulgate the
designation that he deems appropriate.
Under this process, the designations of all areas designated nonattainment
under section 107 as of the date of enactment will simply be affirmed as
nonattainment--such designation may be revised to attainment only through a separate
process for redesignation (which requires a maintenance plan). Because the
designations are simply being affirmed, the Act does not authorize another
classification. Therefore, the classification that occurred for these areas as of
(the date of enactment will remain. However, the boundaries of these areas may be
determined during this process. As described above, for Marginal and Moderate
areas, States can consider such factors as population, population density and growth
-------
patterns, commuting patterns, commercial development, industrial development,
topographic and meteorological conditions, and pollution or precursor transport in
defining the boundaries. The default area for boundaries for 03 and CO
nonattainment areas should be the MSA/CMSA.
Designation of areas designated attainment or unclassifiable as of the date of
enactment (because that was their pre-enactment designation) may be revised to
nonattainment based on recent air quality. Any such newly designated nonattainment
areas will be classified at the time of this designation. If the classification is
Marginal or Moderate, the boundaries will be determined through this process; if the
classification is Serious or higher, the boundaries will become the MSA/CMSA unless,
within 45 days of the classification, the Governor submits a letter indicating a
study. In this case, the boundaries will be determined within 8 months of the
classification. The classification will also give rise to an opportunity for a 5
percent adjustment—the same as described above—for (k areas (but not CO areas.
because their 5 percent adjustment applies only within 90 days of enactment).
Transitional Areas
Transitional areas are defined in the Amendments as areas designated
nonattainment under section 107 of the current CAA before the date of enactment
which have not violated the primary NAAQS for 03 from January 1, 1987 to December
31, 1989. These areas are currently designated nonattainment but there is strong
evidence that they have actually attained the standard. New ozone-specific
requirements under the Amendments are suspended until December 31, 1991. By June
30, 1992, the Administrator will determine whether these areas attained the standard
by December 31, 1991. If EPA determines that an area has attained the standard, the
State is required to submit a maintenance plan within 12 months of the
determination. At such time as an area is judged not to have attained the standard,
but not later than June 30, 1992, the Administrator shall designate the area
nonattainment with an appropriate classification assigned.
Transitional areas are identified with a footnote on the attached list.
Nitrogen Dioxide
For^NCL, the current nonattainment area (Los Angeles) is designated
nonattainment at the date of enactment by operation of law. No other areas are
currently identified as monitoring nonattainment for NCL.
PM-10 NONATTAINMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS
Overview
Amendments to section 107 of the CAA will, upon enactment, designate by
operation of law all areas of the country as either nonattainment or unclassifiable.
First, PM-10 Group I areas, as defined in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987), or
subsequent modifications to the boundaries issued before enactment, will become
nonattainment areas. Second, any Group II or III areas where violations of the PM-
10 NAAQS were measured before January 1, 1989 will also become nonattainment areas.
Other Group II and III areas will be designated unclassifiable.
-------
PM-10 Designations Under the CAA Amendments
The EPA has published a Federal Register notice (55 FR 45799, October 31,
1990) that makes technical corrections to the descriptions of the areas as published
in 1987 (52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987).* The corrections were intended to define
more clearly the boundaries of certain areas that will be designated nonattainment
by operation of law and were based on information the States have provided in the
PM-10 SIP development process. Note that these corrections also identified by
footnote those Group II areas with violations based on data through December 31,
1988.
A subsequent Federal Register notice will be published after enactment
formally announcing the Group II and'Group III areas that were designated
nonattainment by operation of law because they recorded violations of the NAAQS
before January 1, 1989. This notice will also reaffirm the Group I areas as
nonattainment areas. The list of nonattainment areas designated by operation of law
identifies the initial nonattainraent areas for PM-10. Redesignations of other areas
to nonattainment shall follow the general criteria and procedures set forth in
section 107(d) of the CAA as amended. Pursuant to these criteria, States will be
asked to redesignate to nonattainment any areas determined to be violating the PM-10
NAAQS based on data collected after December 31, 1988.
Boundaries
Boundaries for. initial PM-10 nonattainment areas were based on procedures in
section 2.5 of the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline and in section 6.3 of Procedures
for Estimating Probability of Nonattainment of a PM-10 NAAQS Using Total Suspended
Particulate or PM-10 Data. EPA-450/4-86-017, December 1986. Section 6.3 discusses
three approaches: (1) qualitatively determining the area of air quality represented
by the monitor(s) measuring violations, (2) evaluating the data from a network of
monitors and interpolating the PM-10 concentrations between monitors measuring
violations and those not measuring violations, and (3) using dispersion modeling to
identify the area with violations. Using the above criteria, boundaries of future
nonattainment areas should be specified using clearly identifiable political or
physical Boundaries. This could include city, county, or State boundaries or rivers
and mountain ranges. However, the boundaries should encompass the entire area to
which a control strategy is expected to apply. The default area for PM-10
des-ignations are the county boundaries.
*Attachment 2 is a listing of PM-10 areas excerpted from the technical corrections
Federal Register notice.
LEAD (Pb) NONATTAINMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS
Overview/Current Status
Under section 110 of the CAA, States are required to meet the NAAQS and submit
a plan which provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of this
standard. Lead is not, however, subject to requirements of section 107 of the
-------
current CM'which required States to designate areas with respect to attainment of
the NAAQS in existence as of enactment of the 1977 CM Amendments (August 7, 1977).
The CM Amendments contain provisions which would grant EPA authority to designate
areas with respect to attainment of the current Pb NMQS. Where measured violations
exist, the EPA believes States should be required to submit such designations.
Pb Designations Under CAA Amendments
After enactment, EPA must notify the Governor of each State of the
requirements to designate areas with respect to Pb. The Governors will be asked to
designate within 120 days of such notification by EPA, all areas listed as either
nonattainment or unclassifiable. Attachment 3 is a listing of 29 Pb smelters which
have been targeted as possibly violating the Pb NAAQS. Fourteen of the smelters are
located in 12 counties which have measured violations of the Pb NAAQS; these areas
should be designated nonattainment. Fifteen are in 12 counties for which
insufficient data are available and thus should be designated unclassifiable. The
EPA intends to incorporate this action on Pb into the overall designation schedule
which provides for promulgation within 120 days following submittal by the
Governors.
Boundaries
Due to the similar nature of the pollutants, the approach for determining Pb
boundaries will be the same as for PM-10 areas. These approaches are found in
section 2.5 of the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline and in section 6.3 of the
document entitled Procedures for Estimating Probability of Nonattainment of a PM-10
NMQS Using Total Suspended Particulate or PH-10 Data. These approaches are: (1)
qualitatively determining the area of air quality represented by the monitor(s)
measuring violations, (2) evaluating the data from a network of monitors and
interpolating the PM-10 concentrations between monitors measuring violations and
those not measuring violations, and (3) using dispersion modeling to identify the
area with violations. The default areas for Pb designations are the county
boundaries.
S02 NONATTAINMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS
Overview
Any area currently designated nonattainment under section 107 at the time of
enactment of the CM Amendments of 1990 is designated by operation of law as a
nonattainment area. Section 107(d) of the CM as amended by the 1990 Amendments
authorizes the Agency to notify the State that the designation of an area should be
revised. The legislation requires the Administrator to first notify the Governor of
a State that available information indicates the need to revise a designation. The
Governor is then given 120 days from such notification to submit any redesignations
and/or additional nonattainment areas. The EPA must then promulgate the
redesignation within 120 days after the Governor's submittal.
-------
SO.. Designations Under CAA Amendments
—2
There are currently 50 SO- nonattainment areas designated under section 107.
.These designations are made predominantly by county, but some States have also
elected to designate areas by air quality control region, township, or other area
within the State. Based on the available data (1988-1989), the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards has identified 10 new areas which we expect will be
redesignated as nonattainment. Attachment 4 lists the existing nonattainment areas
and the areas for which information indicates the designation should be revised to
nonattainment.
Boundaries
The S0« program will rely on the current boundaries for existing nonattainment
areas. When States submit their requests to designate additional areas as
nonattainment, EPA will continue to consider other reasonable boundaries. The
default area for S02 designations is the county boundaries.
-------
-V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
MOV 2 7 1290
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Stack Height Questions
FROM: John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TO: Irwin L. Dickstein, Director
Air and Toxic Division, Region VIII
The following1 guidance is-provided in response to the five issues raised
in your memorandum of November 8, 1990 regarding good engineering practice
(GEP) stack height. The issues and answers are presented below in the same
order as your memorandum.
1. Issue:
A source seeking stack height credit above formula GEP is required by
regulation to demonstrate an exceedance of an ambient air quality
standard. The regulation also provides that the allowable emission rate
to be used in making the demonstration shall be the new source
performance standard (NSPS), unless this is shown to be'infeasible.- The
regulations, however, do not address what emission rates to use when
there are no NSPS emission rates applicable.
Answer:
The preamble to the stack height regulation is clear that the emission
. rate must be limited to the NSPS or best available retrofit technology
(BART) rate (50 FR 27898). The legislative history of the stack height
requirement cautioned that credit for stacks above formula height be
granted only in rare cases. For this reason, EPA determined that sources
seeking credit above formula height should first attempt to reduce their
emissions. In-establishing an emission rate other than NSPS,'the
preamble states that EPA will rely on its BART guideline. Thus, we
believe that a BART analysis must be conducted to determine the emission
rate to be used in studies demonstrating GEP stack height greaterthan
formula height when no NSPS limit is applicable.
2. Issue:
In completing a BART analysis, should we follow the procedures described
in the October 28, 1985 memorandum from Darryl Tyler to the Air
Management Division Directors entitled "Implementation of Stack Height
Regulations—Presumptive NSPS Emission Limit for Fluid Modeling Stacks
Above Formula GEP Height?"
-------
Answer:
' This guidance continues to apply to all fluid modeling and field studv
demonstrations and thus should be followed by the State of Montana ill
ASARCO.
3. Issue:
Does Headquarters have individuals to review a BART analysis for a
primary lead smelter?
Answer:
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards will provide whatever
assistance is needed to Region VIII concerning the BART analysis.
4. Issue:
Following a demonstration that credits stack height above formula GEP, is
the source still required to meet an emission limit consistent with the
NSPS/BART limit if the source can demonstrate that it can emit more but
still be in compliance with the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS)?
Answer:
The preamble to the stack height regulation is clear that the operating
rate must be limited to the BART or NSPS rate (50 FR 27898). The
preamble also notes that an emission limit more stringent than NSPS/BART
may be needed because the sources must also meet the NAAQS (50 FR 27899).
Thus the BART limit, ones established, must be complied with by the
source unless additional control is needed to meet the NAAQS when stack
height credit is limited to GEP.
5. Issue:
The stack height regulation requires sources seeking credit above formula
GEP to show an exceedance of an air quality standard. Does this mean an
exceedance of a NAAQS or ambient standards that have been approved in
State implementation plans?
Answer:
We interpret the reference in the regulation to "an" ambient air quality
standard as meaning a "national" ambient air quality standard. A State,
however, is always free to impose more stringent requirements. In some
instances, it may be difficult to determine whether a State standard is
more stringent than a NAAQS; therefore, a case-by-case analysis would be
required when using standards other than a NAAQS.
I trust this guidance adequately responds to your concerns. For further
discussion, please have your staff contact Doug Grano^at FTS 629-5255. .
cc: Pat Embrey, OGC
SO, Contacts
-------
V"""'v
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
MAR 4 ja9i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
PM-10 SIP Attainment Demonstration Policy
for Initial Moderate Nonattai;
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Di
William G. Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division (M
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division, Regions I, IV, VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air Management Division
Regions III and IX
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
Overview
The purpose of this memorandum is to document EPA's
attainment demonstration policy for initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas, i.e., those designated nonattainment upon
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and, by
operation of law, classified as moderate upon enactment. This
policy supplements the attainment demonstration guidance set
forth in the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), the
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised^, and the memorandum
from Joseph Tikvart and Robert Bauman dated July 5, 1990. It is
limited in application to those moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas designated nonattainment at enactment, all of which have a
November 15, 1991 deadline for submitting attainment
demonstrations and other State implementation plan (SIP)
requirements.- The short period in which the statute mandates the
demonstration submittal for these areas has been an important
factor in EPA's decision to supplement its attainment
demonstration policy.
-------
policy
Generally, all SIP submittals for the initial moderate PM-lo
nonattainraent areas should follow the existing guidance on PM-10
modeling as noted above. In the situation where an area has
completed or can complete its demonstration by November 15, 1991
consistent with existing guidance, an attainment demonstration
based on the existing guidance should be submitted. However, in
those situations where time constraints, inadequate resources,
inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some unique
situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an
area unable to submit an attainment demonstration within the
short timeframe provided by the newly revised law, then a
modified demonstration based on this policy statement may be
submitted. Section 189(a)(l)(B) of the recently revised Clean
Air Act requires that all modified demonstrations be based on
some form of "air quality modeling." In addition, 40 CFR §51.112
requires that a demonstration be shown to be "adequate and
appropriate." This supplemental policy is issued in accordance
with these statutory and regulatory requirements.
All such modified demonstrations should be accompanied by
the following:
1. Documentation of Modified Modeling Method.
Documentation of the procedures or analyses used in
lieu of those set forth in the previously issued
guidance.
2. Rationale for Modified Demonstration. An explanation
of why the alternative modeling techniques set forth in
the guidance were not used.
3. Justification of Modified Demonstration. A description
of how and why the SIP provides an adequate and
appropriate demonstration of areawide attainment. If
the design value contained in the demonstration is
based on monitoring data, the justification should
also:
(a) Show that the SIP is based on at least one full year of
data from an approved network that meets EPA's quality
assurance requirement. Also, the justification should
contain a review of the monitoring data (e.g., data
—* completeness, prescribed sampling frequency) in
accordance with EPA's SIP development guidance. The
justification should also include a review the
network's ability to identify the point of maximum
concentration and the impact of most significant
sources.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY /4Z,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards '
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MAR I i 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance
"
FROM: A-John- S. Seitz, Directoi
/0(9ffice of Air Quality Planning ana\Standards (MD-10)
V
TO: Addressees
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments) make
numerous changes to the NSR requirements of the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment area programs.
The 1990 Amendments create new and expanded nonattainment areas,
extend PSD coverage to current Class I area boundaries, and
mandate a PSD exemption for certain hazardous air pollutants.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to propose by
September of this year a regulatory .package that will implement
these and other changes to the NSR provisions. Final adoption of
these revised regulations is projected for August 1992.. In the
interim period between passage of the 1990 Amendments and
adoption of the Agency's final regulations, EPA expects that
numerous issues regarding the 1990 Amendments will arise. This
memorandum sets forth the Agency's position on the most important
of these transitional issues involving the NSR program.
This guidance document does not supersede existing State
regulations or approved State implementation plans. However, in
some cases, it calls upon States to implement their NSR programs
in a manner consistent with provisions of the 1990 Amendments
that are applicable immediately and with the requirements that
flow directly from these provisions. Nonetheless, the policies
set out in this transition memorandum are intended solely as
guidance and do not represent final Agency action. They are not
ripe for judicial review for this reason. Moreover, they are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
The EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in
this memorandum, or to^act at variance with the guidance, based
on an analysis of specific circumstances. The Agency also may
change this guidance at any time without public notice.
The Regional Offices should send this guidance document to
their States. Questions from States and applicants concerning
specific issues and cases should be directed to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. If you have any general questions, please
contact Mr. Michael Sewell of the New Source Review Section at
FTS 629-0873 or (919) 541-0873.
Attachment
-------
Addressees
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division,
Regions I, IV, and VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air Management Division, Regions III and IX
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X
cc: J. Calcagni
R. Campbell
W. Laxton
E. Lillis
J. Rasnic
L. Wegman
J. Weigold
NSR Contacts
-------
New Source Review (NSR) Transitional Guidance
ics and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
pollutants fNESHAPSl Issues
1. Section 112 Hazardous Air Pollutants are No Longer
Considered Regulated Pollutants Under Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD), but NESHAPS still Apply
Under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act)
and regulations issued thereunder/ the PSD .requirements of
the Act apply to all "major" new sources and "major"
modifications, i.e., those exceeding certain annual tonnage
thresholds [see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i)].
Typically, new sources and modifications become subject to
PSD because they exceed the specified tonnage threshold for
a criteria pollutant, i.e., a pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) has been established
under section 109 of the Act. Once a new source or
modification is subject to PSD, the PSD requirements apply
to every pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that
is emitted in "significant" quantities (or, in the case of a
major modification, for which there is a significant net
emissions increase) [see 40 CFR 52.21(b) (2.3) and (i)(2)].
Under the 1977 Amendments, best available control technology
(BACT) and other PSD requirements apply not only to
emissions of criteria pollutants but also to emissions of
pollutants regulated under other provisions of the Act, such
as section 111 or 112. This regulatory structure was
altered by the 1990 Amendments.
Title III of the 1990 Amendments added a new
section 112(b)(6) that excludes the hazardous air pollutants
listed in section 112(b)(l) of the revised Act (as well as
any pollutants that may be added to the list) from the PSD
(and other) requirements of Part C. Thus, because they are
on the initial Title III hazardous air pollutants list, the
following pollutants, which had been regulated under PSD
because they were covered by the section 112 NESHAPS or
section 111 new source performance standards (NSPS) program,
are now exempt from Federal PSD applicability:
arsenic
asbestos
benzene (including benzene from gasoline)
beryllium
hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
mercury
radionuclides (including radon and polonium)
vinyl chloride.
-------
The Title III exemption applies to final Federal
PSD permits (i.e., those issued in final form and for
which administrative appeals, if any/ under
40 CFR 124.19 have been exhausted) issued on or after
the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments
(November 15, 1990). For Federal PSD permit
applications now under review by either an EPA Regional
Office or a delegated State, PSD permit requirements do
not apply to the pollutants exempted by Title III. For
Federal PSD permits containing PSD requirements for the
pollutants exempted by Title III issued on or after
November 15, 1990, the permittee may request a revision
(e.g., removal of a BACT limit for benzene) to their
PSD permit to reflect the Title III exemption from
Federal PSD applicability.
Note that pursuant to section 116 and the preservation
clause in section 112(d)(7) of the amended Act, States with
an approved PSD program may continue to regulate the
Title III hazardous air pollutants now exempted from Federal
PSD by section 112(b)(6) if the State" PSD regulations
provide an independent basis to do so. These State rules
would remain in effect .unless a state revised them to
provide similar exemptions. Additionally, the Title III
pollutants continue to be subject to any other applicable
State and Federal rules; the exclusion is only for Part C
rules.
Finally, section 112(q) retains existing NESHAPS
regulations by specifying that any standard under section
112 in effect prior to the date of enactment of the 1990
Amendments shall remain in force and effect after such date
unless modified as provided in the amended section.
Therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 61.05 to 61.08,
including preconstruction permitting requirements, for new
and modified sources subject to existing NESHAPS regulations
are still applicable.
In summary, the pollutants currently regulated'
under the Act as of March 1991 that are still subject
to Federal PSD review and permitting requirements are:
A
carbon monoxide
. nitrogen oxides
sulfur dioxide
particulate matter and PM-10 -
ozone (volatile organic compounds)
lead (elemental)
fluorides
sulfuric acid mist
total reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S)
. CFC's 11, 12, 11^, 114, 115
3
-------
• halons 1211, 1301, 2402
municipal waste combustor (MWC) acid gases, MWC
metals and MWC organics.
2. Hazardous Air Pollutants that are Regulated as One Component
of a More General Pollutant Under Other Provisions of the
Clean Air Act are Still Regulated
Any hazardous air pollutants listed in
section 112(b)(l) which are regulated as constituents of a
more general pollutant listed under section 108 of the Act
are still subject to PSD as part of the more general
pollutant, despite the exemption in Title III. For example,
volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (a term which includes
benzene, vinyl chloride, methanol, toluene, methyl ethyl
ketone, and thousands of other compounds) are still
regulated as VOC's (but not as individual pollutants such as
benzene, etc.) under the PSD regulations because these
pollutants are ozone precursors, not because they are air
toxics. Also, particulates (including lead compounds and
asbestos) are still regulated as particulates (both PM-10
and particulate matter) -under the PSD regulations. Lead
compounds are exempt from Federal PSD by Title III, but the
elemental lead portion of lead compounds (as tested for in
40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 12) is-still considered a
criteria pollutant subject to the lead NAAQS and still
regulated under PSD.
3. Toxic Effect of Unregulated Pollutants Still Considered in
BACT Analysis
Based on the remand decision on June 3, 1986 by the EPA
Administrator in North County Resource Recovery Associates
(PSD Appeal No. 85-2), the impact on emissions of other
pollutants, including unregulated pollutants, must be taken
into account in determining BACT for a regulated pollutant.
When evaluating control technologies and their associated
emissions limits, combustion practices, and related permit
terms and conditions in a BACT proposal, the applicant must
consider the environmental impacts of all pollutants not
regulated by PSD. Once a project is subject to BACT due to
the emission of nonexempted pollutants, the BACT analysis
should therefore consider all pollutants, including
Title III hazardous air pollutants previously subject to
PSD, in determining which control strategy is best.
-------
PSD Class I Boundary Issues
1. PSD Applicability Coverage Changes as Class I Area
Boundaries Change
Sections 162(a) and 164(a) of the amended Act specify
that the boundaries of areas designated as Class I must now
conform to all boundary changes at such parks and wilderness
areas made since August 7, 1977 "and any changes that may
occur in the future. The EPA does not believe that Congress
intended to create the turmoil which would occur if this
redesignation required the modification of permits issued
between August 7, 1977 and November 15, 1990, or the
resubmission and reevaluation of complete permit
applications submitted prior to enactment of the 1990
Amendments. Thus, for this reason, applications considered
complete prior to November 15, 1990 should be processed as
submitted without regard to the new Class I area boundaries.
Exceptions to this general policy are in the areas of
increment consumption and air quality related values
(including visibility), as discussed below.
For an applicant who submitted a complete PSD
application prior to November 15, 1990, if all other PSD
requirements are met, a permit may be issued based on the
Class I analysis as submitted in the application, unless the
reviewing authority finds, on a case-by-case basis, that
additional analysis is needed from the applicant to address
suspected adverse impacts or increment consumption-problems
due to the expanded boundaries of the Class I areas. Any
existing increment violations in the new boundaries of
Class I areas must be remedied through a SIP revision
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(3).
The PSD applications not considered complete before
November 15, 1990 must consider the impact of both existing
sources and the new or modified source on the Class I areas
as defined by the 1990 Amendments. Thus, the complete
application must consider the impacts on the entire Class I
area based upon the boundaries in existence on the date of
submittal of a complete application; as before, if a Class I
boundary changes before the permit is issued, the reviewing
authority may find, on a case-by-case basis, that additional
analysis is needed from the applicant to address suspected
adverse impacts or increment consumption problems due to
expanded Class I area boundaries.
-------
Nonattainment Issues
NSR Construction Permit Requirements in Nonattainment Areas
In many States, the existing approved Part D permit
program by its terms covers all designated nonattainment
areas in the State, so a Part D permit program will.
automatically apply to the new and expanded nonattainment
areas which are established under provisions of Title I of
the 1990 Amendments. Thus, until new rules are adopted for
these new or expanded nonattainment areas, States should
apply the requirements of their existing approved Part D
permit program. However, in other States, a Part D program
may-be limited to specified areas and does not apply to new
or expanded areas. In these areas, States must implement a
transitional permitting program until their existing Part D
programs are revised to meet the requirements of the 1990
Amendments and expanded to cover all nonattainment areas in
the State. Otherwise, both-the goals of Part D and
Congress' intent in creating new or expanded nonattainment
areas will be frustrated.
The EPA regulations already provide for these new or
expanded designated nonattainment areas because the Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S)
governs permits to construct between the date of designation
and the date-an approved Part D plan is made applicable to
the new nonattainment area [see 40 CFR 52.24(k)"]. Until a
State's new Part .D plan is approved by EPA, if a State
wishes to issue a permit for a major stationary source or
major modification in a new or expanded designated
nonattainment area, the State should comply with the
requirements of Appendix S. Among other things, Appendix S
requires a major source seeking to locate in a nonattainnent
area to (1) meet the lowest achievable emission rate for
such source, (2) provide offsets from existing sources in
the area, and (3) show that the offsets will provide a
positive net air quality benefit (see 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix S, section IV.A). The EPA believes that in order
to carry out the intent of Appendix S, offsets should be
required for sources in all categories and in all instances
should be calculated on a tons per year basis (see
40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, section IV.C).
Of course, neither Appendix S nor the existing NSR
rules incorporate the NSR changes mandated by Title I of the
1990 Amendments such as lower source applicability
thresholds, increased emissions offset ratios, new
definitions of major stationary source, and (for ozone
nonattainraent areas) requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOx)
-------
control and NOx emissions offsets. However, the 1990
Amendments require States to submit to EPA new NSR permit
program rules for ozone nonattainment areas by November 15,
1992; for PM-10 nonattainment areas by June 30, 1992; and
for most carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas no later
than 3 years from the date of the nonattainment designation.
The EPA interprets this as an expression of congressional
intent not to mandate that States adhere to the more
stringent Title I NSR requirements in nonattainment areas .
during the time provided for State •implementation plan (SIP)
development. Thus/ for NSR permitting purposes in
nonattainment areas, the new NSR requirements in Title I are
not in effect until the States/as required by the Act,
.adopt NSR permit program rules to implement the-Title I
provisions. In addition, EPA encourages any State having
adequate authority for early implementation of the NSR
changes to do so as soon as possible.
If States fail to submit to EPA the new NSR permit
program rules for nonattainment areas by the deadlines in
the amended Act, EPA intends to impose in these
nonattainment areas a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
embodying such requirements. Currently, EPA intends to •
propose revised NSR regulations at 40 CFR Part 52 that would
implement', the new Title I NSR requirements. under a FIP in a
State if that State's revised NSR rules to implement Title ::
are not submitted in approvable form to EPA and made
effective within the State by the deadlines established by
the 1990 Amendments.
The area designation in effect on the date of permit
issuance by the reviewing agency determines which
regulations (Part C or Part D) apply to that permit. In
other words, the PSD permit regulations apply to pollutants
for which the area is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable, and the NSR nonattainment permit regulations
apply to pollutants for which the area is designated
nonattainment [see 40 CFR 51.166(i)(3) and (5); and
40 CFR 52.21(i)(3) and (5)]. Under these regulations, a PSD
permit for a pollutant cannot be issued in an area that is
designated nonattainment for that pollutant. For the
situation where a source receives a PSD or other permit
prior to the date the area is designated as nonattainment,
the permit remains in effect as long as the source commences
construction within 18 months after the date of
nonattainment designation of the area, does not discontinue
construction for more than 18 months^ and completes
construction within a reasonable time [see 40 CFR 52.24(g)
and (k)]. Although the PSD regulations provide for
extension of these deadlines, no extension would be
appropriate where the area has been designated as
nonattainment following permit issuance: Accordingly, if
-------
any of these construction provisions are not met, the PSD
permit or other permit will not be extended, and the source
(if subject to the nonattainment provisions) must obtain a
nonattainment permit prior to commencing (or continuing)
construction.
The 1990 Amendments create some new and expanded
nonattainment areas by operation of law. Other
nonattainment area changes are expected as the States and
EPA complete the designation process prescribed in amended
section 107(d). Because of these provisions/ the dates
areas switch from attainment to nonattainment for NSR
purposes vary by pollutant. However, except for the two
instances where the Amendments create changes by operation
of law, the new designations and expanded boundaries will
not be effective for NSR purposes until EPA promulgates the
changes. The promulgations will be announced in the Federal
Register.
Congress create new PM-10 nonattainment areas
through designations that became effective upon
enactment of the 1990 Amendments on November 15, 1990
[see section 107(d)(4)(B)]. Specifically, Congress
designated Group I areas and areas where violations of
the PM-10 NAAQS had occurred prior to January 1, 1989 as
nonattainment. The EPA published a list of these PM-10
areas in a Federal Register notice (see 55 FR 45799,
October 31, 1990; see also 52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987)....
The EPA plans to publish a notice in the Federal Register
listing these areas as nonattainment in the near future, but
they are already considered nonattainnent areas as of
November 15, 1990.
Similarly, the 1990 Amendments expand by operation of
law some CO and ozone nonattainment areas. However, these
changes did not become effective with passage but rather on
December 30, 1990. The specifics are as follows:
Section 107(d) (4)(A)(iv) of the amended Act
provides that, with the exception explained below,
ozone and CO nonattainment areas located within
metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) and
consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA)
which are classified as serious, severe, or
extreme for ozone or as serious for CO are
automatically expanded to include the entire MSA
or CMSA. This expansion became effective by
operation of law 45 days after enactment unless
the Governor submitted a notice by this deadline
of the State's intent to seek a modification of
the expanded boundaries pursuant to the procedures
set forth in section 107(d)(4)(A)(v). So if a
-------
8
State did not provide this notice, the
nonattainment boundaries of all serious, severe,
and extreme ozone nonattainment areas in the state
and all serious CO areas in the State expanded to
include the entire MSA or CMSA on December 30,
1990. If a State did provide timely notice, the
Administrator has up to 14 months from enactment
to resolve the State's challenge. Until EPA
promulgates a resolution of the State's challenge,
the old boundaries remain in effect.
Except for these two cases where new or expanded
boundaries have been created by operation of law,
nonattainment area changes will not be considered effective
until the changes are promulgated by the EPA. As to most
new areas or expansions of previously-designated
nonattainment areas, this will occur 240 days after
enactment [see section 107(d)(4)(A) (i) and (ii)]. Newly-
created ozone and CO nonattainment areas will be considered
part of a designated nonattainment area for NSR purposes at
the time of promulgation.
2. Status of Construction Bans
Pursuant to section 110(n)(3), an existing construction
ban that was imposed due to the absence of approved Part D
NSR rules remains in effect until a revised NSR SIP is
approved. Existing construction bans imposed due to
disapproval of primary sulfur dioxide NAAQS attainment plans
also remain in effect. A Federal Register notice will be
published soon announcing the status of construction bans in
general and also lifting specific bans where appropriate.
Should a construction ban be lifted in any area designated
as nonattainment, and the area lacks an approved Part D NSR
rule, the State should meet the requirements of
40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, in issuing permits to major new
sources or major modifications prior to the adoption of NSR
rules meeting the requirements of the 1990 Amendments.
3. Federal Implementation Plans Remain in Effect
The NSR permitting program in an existing FIP remains
in effect until a SIP is approved or a revised FIP is
adopted.
4. Use of Previously-Approved Growth Allowances is Prohibited
j,
Section 172(b) invalidates growth allowances in
existing SIP's in areas that received a SIP call prior to
enactment of the 1990 Amendments, or that receive one
thereafter. For NSR permits issued on or after November 15,
1990, previously-approved growth allowances cannot be used
-------
in these areas. Construction permits cannot be issued in
SIP-call areas under existing EPA-approved Part D programs
to the extent that such permits rely on previously-approved
growth allowances. Case-by-case emission offsets must be
obtained for any such permits, and other existing Part D
requirements must be met.
5. Existing NSR Permitting Rules Continue to Apply in the
Northeast Ozone Transport Region (NOTR)
The 1990 Amendments establish a single ozone transport
region comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,'and the CMSA
that includes the District of Columbia and part of the State
of Virginia. For this transport region, including all
attainment areas within its boundaries, new
section 184(b)(2) specifies that any stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year
of VOC's shall be considered a major stationary source and
subject to the requirements which would be applicable to
major stationary sources if the area were classified as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. For NSR purposes, the
requirements of section 184(b)(2) are not in effect in a
State until the State submits a new or revised SIP that
includes the requirements (or EPA imposes a FIP implementing
those requirements). A State in the NOTR has until
November 15, 1992 to submit to EPA the new or revised NSR
rules addressing the new requirements.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 51 / Friday. March 15. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 11
Lieutenant Commander. U.S. Coast
Guard, project attorney. Ninth Coast
Guard District Legal Office.
ission of Regulations •
_ Re International Bay City River Roar
will be conducted on the Saginaw River
between the Liberty Bridge and the
Veterans Memorial Bridge on the 12th.
13th. and 14th of July 1991. This event
will have an estimated 70 hydroplanes
which could pose hazards to navigation
in the area. Any vessel desiring to
transit the regulated area may do so
only with prior approval of the Patrol
Commander (Officer in Charge. U.S.
Coast Guard Station Saginaw River.
MI.}.
Economic Assessment and Certification
This regulation is considered to be
non-major under Executive Order 12291
on Federal Regulation and
nonsignificant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR11034: February 28,
1979). The economic impact has been
found to be so minimal that a full
regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
This event will draw a large number of
spectator craft into the area for the
duration of the event This should have
a favorable impact on commercial
facilities providing services to the
Citors. Any impact on commercial
in the area will be negligible.
:e the impact of this regulation: is
expected to be minimal the Coast
Guard certifies that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in,
accordance with the principles: and
criteria contained in Executive Order
12612, and ii has been determined that
this rulemaking does not have sufficient
federalism implication's to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism
Assessment
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety. Navigation (water).
Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, part
100 of title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues- to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233: 49 CFR 1.46 and
33 CFR 100.35.
^. Part 100 would be amended to add a
Dorary section 100.35-T0918 to read
Illowij:
§ 100.35-T0918 International Bay City
River Roar, Sagtnaw River, Bay City, Mt
(a) Regulated Area. That portion of
the Saginaw River from the Liberty
Bridge on the north to the Veterans
Memorial Bridge on the south.
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) The above area will be closed to
navigation and anchorage., except when
expressly authorized by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, from 9:30 ajn.
(EDST) until 4 p.m. (EDST) on 12 July
1991. from 9:30 aon. (EDST} until 4 JO
p.m. (EDST) on 13 July 1991. and from
8:30 ajn- (EDST) until 530 p.m. (EDST)
on 14 July 199L
(2) If the weather on 14 July 1991 is
inclement the river closure will be
postponed until 8:30 ajn. (EDST) until
5:30 p.m. (EDST) on 15 July 1991. If
postponed, notice will be given on 14
July 1991 over the U.S. Coast Guard
Radio Net
(3) The Coast Guard will patrol the
regulated area under the direction of a
designated Coast Guard Patrol
Commander. The Patrol Commander
may be contacted on channel 16 (156.8
MHZ) by the call sign "Coast Guard
Patrol Commander". Any vessel, not
authorized to participate in the event
desiring to transit the regulated area
may do so only with prior approval of
the Patrol Commander and when, so
directed by that officer. Transiting
vessels will be operated at bare
steerageway, and will exercise a high
degree of caution, in the area.
(4) The Patrol Commander may direct
the anchoring, mooring, or movement of
any boat or vessel within the regulated
area. A succession of sharp, short •
signals by whistle or horn from vessels
patrolling the area under the direction of
the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander
shall serve as a signal to stop. Any
vessel so signaled shall stop and shall
comply with the orders of the Patrol
Commander. Failure to do so may result
in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both.
(5) The Patrol Commander may
establish vessel size and speed
limitations, and operating conditions.
(6) The Patrol Commander may
restrict vessel operation within the
regulated area to vessels having
particular operating characteristics.
(7) The Patrol Commander may
terminate the marine event or the
operation of any vessel at any time ft is
deemed necessary forthe protection of
life and property. " - •
Dated: March 5. 1991.
G.A. Ponlngtoo,
Rear Admiral, US-Coast Guard. Commander.
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 91-6221 Filed 3-14-01: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M1O-14-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[AD-FRL-3913-121
Designations and Classifications for
Initial PM-10 Nonattalnment Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice announcing designations
and classifications for initial PM-10
nonattainment areas.
SUMMARY: Under section 107(d)(4)(B) of
the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended by
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(Pub. L No. 101-549, November 15,
1990). certain areas were designated as
nonattainment for the pollutant PM-10
by operation of law upon enactment of
the Amendments. These areas include
"Group" I areas identified at 52 FR 29383
(August 7,1987) and as subsequently
clarified at 55 FR 45799 (October 31,
1990). Other areas (Le., Group H or m
areas) containing sites-for which air
quality monitoring data showed a
violation of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for PM-1Q
prior to January 1.1989 were also
designated nonattainment for PM-1Q by
operation of law upon enactment AH
other areas were designated
unclassified for PM-10 by operation of
law. By this notice. EPA is announcing.
as required by section 107(d)(2) of the
amended Act all of those areas that
were designated nonattainment for PM-
10 by operation of law on November 15,
1990.
By this notice, EPA is also
announcing, as required by section
188(a) of the amended Act that all of the
areas designated nonattainment for PM-
10 by operation of law upon enactment
of the Amendments- were classified as
moderate nonattainment areas at that
time. In accordant.*? with section
189(a}(2), States must submit State
implementation plans (SIP"s) for these
areas by November 15,1991.
DATES: Written comments on this- notice
must be received by April 15* 1991 a! the
addresa below." . ,-•.;••
EFFECTIVE DATE Ehese actions will
become effective on May 14,1991. ' - "
-------
11102
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be addressed to Larry D.
Wallace, Particulate Matter Programs
Section. Air Quality Management
Division (MD-15), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
The air quality monitoring data
supporting the nonattainment
designation of the former Croup II and
III areas monitoring violations of the
PM-10 NAAQS prior to January 1.1989
are available from the respective EPA
Regional Office which serves the State
where the affected area is located. The
addresses of the Regional Offices are as
follows:
• State Air Programs Branch, EPA Region L
J.FJC Federal Building. Boston. MA 02203-
2211
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region 1L 26
Federal Plaza. New York, NY 10278
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region IIL 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia, PA 19107
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region IV. 345
Courtland Street NE., Atlanta. GA 30365
• Air and Radiation Branch. EPA Region V,
230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL
60604
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VL1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733
• Air Branch. EPA Region V1L 726 Minnesota
Avenue. Kansas City, KS 66101
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VBT. 999
18th Street Denver Place—Suit 500.
Denver. CO 80202-2405
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region K. 75
Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region X. 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry D. Wallace, Particulate Matter
Programs Section, Air Quality
Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (919)
541-0906 or FTS 629-0906 and at the
address indicated above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Background
A. 1987 Revision of the NAAQS for
Particulate Matter
On July 1,1987. EPA revised the
NAAQs for participate matter, replacing
total suspended particulates (TSP) as
the indicator for particulate matter with
a new indicator that included only those
particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (called "PM-10") (52 FR
24634). At the same time, EPA set forth
regulations for implementing the revised
particulate matter standards and
announced EPA's SIP development
policy on PM-10 control strategies
necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24672). The EPA
adopted a PM-10 SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
into three categories based on their
probability of violating the new
NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong
likelihood of violating the PM-10
NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP
adjustment were placed in Group I, (2)
areas where attainment of the PM-10
NAAQS was possible and existing SIP's
needed less adjustment were placed in
Group II, (3) areas with a strong
likelihood of attaining the PM-10
NAAQS and therefore needing
adjustment only to their ^reconstruction
review program and monitoring network
were placed in Group 111 (52 FR 24672,
24679-24682).
B. Prior Listing of and Modification to
PM-10 Groups I. II. and III Areas
In accordance with the standards,
policies, and regulations published on
July 1.1987 for revising and
implementing the new particulate matter
standards, EPA identified and listed the
Group I and Group n areas in each State
in a notice published on August 7,1987
(52 FR 29383). That notice also indicated
that any area of the country not listed as
Group I or n was placed in Group in (52
FR 29383).
The EPA subsequently modified the
listing for three areas and announced
these revisions in a notice published on
March 28,1989 (54 FR 12620).
Specifically, the 1989 notice indicated
that Porter County, Indiana, was
changed from Group I to Group II; Mono
Basin, California, was changed from
Group III to Group II; and Sandpoint,
Idaho, was changed from Group I to
Group II.
On October 31.1990, EPA published
technical corrections clarifying the
boundaries of concern for some of the
areas previously identified as Groups I
and II areas (55 FR 45799). When EPA
listed the initial groupings for areas in
, the August 1987 notice, the Groups I and
n areas of concern were generally
described as cities, towns, counties, or
planning areas. The EPA indicated at
that time that these descriptions were
only the initial definitions of the areas to
be investigated in the SD? development
process and would.be better denned
later. The clarifications to the Groups I
and n areas announced in October 1990
specifically defined and delineated the
boundaries of the Groups I and Group II
areas in question based on information
obtained in the SIP development process
and EPA guidelines and procedures for
determining particulate matter
boundaries. With respect to Group II
areas, the October 1990 notice also set
forth those areas containing a site for
which air quality monitoring data
showed a violation of the NAAQS prior
to January 1,1989.l
II. Today's'Action
In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act. Congress used the PM-10
grouping scheme as the starting point for
designating areas on nonattainment and
unclassifiable for PM-10 by operation of
law upon enactment of the
Amendments. Group I areas identified in
52 FR 29383 (August 7,1987) and as
subsequently clarified in 55 FR 4S799
(October 31,1990) were designated
nonattainment for PM-10 by operation
of law * [see section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of
the amended Act]. Any other area (i.e..
Group II or III areas) containing a site
for which air quality monitoring data
showed a violation of the NAAQS for
PM-10 prior to January 1.1989 was also
designated nonattainment for PM-10 by
operation of law upon enactment [see
107(d)(4)(B)(ii) of the amendment Act].
All other areas were designated
unclassifiable for PM-10 by operation of
law [see 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the amended
Act]. By this notice, EPA is announcing.
as required by section 107(d)(2) of the
amended Act all of those areas that
were designated nonattainment for PM-
10 by operation of law on November 15,
1990.
Section 188(a) of the amended Act
provides that those areas designated
nonattainment for PM-10 upon
enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments were, by operation of law,
classified as moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas at the time of their
designation as nonattainment. By this
notice. EPA is also announcing, as
required by section 188(a] of the
amended Act that all of the areas
designated as nonattainment for PM-10
by operation of law upon enactment of
the Amendments were classified as
moderate nonattainment areas at that
time.
For administrative efficiency reasons,
EPA will defer the ministerial act of
formally codifying these PM-10
designations and classifications in 40
CFR part 81 until EPA codifies
designations and classifications for
other pollutants sometime within the
next few months. This notice is provided
now in order to make the
. announcements required by sections
107(d)(2) and 188(a) of the revised Act
and to ensure that SIP development for
1 Footnote 4 of the October 31.1990 notice
referencei Croup II areas with violationii of the PM-
10 NAAQS. - -
« The notice published on October 31.1990 (55 FR
45799) reflects the revisions announced in the notice
published on March 28.1989 (54 FR 12820).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 51 /Friday. March 15. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 11103
the new PM-10 nonattainment areas
proceeds in a timely fashion.
Neither of these actions is subject to
PA requirements for no.tice-and-
|ent rulemaking (5 U.S.C 553-557)
tion 307(d) of the amended Clean
Air Act.3 Regarding designations.
section 107(d)(2) of the amended Act
requires the Administrator to publish a
notice announcing designations
occurring pursuant to section 107(d)(4),
but explicitly provides that such
announcement is not subject to APA
notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures. Thus, Congress has
expressly exempted the announcement
of those areas designated nonattainment
for PM-10 by operation of law under
section 107(d](4)(B) from the notice-and-
comment procedural requirements of the
APA.
Regarding classifications, section
lC8(a) of the amended Act requires the
Administrator to publish a notice
announcing the classifications of these
areas. Section 188(a) explicitly states
that the provisions of section
172(a)(l)(B) pertaining to lack of notice
and comment and judicial review shall
apply when the Administrator
announces these classifications. Section
172(a)(l)(B), in turn, expressly exempts
the classification announcement from
the notice-and-comment procedures set
forth in 5 U.S.C 553-557 of the APA.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of
providing an opportunity for public
participation and avoiding error. EPA
will entertain any comments on these
actions that are received by April 15.
1991. The EPA's announcement of these
actions [for purposes of sections
107{d)(2) and 188(a)J will become
effective on Mayl4,1991. This will
provide enough time for EPA to make
any adjustments to the announcement
that are appropriate in light of the
comments.
III. Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
The following list identifies all of
those areas designated as
nonattainment for PM-10 on November
15.1990, upon enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. The EPA
also announces, pursuant to section
188(a) of the amended Act that all of
these areas were classified as moderate
by operation of law upon enactment of
the Amendments.
PM-10 INITIAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS 1-s
State and coun&es
Area of Concern
Alaska;
Anchorage _
Juneau
Arizona:
Cochise
Santa Cruz....
^^ma_
Mancopaand Final.
Yuma.
PinaJ and Gila.
California:
Inyo.
San Bernardino, Inyo. and Kern
Mono
Fresno. Kern, Kings. Tulare, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera.
Riverside, lot Angeles, Orange.
and San Bernardino.
Riverside
• !mperial___
Colorado:
Arcfwleta.
Community of Eagle River.
Crty of Juneau: Mendenrial Valley area.
Paul Spur/Douglas planning area: Township 23 south. Range 25 east (T23S, R25E); T23S, R26E; T24S, R2S& T2-4S, R26E;
T23S. R27& T24S, R27E; T23S. R2BE; T24S. R28E.
Nogales planning area: The portions of the following Townships which are vcttWi the Slate of Arizona and fie east of 11 r
longitude:
T23S. R13E; T23S, RUE;
T24S, R13E; T24S, RUE;
Rillito planning area: Townships:
T11S, R9E;T11S, R10E; T11S, R11& T11S, R12E:
T12S, R8E; T12S. R9E; T12S, R10E: T12S, R11E; T12S; R12E;
Ajo planning area: Township T12S, R6W, and the roUowng sections of Township T12S, RSW:
a. Sector* 6-8
b. Sections 17-20. and
c. Sections 29-32
Phoenix planning area: The rectangle determined by, and including.
T6N. RSW; T6N, R7E;
.T2S, RSW; T2S, R7&
T1N; R8E
Yuma planning area: Townships: T7S-R21W. R22W; T8S-R21W, R22W. R23W. R2
-------
11104
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
PM-10 INITIAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS l-2—Continued
State and counties
Area o< Concern
Adams, Denver, Arapahoe, Jef-
ferson. Douglas, and Boulder.
San Miguel..
Prowers__
Pitktn
Fremont
Connecticut
N«w Haven.
Idaho:
Ada——
Shoshone —
Bannock and Fewer..
Bonner
Illinois:
Cook
LaSalle-
Madison
Indiana:
Lake
Vermilfion
Maine:
Aroostook
Michigan:
Wayne
Minnesota:
Ramsey-
Olmsted_
Missouri:
Audrain_
Montana:
Flathead..
Lincoln
Lake
Missoula-
Rosebud._
Silver Bow.
Nevada:
Washoe
Clark
New Mexico:
Dona Ana -
Ohkr.
Cuyahoga.
Jefferson_
Oregon:
Jackson
Josephine-
Lane
Klamath-l
Union__.
Denver Metropolitan area: AH of Denver. Jefferson, and Douglas Counties. Boulder County (excluding the Rocky Mountain
National Park) and the Colorado automobile inspection and readjustment program portions of Adams and Arapahoe
Counties.
efluride.
Lamar
Aspen.
Canon City.
City of New Haven.
ioise: Northern Boundary—Beginning at a point in the center of the channel of the Boise River, where the line between
sections 15 and 16 in township 3 north (T3N), range 4 «ast (R4E). crosses said Boise River, thence, west down the center
of the channel of the Boise River to a point opposite the mouth of More's Creek; thence, in • straight ine north 44 decrees
and 38 minutes west until the said Kne intersects the north line of T5N (12 Ter. Ses. 67); thence, west to the northwest
comer TSN. R1W; Western Boundary—Thence, south to the northwest comer of T3N, RtW; thonce. east to the northwest
comer of section 4 of T3N, RtW; thence, south to the southeast comer of section 32 of T2N. R1W; thence, west to the
northwest comer of T1N. R1W; thence, south to the southwest comer of section 32 of T2N. R1W; thence, west to the
northwest comer of T1N. R1W; thence, south to the southwest comer of T1N. R1W; Southern Boundary—Thenco. east to
the southwest comer of section 33 of T1N. R4E: Eastern Boundary—Thence, north along the north and south center Kne ol
Townships T1N, R4E, T2N. R4E. and TSN. R4E, Base Meridian to the beginning point in the center of the channel o( the
Boise River.
City of Pinehurst
City of Pocatello.
County.
Lyons Township
b. The area bounded on the norm by 79th Street, on the west by Route 57. on the south by Sibley Boulevard and on the east
by the Illinois/Indiana State hoe.
Ogtosby including the following Townships, ranges, and sections; T32N, R1E. S1; T32N, R2E, S6; T33N. R1E. S:>4; TON.
R1E, S2S; T33N. R2E, S31; and T33N, R1E. S36.
Granite City Township and Nameoki Township.
Cities of East Chicago. Hammond, Whiting, and Gary.
Clinton Township.
City of Presque Isle.
The area bounded by Michigan Avenue from its intersection with 1-75 west to 1-94. 1-94 southwest to Greenfield Road.
Greenfield Road south to Schaefer Road, Schaeter Road south and east to Jefferson Avenue, Jefferson Avenue south
(Biddle Avenue through the crty of Wyandotte) to Sbley Avenue. Sibley Avenue west to Fort Street, Fort Street south to
King Road, King Road east to Jefferson Avenue, Jefferson Avenue south to Helen Read. Helen Road east extended to
Trenton Channel, Trenton Channel north to the Detroit River, the Detroit River north to the Ambassador Bndge.
Ambassador Bridge to 1-75.1-75 to Michigan Avenue.
The area bounded by the Mississippi River from Lafayette to Route 494, Route 494 east to Route 61. Route 61 nath to 1-94
1-94 west to Lafayette, and Lafayette south to the Mississippi River.
City of Rochester.
County.
The area bounded by fines from Universal Transmereator (UTM) coordinate TOOOOOmE. S347000mN. east to 704000mE.
5347000mN, south So 70400CmE, 534lOOOmN, west to 703000mE, 534lOOOmN, south to 7C3000mE. 5340000mN, west to
702000mE. 5340000mN, south to 702000m£, 5339000mN. east to 70300Cm£, 5339000mN. south to 703000mE,
5338000mN, east to 704000m£. 53380OOmN, south to 704000mE, 53360COmN, west to 702OOOmE. 5336000mN, south to
702000m£. 5335000mN, west to 700000mE, 533SOOOmN, north to 700000mE, 5340000mN. west to 595000mE.
5340000mN, north to 695000mE. S345000mN, east to TOOOOOmE, 5345000mN, north to 700000mE, 5347000mN.
Columbia Falls: Township T30N, R20W, Sections 7. 8, 9,16, and 17.
Libby.
Ronan, Poison.
Township T13N, R19W, sections 2, 8, 11, 14. 15, 16. 17, East 19. 20, 21. 22, 23. 24. 27. 28, 29, East 1/2 30, East 1/2 31
32. 33. 34, and T12N, R19W. section 4, 5. 6, 7.
Lame Deer.
Butte.
Reno planning area: Hyurographic area 87.
Las Vegas planning area: Hydrographic Area 212.
The area bounded by Anthony Quadrangle, Anthony, New Mexico—Texas, SE/4 La Mesa 15' Quadrangle, N320C—W10630;
7.5, Township 26S. Range 3E, Sections 35 and 36 as Emried by the New Mexico—Texas State line on the south.
County.
The portion of the City of Steubenvilla south of Market Street, plus the area bounded on the north by the southern boundary
of the City of Steubenvilte, on the west by Ohio Route #7, on the south by the southern border of Sleubenville Township,
and on the east by the Ohio/West Virginia border.
Medtord-Ashland air quality maintenance area (including White Cty).
Grants Pass: The area within the urban growth boundary. . ._ .
Eugene/Springfield: The area within the urban growth boundary.
Klamatfl Falls: The area within the urban growth boundary. ' ..^
LaGrande: The area within the urban growth boundary.
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 51 / Friday. March 15. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 11105
PM-10 INITIAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS '•*—Continued
State and counties
Area of Concern
Attegtv
Guaynabo.
Texas:
Lubbock_
El Paso —
Utah:
Salt Lake-
Utah
Washington:
King
Pierce _
Spokane.
Yakima-
Thursto
Walla Walta.
West Virginia:
Brooke
Wyoming:
Sheridan.
The area including Liberty. Lincoln. Port Vue. and Glassport Boroughs and the City o( Ctaoton.
Municipality of Guaynabo.
That portion of me Gty of Lubbock enclosed by Loop 2B9 highway.
City of & Paso.
County.
County.
The portion of the City of Seattle bounded on the east by l-5/East Duwamish Greenbett, on the south by 104th Street, on the
west by the West Duwamish Greenbett north to Fairmont Avenue, S.W, north on Fairmont to Elton Bay. and Dearborn
Street from Elliott Bay to 1-5;
The City of Kent and a portion of the Green River valley bounded on east and west by the 100-foot contour, on the north by
South 212t/i Street, and on the south by Highway 516.
Tacoma metropolitan area bounded on the north by Marine View Drive from Commencement'Bay east to the 100-foot
contour, southeast along the 100-foot contour to 64th Avenue East, south along 64th Avenue East extended to 1-5. 1-5
west to the 100-foot contour near Pacific Avenue, and north along the 100-foot contour to Commencement Bay.
The area bounded on the south by a line from Universal Transmercator (UTM) coordinate 489000mE. 5271000mN. west to
458000m£, 5271000mN. thence north along a fine to coordinate 458OOOmE. 5288000mN. thence east to 463000mE.
5288000mN, thence north to 463000mE. 5292000mN. thence east to 481000mE. 5292000mN. thence south to 481000m£.
5288000mN, thence east to 469000mE. 5288000. thence south to the beginning coordinate 489000mE 5271000mN.
The area bounded on the south by a line from Universal Transmercator (UTM) coordinate 694000mW. 5lS7000mN, west to
681000mW, 5157000mN. thence north along a line to coordinate 681000mW, 5172000mN. thence south to the beginning
coordinate 694000mW. 5157000mN.
Cities of Olympia, Tumwater. and Lacey.
Wallula.
Follansbee area bounded on the norm by the Market Street Bridge, on the east by West Virginia Route #2. on the south b>
the extension of the southern boundary of Steubenville Township in Jefferson County. Ohio, and on the west by the Oho/
West Virginia border:
City of Sheridan.
1 When cites or towns are shown, the area of concern is defined by the municipal boundary limits as of the date of this notice.
* When a planning area is shown, the area of concern includes the entire planning area unless the area is further defined (e.g.. by township, range, and/ex
section).
. Significance of Today's Action
By November 15,1991. States must
adopt and submit to EPA a SIP for all
those areas that were classified as
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
by operation of law upon enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
[see Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the
Clean Air Act as amended (section
189)]. All of the areas listed above must
submit a SIP meeting the general
requirements for nonattainment areas
identified in section 172 of the amended
Act and the requirements specific to
PM-10 in Subpart 4 of Part D. In
particular, section 189{a) of the amended
Act requires that all of the initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
submit a SIP by November 15,1991
which includes the following:
1. Either a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) that the pla^i will
provide for attainment by December 31,
1994 or a demonstration that attainment
by that date is impracticable. _
2. Provisionsto assure that reasonably
available control measures (including
reasonably available control. •
technology) for the control of PM-10 are
implemented by December 10,1993.
addition, a new source permit =
igram meeting the requirements of
Part D of the Act is required for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM-10 (including, in some cases, PM-10
precursors). A SIP revision meeting this
requirement is due by June 30,1992 for
all of the initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas. The EPA will
provide additional guidance on SIP
requirements for these areas in the near
future.
Also note that EPA must take final
action by the end of 1991 with respect to
which of these initial PM-10
nonattainment areas should be
reclassified from moderate to serious
because they cannot practicably attain
the PM-10 air quality standards by
December 31.1994 [see section 188(b)(l)
of the amended ActJ. If reclassified as
serious, these areas will be subject to
additional control requirements and a
new attainment date. Since EPA must
propose these reclassifications by June
30,1991, EPA will work with the States
before that date in order to develop a
proposed list of moderate areas to be • .-.
reclassified as serious. -.;• .- -r- .
V. Authority
Sections 107(d)(4). 110,188(a), and 301
of the amended Clean Air Act provide •
authority for today's action.
Dated; March 7.1991.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 91-5987 Filed 3-14-91; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CS60-50-W
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 301-1 and Ch. 304
[FTH Interim Rule 3]
BIN 3090-AE19
Federal Travel Regulation; Acceptance
of Payment From a Non-Federal
Source for Travel Expenses
AGENCY: Federal Supply Service. GSA.
ACTION: Interim rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This action"corrects an error -
in a document amending :the Federal
Travel Regulation which-was published
March 8,1991 (56 FR 9878). In the •>-'-' .
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 9 199!
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Compliance Monitoring_Strategy
FROM:
TO:
John Rasnic, Acting Director
Stationary Source Compliance
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
division
Air Management Division Directors .
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Attached is the revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(t.:MS) . Thank you for the comments submitted on the draft.
Comments received were separated into those which concerned
issues of policy, and those which concerned the implementation of
.the policy. The issues concerning the policy were addressed by
-•.-.hanging the CMS as appropriate. The issues concerning
implementation will be addressed at an upcoming meeting scheduled
f-.?r May 1991 with the Regional CMS Representatives. In general,
tne comments assisted the Strategy in becoming an even stronger
document and confirmed the EPA commitment to a greater
Faderal-State partnership.
The Strategy is effective immediately and should be
implemented during the FY 1992 grant negotiations.
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II Purpose of the Strategy 2
III. Strategy Requirements 2
A. Sources to be Included 2
B. Minimum Level of Inspection 3
IV. Inspection Plan Requirements 4
A. List of Sources to be Inspected 4
B. How the List of Sources were Determined 4
1. Ranking Method 4
2. Multiple Inspections 7
3- Justification of Substitutions 7
4. Reference Level 8
C. Estimated Resource Allocation for Group I and II
Sources for the Year Proposed 8
V. Reporting Requirements 9
A. CMS Inspection Tracking System 9
B. Evaluation of the Inspection Plan Results 9
VI. Responsibilities 10
Technical Appendices
Appendix 1 Summary of Inspection Plan Contents 1-1
Appendix 2 Definition of "greatest environmental
impact" 2-1
Appendix 3 CMS Representatives 3-1
Appendix 4 Further Details on the Inspection
Targeting Model 4-1
Appendix 5 Inspection Frequency Guidance 5-1
Appendix 6 Inspection Tracking 6-1
-------
Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy
March 1991
-------
I. introduction
Based on both State and EPA concerns, the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) was revised in FY 1991 for implementation
in FY 1992. The revised CMS provides a more flexible and
systematic approach for determining State1 inspection commitments.
However, the revised CMS continues to emphasize flexibility with
accountability. This strategy requires that the Regional Office
and State work together to develop a comprehensive Inspection Plan
that identifies the objectives and resource requirements of the
inspection program, number of sources to be inspected by category
(total program), and state inspection commitments. In addition,
this Strategy encourages an evaluation of the past fiscal year's
inspection program in order to provide useful information in
setting next year's objectives for developing an Inspection Plan.
The implementation of CMS since it was issued in 1988 has
demonstrated that greater flexibility for setting inspection
commitments has produced greater communication and coordination
between the Regions and States. This lays the foundation for
better inspection planning and more effective monitoring programs.
This and other lessons learned from the implementation of CMS have
been used to revise and subsequently strengthen the Strategy. This
coordination and open negotiation is encouraged and strengthened
under the revised CMS.
The goal of CMS is to develop the most environmentally
effective inspection program for each State. To accomplish this
goal, more open and frequent planning and discussion between the
State and EPA is required, which will build .a stronger State-
Federal partnership. In addition, the revised CMS provides
additional guidance on evaluating Inspection Plans and requires
the Regional offices to conduct an evaluation of the Inspection
Plan.
Recognizing that this Strategy is a significant departure fron
the Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG), it is expected to take
several years for widespread implementation. For that reason,
Headquarters and the Regional CMS Representatives (listed in
Appendix 3) will closely monitor the implementation of the CMS to
assess progress and to make necessary clarifications and when
needed, policy changes.
It is important to note that CMS is an integral component of
the Compliance Program Planning Process (Operating) Guidance, which
was issued as a draft on March 4, 1991. The Planning Guidance
provides the overall procedures and goals of the current EPA and
State compliance program planning process. The CMS provides the
specific procedures and objectives for the development of
Inspection Plans. Further, in keeping with the Planning Guidance
means State or Local agency throughout.
-------
The asbestos D & R inspection program should be dealt with
separately/ as described under the Asbestos Strategy.
The national priorities must be addressed when developing the
Inspection Plan. Group I encompasses, but is not exclusively
composed of, the national priority categories for FY 1991. Thus,
CMS will require that Group I sources be addressed when developing
the Inspection Plan. In cases where substitutions of Group II
sources for Group I sources are justified, the rationale for the
exceptions must be agreed upon by Region and State (see IV., B.,
3).
The national priorities, as stated in EPA's Operating Guidance
for FY 1991, are listed below. However, it should be noted that
national priorities may change from year to year.
Sources emitting VOC, PM10, S02, CO, or NOx in
nonattainment areas for the respective pollutant.
Lead (Pb) SIP and operating non-transitory NESHAP
sources.
B. Minimum Level of Inspection
For an on-site visit to a stationary source to be counted as
an inspection, it must meet the minimum requirements of a Level 2
inspection, as defined in "The Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement
Guidance Manual" (Revised 1987), that includes the following
minimum activities where appropriate:
1. review of existing records and log books on source
operations, hours of operation, VOC-containing compounds
usage, emissions test reports, CEM performance test
reports, and other records necessary to evaluate
compliance with applicable regulations and permits,
particularly for the intervening period following the
last inspection;
2. record such process items as feed rates, temperatures,
raw material compositions, process rates, and such
control equipment performance parameters as water flow
rates, and pressure, static pressure drops, and
electrostatic power levels; and
3. visible emission observations.
The inspection must include an assessment of the compliance
status of all units within a source subject to SIP, NSPS, or NESKAP
regulations. Certain sources, because of the size of the source
or for other reasons, as agreed between the Region and State (see
IV., B., 2.)/*roay require multiple inspections to completely
determine compliance at all units and under all air programs.
-------
inspectors. These data include plant emissions, compliance
information, and air quality factors. The model assigns values to
the data, and quantitatively analyzes the values to produce a
ranking of sources. The model also allows an inspector to estimate
the amount of time he or she will need to spend at each source, and
keeps a running total of the time. The sources to be entered in
the ITM may be from both Group I and Group II source categories.
A State may alternatively choose to enter only its Group I sources
in the ITM, and propose substitutions to the ITM rankings- of Group
I sources during the negotiations. Appendix 4 contains more
information on the ITM. Training in the use of the model will be
provided at EPA's Regional Offices upon request.
b. Other quantitative analytical tool
A State may rank its sources using a quantitative model other
than the ITM, provided there is concurrence from the Regional
Office. The alternative quantitative ranking model should target
the most, environmentally significant sources. Thus, the model
should include similar ranking criteria that is used by the ITM,
such as compliance history and air quality. As an example, one
State is hoping to use its own "prioritization matrix", a
quantitative model which they designed. This matrix uses factors
such as toxicity, past compliance history, and population in the
impact area to rank sources.
As with the ITM, the sources that a State should enter into
the model are Group I and Group II. Or, the State may
alternatively propose Group II substitutions after the results of
the model have been considered, and during negotiations.
c. Qualitative rankings
A State may choose to rank its sources without benefit of a
quantitative model. The State can present a list of sources or
categories of sources that it proposes to inspect, including the
frequency of inspection, and justify its sources qualitatively.
The State should be prepared to discuss why it is proposing to
inspect certain sources and not others, using criteria such as air
quality, compliance history, and emissions.
So that the ranking approach both reflects the true nature of
a State's own air quality problems, and provides the flexibility
needed to tackle the problem, the CMS encourages that the method
be derived using a multi-step process. The following example is
given as an illustration of a possible application of this method.
Step l. Consider the size and complexity of the
inventory of Group I and Group II sources.
«
To facilitate this step, States are asked to submit their
inventory of Group I and II sources to the Regional Office well in
-------
Region and State would extract all sources contributing to this
area, calculate the amount which could be inspected given the
resources available or reference level, and start the negotiations
from there.
d. Inspection Frecruencv Guidance ranking
The State and Regional Office may use the IFG as an interim
method to determine inspection commitments. The IFG does not
incorporate the ranking criteria (i.e.- environmental significance,
compliance history) necessary for satisfying the objectives of this
Strategy. Therefore, the IFG is not encouraged as a long-term
ranking method.-The IFG is described in Appendix 5.
2. Multiple Inspections
CMS recognizes that a number of inspections of various
components of an especially large or complex facility are often
required to determine compliance of the facility. In addition,
some sources have such poor compliance histories that a stronger
enforcement presence is required to maintain compliance. For these
reasons, multiple inspections at a single source in AFS can be
counted and credited, provided that:
a. each reported inspection of a facility or pre-
determined facility component meets the minimum
requirements of a Level 2 inspection;
b. each inspection has been concurred on by the E?A
Regional Office beforehand; and
c. the inspections are conducted on separate visits.
3. Justification of Substitution of Group II Sources for
Group I Sources Where it is not Inherent in the Method
Used to Rank Sources.
The Group I sources must be addressed. However, should a
source which is not of the Group I category be chosen for
inspection, this source must be agreed upon by both the Region-and
State Offices.
As noted earlier, this strategy encourages the inspection of
sources of environmental significance regardless of Group I or II
CMS classification. Thus, this approach will account for the total
compliance monitoring effort including, where mutually agreed upon
by Region and State, the substitution of inspections of Group II
sources for Group I. It will be necessary to present the rationale
for this substitution and to flag, and enter if not previously
entered, only ,the substituted sources in AFS.
-------
V. Reporting Requirements.
A. CMS Inspection Tracking System
The tracking system for CMS stationary sources in Group I is
the AIRS/AFS system. As Group II sources are substituted for Group
I sources, they are to be entered and subsequently tracked in
AIRS/AFS as well. The Regional Offices and States need to track
both the number of sources committed to be inspected, and the total
number of inspections conducted. Appendix 6 gives a detailed
description of the inspection tracking methodology.
B. Evaluation of the Inspection Plan Results.
An analysis of each State's Inspection Plan results will be
conducted at the end of each year by the. Regional Office. A
subsequent national analysis of each Region's year-end results will
be conducted by Headquarters. The evaluations will provide the
program with the feedback mechanism needed to ensure that the most
effective Inspection Plans will be developed the following year
based on the strengths and lessons learned from the previous year.
The results of the analysis will help EPA and the State to identify
and avoid constraints and subsequently implement improvements in
the following year's Inspection Plan.
The purpose of the analysis is to measure whether States have
met their commitments, and in cases where they did not, determine
"why"; and evaluate to the extent possible, the implications of
enforcement presence on compliance and air quality.
The criteria to be used in the evaluation may vary among the
Regions. However, the criteria should be inclusive of, but not
limited to: 1) entire state source inventory of Federal and State
regulated sources vis-a-vis number of inspections conducted;
2) change in ambient air quality from previous years vis-a-vis
change in source inventory and compliance rates; 3) numbers of
inspections by source type vis-a-vis commitments and priorities;
and 4) resulting enforcement actions.
For this evaluation, there will be an exchange of the
following data at a minimum: total inventory of Group I and II
sources. All inventories of Group I sources must be given in a
complete format (i.e.- identified by name, county, etcetera).
Inventories of Group II sources can be given in either: 1) a
complete format, as referenced above; or 2) numbers of sources and
their categories (i.e.- sawmill; plating; pulp and paper,
etcetera), and number of CMS inspections at each source.
An evaluation provides feedback to both Regions and States for
future discussions and thereby enhances chances that the inspection
program will be geared towards the most environmentally significant
sources.
-------
11
definition of greatest environmental impact, substitutions, and
multiple inspections) with the Regional Office.
In addition, states are responsible for meeting the negotiated
commitments, providing the necessary information to the Regional
Office to both negotiate the reference level and enable the
Regional Office to conduct the evaluation at the end of the year,
reporting inspections in a timely manner to the Regional Office,
or directly into AFS (for direct user States) , and keeping Regional
Office staff informed of problems as well as successes in the
implementation of CMS.
For Assistance .
The Regional CMS Representatives are listed in Appendix 3.
The EPA Headquarters contacts for this strategy are Ron Shafer (FTS
398-8698) and Donna Nickerson (FTS 398-8694).
-------
Appendix 1
Summary of Inspection Plan Contents
The Inspection Plan at a minimum should include:
1. State Objectives of the Inspection Plan.
2. Group I sources chosen for inspection, identified by name,
and AFS plant identification number.
3. Group II sources chosen for inspection, identified by name,
and AFS plant identification number, and confirmed during
or by the end of the open season.
4. Description of the method used to rank sources.
5. Brief description of the criteria used to justify
substitution of Group II sources for Group I
sources.
6. List of sources scheduled for multiple inspections, and
numbers of inspections at each source.
7. .Estimated resource allocation for Group I and Group II
sources.
-------
Appendix 3
CMS Representatives
Enhanced communications will become increasingly important as
we continue to implement the CMS. Therefore, a network of Regional
Office representatives has been formed to serve as the focal point
for discussing and resolving issues related to the implementation
of the CMS. Below is a list of the Regional CMS .Representatives and
their phone numbers.
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Representative
Arnold Leriche
Jehuda Menczel
Jim Hagedorn
Tom Lyttle
Lisa Holscher
Ray Magyar
Donna Dees
Ron Rutherford
John Kennedy
Sharon Wilson
Phone No.
FTS 835-3264
617 565-3264
FTS 264-6680
212 264-6680
FTS 597-8554
215 597-8554
FTS 257-2904
404 347-2904
FTS 886-6818
312 886-6818
FTS 255-7229
214 655-7229
FTS 276-7625
913 551-7625
FTS 330-1757
303 293-1757
FTS 556-5384
415 556-5387
FTS 399-0205
206 553-0205
-------
occur when the inspectors are completing individual data forms.
Our experience has shown that this pre-screening of the inventory
may take as little as 10 working days of total agency staff time
during the initial year/ depending on the size accessibility and
completeness of the agency's database. Even less time may be
required if electronic data transfer options are used.
- Prepare targeting data forms for each source included
on the targeted source list.
Basic source identification information can be compiled by
administrative staff using information normally available in agency
reports, emissions inventories, and the like. A data form for each
source may be partially filled out by administrative staff, then
forwarded to inspectors responsible for the individual sources.
Automated transfer of data from AIRS (and possibly other State
databases) will expedite this task. However, some targeting
information must still be provided by inspectors who are most
familiar with the sources.
To minimize misinterpretation and inconsistency among
inspectors and to ensure maximum efficiency, a half-day meeting or
work session should be scheduled to review the data form and answer
questions. All inspectors should participate. The forms should
then be filled out by the inspectors, and checked by a designated
reviewer or manager.
If all inspectors participate, the initial meeting and data
form completion process should take no more than 3 working days for
each inspector. This process can be expedited by an automated
transfer of data from the AIRS AFS database into preprinted
targeting dataforms.
Enter targeting data into the computer.
Targeting data may be entered directly by inspectors, if
desired. Many agencies rely on a central coordinator for this
task. However, computer entry may also be performed by clerical
staff. In this case initial entry should be made by one person/
then checked by another person to ensure accuracy.
Generate ranking.
A ranking may be generated by simple menu driven computer
commands. ' The length of time required to generate the report is
dependent on the number of sources and the computer capability.
A typical AT processor operating at 12 mh will normally process a
500 source database in less than 5 minutes. The printing of a 500
source ranking report may be generated in 3 to 20 minutes depending
on the speed and type of printer and computer. These tine
requirements are significantly reduced by using a 80386 based
computer system*.
-------
Summary
The model itself is easy to use for anyone. It was designed
for use by inspectors and managers with very limited computer
skills. There are written instructions and a help file accessible
while data are being input.
When the ranking and estimated inspection times are coupled
with the known agency resource base, the sources that should be
inspected during the next year can easily be -identified, and an
annual inspection plan can be developed. This plan can serve the
State agency as an effective management tool for its own inspectors
as well as serve to meet the EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy
requirements.
The targeting model is available to all EPA Regions for your
testing and familiarization. It is on a floppy disk with
accompanying documentation and will be distributed to interested
Regions and States. Headquarters will continue to support this
activity with on-call technical assistance. Please contact Perrin
Quarles Associates if you have any questions relating to this model
or need technical assistance with its application. Telephone: (804)
979-3700. Address: 501 Faulconer Drive, Suite 2-D,
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901.
-------
be noted that these requirements for a minimally-acceptable
inspection do not require the direct measurement of operating
conditions by the inspector.
Class Al SIP Sources
All operating Class Al SIP sources regulated under the Clean
Air Act shall be inspected annually. Annually is construed to mean
at least one onsite visit is made to each such source between
October and September, corresponding to the federal fiscal year.
There are four permissible exceptions to the Class Al annual
inspection requirement. The first is for sources whose operations
are seasonal in nature (e.g., alfalfa dehydrators) and which do not
operate more than 90 days per year. This operating time restriction
does not need to be-included in a permit for a source to qualify.
However, the nature of its business should clearly preclude the
source from operating more than 90 days per year. To qualify for
this exception, a seasonal source should be well-controlled, should
not have a history of noncompliance, and should not be located in
a nonattainment area for a pollutant that is the determining
pollutant for the Class Al classification. All seasonal sources
must in any event be inspected at least once every five years.
The second category is for Class Al SIP gas-fired combustion
facilities (gas turbines, boilers, and internal combustion sources)
which are regulated only for sulfur dioxide emissions and which can
operate in compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limitations
without controls.
The third category is Class Al NSPS and PSD gas turbines that
are regulated only for NOx emissions. An annual compliance
determination for these sources can be accomplished through record
checks without an annual onsite inspection of equipment.
The last category is oil-fired or coal-fired industrial boilers
which are Class Al SIP sources only because of their sulfur dioxide
emissions and which can operate in compliance with the sulfur
dioxide emission limitations without either controls or use of low
sulfur fuel.
To be excepted, sources in these latter three categories should
not have a history of noncompliance. All excepted sources shall
be inspected at least once every five years.
Exceptions to the annual inspection requirement should be
communicated by the Regional Office to EPA's Stationary Source
Compliance Division (SSCD) at the start of the inspection year and
the data base properly adjusted by the Regional Offices for
subsequent analysis and reporting. Regional Offices are encouraged
to discuss with SSCD any novel issues which may arise in their
discussions with their States.
-------
Another alternative to an onsite inspection is available for
sources whose compliance is based solely on the characteristics of
the fuel oil burned (typically percentage of sulfur in the fuel).
This alternative is an inspection of the fuel oil supplier's
records and a sampling of the supplier's product. To realize the
saving of inspector time, a source's fuel oil suppliers must be
known and fixed over time. If a source purchases fuel oil from the
spot market, has many suppliers, or has suppliers which are not
easily monitored by the State, this alternative may not be
appropriate.
-------
uc <
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20450
APR 1 0 1991
Honorable John D. Oingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on
oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commero
Rouse of Representatives
Washington, D.c. 20515 __
Dear Mr. Chairman:
ThanJc you for your letter of November 2, 1990 regarding the
General Accounting Offices's (GAO) report of September 27, 1990
which is entitled "Air Pollution: Improvements Needed in
Detecting and Preventing Violations" (B-233555). We have
reviewed the report and noted its findings and recommendations.
The report discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) efforts to detect stationary source violations and take
appropriate enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act (the
Act). The report recommends that EPA: "implement.. .emission-
monitoring policy by developing regulations that (1) establish
criteria for determining where monitors are feasible (for major
stationary sources], (2) require monitor use at all sources
meeting the criteria, (3) require EPA enforcement staff-to use
available enforcement authority to overfile to the maximum extent
possible when states assess inadequate penalties, and (4)
undertake efforts to include specific standards for assessing
economic benefit penalties in the next revisions to State
Implementation Plans (SIPs)." The remainder of this letter
addresses the questions and issues you have posed concerning the
report's findings.
I. EPA's Ability to Require Authorized Programs to Impose
ffcpnenie Benefit Penalties
- EPA acknowledges the importance of a strong enforcement
program and the value of a penalty scheae that serves as a
deterrent for violating sources. In order to accomplish this
objective, EPA has developed a Clean Air Act Stationary Source
Civil Penalty Policy ("penalty policy") to ensure that federal
enforcement actions under the Act result in the assessment of a
significant financial penalty. This policy mandates, among othe:
things, recovery to the extent possible, of the economic benefit
a source may have received through noncompliance with the Act.
In accord with its statutory mandate, much of the Act is
implemented at the State and local level. Section 10l(a) (3) of
the Act provides that "the prevention of and control of air
-------
- 2 -
pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of states
and local governments." Also Section 110 of the Act explicitly
references; the primacy of States in the control of air pollution
through the implementation of federally enforceable SIPs.
Consequently, EPA relies extensively on the States to enforce r.he
provisions of the Act. In working with the States, we recognize
the differences that exist among the various States' penalty
authorities and the diversity of approaches they bring to their
various programs. EPA has attempted to address this problem in
several ways. The Agency, in conjunction with .the states, has
developed comprehensive guidance policies that address the
Agency's and the States' mutual expectations regarding what
constitutes a timely and appropriate resolution of violations
(see EPA's "Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA .Enforcement
Agreements", August 25, 1986 (Policy Framework) (Enclosure No. i)
and EPA's "Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response Guidance"
for Significant Air Violators, April 11, 1986 (TSA Guidance)
(Enclosure Ho. 2)). Ideally, we would like to see EPA and the
States achieve a uniform approach to the imposition of penalties.
The Policy Framework addresses State penalties in several
ways. It requires each program to clarify where a penalty or
other sanction is an essential part of an enforcement response to
a violation to ensure deterrence. The Air Program's guidance
does this by requiring a penalty for all significant non-
compliance (SVC). However, it also indicates under criterion #6
that States should, at a minimum, calculate economic benefit and
are encouraged to assess that amount at a minimum. They are also
encouraged to adopt formal penalty policies, or at a minimum
describe to EPA how their penalty authorities or other sanction
authorities will be used to create the necessary deterrence.
Additionally, the Policy Framework requires States to
maintain accessible summaries of penalty assessments and use of
related sanctions for use by Regions in oversight of this aspect
of the program, while promising that penalty practices will be
reviewed in the context of the whole program. Finally, it
clearly states that EPA will pursue its own enforcement action if
a State fails to obtain a penalty where defined as appropriate or
if its penalty was grossly deficient under the circumstances,
considering aaong other factors, the relation of the penalty to
the economic benefit of non-compliance.
Furthermore, EPA continues to provide support to States in
developing economic benefit penalty models as a part of their
penalty policies. Throughout the year, EPA's Office of
Enforcement provides training to State and local programs on how
to include the Agency's computerized model (known as BEN) for
calculating economic benefit in enforceoent actions.
Approximately thirty (30) States at present have access to the
BEN computer model.
-------
- 3 -
States have expressed concerns with the
assessment of penalties involving economic gain.
pA»s Office of Air and Radiation (OART is with
1
action, such as p.rait revocations a! v.ll as p2"ltv
assessments. pA is also examining the additional
sss-s asss.;
$10,000 per day for each violation in cvii penalUe^" "ave a
federally approvable operating pemita prograa?
The questions and issues you raised
Q. (1) "To what extent does the EPA in all its regions
review SIPS and SIP revisions to ensure that sLte
laws meet the Act's requirements fully and that States
enforcement is effective including thi reasonable use
of penalties where appropriate?" »a»onaDie use
A. (1) When SIP revisions are submitted by the States EPA's
Regional Offices are required to review thei lo ensure
their enforceability. in addition, the Of fice of Air
and Radiation performs a review of the,, analyses to
ensure their consistency with national policies Lid
guidance. OAR ha, issued co0prehensivePguida"e^or
the States and Regions which discusses in detail the
necessary components of an enforceable SIP.
-------
- 4 -
Also, although not a part of the SIP review process,
the Regional Offices through their oversight
responsibility have reviewed States' enforcement and
penalty authorities to advance EPA's position for a
credible penalty program. This is done by Regional
Offices, in accordance "with the. TiA Guidance holding
monthly conference calls to discuss compliance program
implementation, specific cases and pending enforcement
actions. Enforcement actions by States not considered
to be in accordance with the TtA Guidance are addressed
during these monthly program consultations.
Q. (2) "When was the first EPA review of all SIPs made to
address these issues?"
A. (2) The first, comprehensive review of SIPs was performed
when the SIPs were initially approved by EPA in 1972.
Outside the context of formal SIP review, EPA
continually reviews the activities of the States to
ensure their conformity with national policy. In 1984,
EPA and the States developed a national policy guidance
for the timely and appropriate resolution of source
violations (which was revised in 1986) (see Enclosure
No. 1). This policy guidance forms the basis of EPA's
oversight procedures to ensure the adequate resolution
of State initiated enforcement actions. Since such a
significant portion of the air compliance program is
implemented at the State level, EPA must rely on the
States to resolve most violations. The varying degree
of statutory authority that presently exists among
State and local enforcement programs does not always.
result in the recovery of a penalty that is equivalent
to the economic benefit of the violation. In its
oversight capacity, the Agency continues to worfc with
the States to upgrade their enforcement and penalty
authorities. This sometimes involves the Agency
assisting States with penalty information needed by
State Legislatures in support of increasing their
penalty authorities. We believe that the permit
program provisions of Title V of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 will provide States with an
additional tool by which to upgrade their penalty
authority. In the past two years, we completed a
comprehensive review of all ozone SIPs and are
currently reviewing all S02 SIPs to ensure among other
things their enforceability. The States will be
required to submit revisions to the extent deficiencies
are noted (within six months for ozone and two years
for S02).
-------
- 5 -
Q. (3) "Has any SIP been disapproved for failur. to »..*. v
requirements?" . *»iiure to meet these
A* (3) Sti?** f?ot di"PP*°ved any SIP because of state
failure to assess adequate penalties. "
Q. (4) Request, that EPA "please provide th
The GAO states:
The proposed revisions, however, do not
issue of whether Stata and 1^,1 —*-:.-
.
direction is needed to change the State and loci?
agencies' practice of not adhering SLv. civil
penalty settlement policy. They pointed \5t *h.J
ssss
practical remedy because ri) stat. SS5
.sraK ss» r ~t
limited for the foreseeable future The ™ ^ * ,
to
will pvid. you i copy.
-------
- 6 -
Q. (5) "1 do not recall EPA bringing this concern [EPA's
interest in having additional leverage to compel state
and local programs to increase economic penalties]
during consideration of H.R. 3030 or during the
conference on S.1630. Is it still a concern after
enactment of the 1990 amendments?"
A. (5) Our long term goal is to enable States to. get
resolution of compliance problems-by enhancing their
penalty authorities. Title V of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 provides significant new authority
pertinent to increasing State penalties. Title v
requires all major sources of air pollution to obtain
operating permits. Under Title V, to have an
approvable permit program States must have authority to
assess $10,000 per day for civil penalties for
violation of Title V's provisions. However, States are
not required to have a permit program, and it is
possible that EPA may administer some permit programs.
Once the Office of General Counsel provides the legal
opinion referred to above, the Office of Enforcement
(OE) and OAR will examine vhat further action EPA
should take regarding states' assessing economic
benefits in their penalty practices of violations.
Q. (6) "I request that EPA re-examine its policy regarding
overfiling particularly in light of the new amendments
and consider where it may be appropriate and reasonably
used."
A. (6) EPA is concerned that States obtain higher penalties
in Clean Air Act enforcement actions. I have
asked the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement, Raymond L. Ludwiztwtki, to convene a
workgroup to develop a more vigorous overfiling policy
for EPA's air program. This workgroup will include
representatives from EPA's Regional Offices, the
Stationary Source Compliance Division of the Office of
Air and Radiation, and State and local air.enforcement
agencies. The primary issue the workgroup will be
charged with addressing will be, what level of
penalties are acceptable in State enforcement actions
before EPA should overfile? The workgroup will
consider the new requirement in Title V of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, that' States have legal
authority to assess $10,000 per day for each violation
in civil penalties and impose appropriate criminal
penalties to have a federally approvable operating
permits program. We anticipate that the workgroup will
have completed the first draft of the revised
overfiling policy within the next six months.
-------
-7-
I vill keep you apprised of the schedule for producing
a recommendation after the workgroup convenes..
Q. (?) "In general, I believe EPA and EPA's General Counsel
and the Administrator, in light of the 1990 amendments,
need to re-examine its entire enforcement role and
policies to ensure that full, fair, consistent, and
effective enforcement will be carried out in this
decade by EPA and the States...* I request your
comments, vhile noting that the President and EPA never
complained to Congress that it lacked resources to
enforce the lav and carry out the provisions
recommended in large part by the President."
A. (7) EPA, is presently examining how to improve the
effectiveness of its enforcement program through its
"Enforcement in the 1990's Project" and the
"Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan." One of the
areas being reviewed in depth is the State/federal
relationship in enforcement. Some of the primary
objectives of the 1990's Project's "State/Federal
Relationship Workgroup" are to: (1) clarify the
appropriate roles and responsibilities of EPA and the
States in environmental enforcement, (2) identify
barriers and opportunities for State involvement in
planning and implementing enforcement strategic plans,
(3) consider the need for more effective EPA oversight
mechanisms, and (4) examine the implications of
strategic planning on existing policies and management
systems. The assessment of penalties, in terms of
EPA's expectations and oversight is clearly a critical
part of this relationship. We plan to complete this
review by the end of FY 1991.
II. Improvements to Detect Air Pollution Violations at
Major Stationary Sources^
EPA recognizes the value of routinely monitoring emissions,
keeping records, and requiring periodic reporting fron major
stationary sources. EPA believes such monitoring is of great
benefit both to industry in pollution prevention and energy
minimization and to control agencies in continuous compliance and
targeting of "problem sources." EPA views continuous emission
monitoring in a broader context than that described in the GAO
report. While EPA considers continuous emission monitoring
systems (GEMS) to be the most useful means of directly
determining source compliance with emission regulations, the
agency also recognizes the need to rely on the application of
-------
- 8'-
other means of continuous monitoring. These include instrumental
monitoring of process parameters such as temperature, pressure,
and voltage, and manual monitoring of process information such as .
the number of gallons and chemical analysis of specific paints
used to coat automobiles. These alternative continuous
monitoring techniques are appropriate in situations vhere the
technology does not exist for CEMS'or the application of
technology is not feasible.
\
EPA, has exercised authorities granted under the Act prior
to this year by requiring monitoring (preferentially CEKS) in all
NSPS and NESHAPs regulations, and in at least four major
categories of SIP-regulated sources. The Agency routinely
promoted the use of emission monitoring through guidance and
policies, control agency grants, and its management
accountability systems.
EPA recognizes the increased emphasis which the Congress
placed on enhanced monitoring in .the new Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and intends to fully explore the additional opportunities
and authorities which it received.
Specifically, in promulgating new or revised regulations
which pertain to NSPS, NESHAPs, and major source operating
cermits, EPA will routinely include cost effective continuous
monitoring requirements. EPA will preferentially specify the use
of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) whenever such
instruments are feasible and technologically available. If such
instruments are not available, EPA intends to routinely specify
the use of process or control system monitoring systems whenever
these instruments are technologically available. To the extent
neither type of instrumental system is available, EPA intends to
specify source use of manual recording of process parameters.
in addition, EPA will require State and local agencies tc
utilize a similar hierarchical approach in preparing their SIFs
to comply with compliance certification and operating permits
requirements of the CAAA. To assist the State and local agencies
in this effort, EPA vill encourage them to utilize, among other
things, the data and other information which EPA prepares when it
develops HSPS and NESHAPs.
EPA b*litv«s GAO understates some of the promotional
activities undertaken during the period addressed by the GAO
report. These include the following:
o increased Federal promulgation of SIP regulations
containing CEMS requirements.
o Headquarters presentations in public and professional
conferences, including:
-------
- 9 -
- the American society of Mechanical Engineers (ASMS)
meeting (September 1988, in Philadelphia), •
- the.Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) CEKS
Specialty Conference (November 1989, in Chicago),
• the Engineering Foundation Meetings on Source
Measurements (October 1989, in Florida and November
1990, in California).
o Headquarters presentations in Agency workshops and
meetings, including:
- six different EPA Air Pollution Training Institute
workshops on emission measurement techniques,
- two different workshops on SQ2 SIP processing,
o Establishment of Agency CEMS data follow-up strategies in
Regional Offices,
In the following paragraphs EPA provides additional
information in response to the five CEMS-related questions raised
in your letter.
Q, (8) "Clearly, an increase in CEMS are likely under the
revised law. Some of the changes were urged by the
President and the EPA, and, as GAO observes, CEMSs are
more efficient than inspections, although both are
needed. Again, the President and EPA never suggested
that EPA lacked resources to implement these requests.
I hope that the above comments by XEPA compliance
officials' are not official Administration policy.
Please comment."
A. (8) As indicated earlier, EPA intends to implement a
continuous monitoring program for all major sources.
However, the implementation of this program will have to
be done in a manner which ensures that the technology for
the given source or source category is feasible and
technologically available. It will be phased in over
time consistent with the implementation of the CAA
amendments. If EPA did not take into consideration these
factors, the resources of State and local agencies and
industry could very well be a limiting factor.
It should also be noted as previously stated that EPA
views the term "continuous monitoring" to include not
-------
- 10 -
only CEMS instruments, but also techniques such as the
us* of process and control system parameter monitors and
manual recordkeeping.
Q. (9) "I presume that the term * major1 sources are those
at 100 tons or more and would not include all the * major1
sources nov covered by the 1990 amendments. Please
comment. I note that Pennsylvania has found that CEMs
*are not appropriate for every major stationary source.1"
A. (9) EPA intends to require the use of continuous monitoring
at all "major" sources required to have permits under
Title V and those subject to new or revised NSPS and
NESHAPS regulations, including those defined by the clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Q. (10) "Please explain the use of CZMs that EPA believes is most
efficient and effective. Should they be used to ^detect
violations?' Please explain-. When are CEHS appropriate
for a major stationary source?"
A. (10) CEMS may be uaed most efficiently and effectively in
the following order of priority:
(a) industry self-regulation, pollution prevention, process
and energy optimization, and certification of
compliance,
(b) detection and documentation of a violation of an
emission standard and an operation and maintenance
(O&M) requirement,
(d) targeting of sources for possible agency follow-up
(e.g.. compliance tests, inspections).
Q (11) "I am interested in this view that CEMs can
help a firm reduce its costs, while providing
pollution control benefits. If true, EPA should do
more to convince the regulated community of these
b«n«fit«. I request that you address in greater
detail'the reliability, costs, and benefits issues,
a* veil a» the concern that the regulated industry
do*s not want xfull-time1 monitors."
A (11) As noted in the GAO report, CEMS have been shown to
provide pollution prevention and energy optimization
benefits, as well as compliance certification benefits
-------
•to industry. It has been w«ll documented that sources
that properly select, install, operate and maintain
their cats obtain very high levels of reliability (veil
in excess of 90%) and improved levels of compliance.
EPA vill continue to vigorously promote CZMS and other
forms of continuous monitoring to industry. It vill
use various techniques to inform and convince industry
of the benefits-of monitoring including: speaking and
presenting technical papers at professional meetings,
participating in Agency workgroups, writing and
distributing technical reports and manuals to State and
industry personnel, and participating in State and
industry training activities.
Furthermore, OAR vill promote, in cooperation vith .._
the development of nev technology which vill result in
additional CEMS for applications for which there
currently are no monitors. As such CEMS become
available, EPA vill incorporate them into regulatory
requirements imposed upon major sources.
As to your question on industry's desire not to have
full time monitors, Agency experience suggests that
some in industry are very apprehensive about a
mechanism or procedure that can document non-compliance
and expose their company to potential liabilities that
can attach to periods of non-compliance. To many, this
is an unknown area that makes them very uncomfortable.
Q. (12) "Finally, GAO observes that EPA xhas not fully
followed through' in implementing its 1988 emission-
monitoring policy x calling for CEM installation and
use where feasible1 because of xresource limitations
and higher priority activities.' That is not an
acceptable excuse in light of the President's
legislation. EPA and the President promised
implementation of the law. Such monitoring is a part
of it. Please explain your implementation plans."
A. (.12) ZPA plans to review and revise as appropriate the 1988
emission monitoring policy taking into consideration
the 1990 CAA amendments; EPA will develop a plan which
vill phase in implementation consistent vith the timing
for the development of acid rain, operating permit,
enhanced monitoring, compliance certification, and the
MSPS and NESHAP programs to ensure efficient
-implementation by EPA, States and industry. The plan
vill include:
n i rr~\cc; Q^^iMn V-TI H-rq
-------
- 12 -
(a) developing guidance for how EPA and State
agencies should incorporate CEKS, and when to
require some other fora of continuous monitoring
in their regulatory activities,
(b) the development of additional types of CEKS,
(c) incorporating .the use of CEKS and other continuous
monitors in regulations, guidelines, workshops,
etc., and
(d) providing training and technical assistance to
agencies and industry related to continuous
monitoring.
Q. (13) "[T]he two pictures in the GAO report are apparently
EPA pictures. GAO tells us that one was taken in New
Jersey in 1990 and the other was taken in Maryland in
1987. There is no discussion in the report about the
nature of the pollutants, the controls, or other
pertinent information. GAO does not know if there was
a violation when they were taken. Also it is unclear
why they were taken. Please provide more such
details."
A. (13) We are unable to provide you with the requested
information at this time. We will seek assistance from
GAO in an attempt to identify the sources involved. We
will work with the GAO to determine more details
regarding these sources.
I trust that this letter is responsive to the questions and
issues you have posed. If you have additional questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your
staff contact Michael S. Alushin, the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air in the Office of Enforcement about questions
5-7. He may be contacted at (202) 382-2820. For information
about questions 1-3 and 8-13 please contact John Rasnic, Acting
Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division. He may be
contacted at (703) 308-8672. For information about question 4,
you may contact Alan Eckert, Associate General Counsel for Air
and Radiation, on (202) 382-7606.
/Sincerely your
fa*
William K. Reil
L£-134A:KALUSHIN:382-2820:M3211
-------
16274 s 'Federal Rpgirter /'VbL 50.-No; 77 / Monday.'April'22.'1991 f Rules and Regulation
r-
2. For the period between April 1.
1991. and May3l. 1991, paragraph (d} of
5 ll7.911yKrevised to read as follow*:
i U a temporary rule and wifl not
(the Code of Federal Regulations.
ftlt Atto
ctatWati
iRhMr.
•
(d) SR 171/zdb bridge across Wappoo
'Creek Mile 4/0.8 at Charleston. Toe
r shall/pen on signal, except that
fie draw/eed not open from fl/ajn. to 9
am anoyirom 4 pan. to B30p
Monda/ through Friday, except Federal
holidays. From April 1 to November 30,
from/9 ajn. to 4 pan. Monday through
Friday, except FederalHolidays, tile
brioge need not openjuccept on the hour
rid on the half-hout/From April 1 to
. ovember 30, from/9 ajn. to 7 pon^ on
Saturdays. Sundays and Federal
holidays, the bridge need not open
except on the hour and half-hour.
Dated: Apri/9,1991.
Robert E.:
Reor Admiral. US. Coast Guard. Commander.
Seventh Coast Guard District
[FR Doc. 01-6338 Filed 4-19-01; 8:45 am]
MUMQ CODE 4tW-*4-e1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart81
[AD-fRL-3923-6]
Preparation, Adoption, and Submtttal
of State Implementation Plans; PU-10,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Laad
Nonattalnment and Undassiflable Area
Designation*
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Information notice,
SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 107
(d)(3) and (d](5) of the dean Air Act a*
amended by the dean Air Act
Amendments of 1890 (Pub. L 201-548,
Nov. 15.1990] (the Act). EPA is
authorized to promulgate designations
of new areas (or portions thereof] as
nonahainment attainment, or
unclaisifiable for particulate matter less
than or equal to 10 microns (PM-10)
sulfur dioxide (SOjJ. and lead national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQSJ.
As required by the Act. EPA has
provided notification to all affected
States that the lead designations for
certain areas should be submitted or
that EPA believes that an area's PM-10
or S0» designation should be revised.
Pursuant to sections 107 (d)(4)(B) and
(d](l)(Q of the Act certain other areas
were designated as nonattainment, by
operation of law. for PM-10 and SOj.
respectively. For PM-10. this includes
areas previously identified as group I
and other areas with violations of the
PM-10 NAAQS prior to January 1.1969.
For SOi. this includes areas which, prior
to enactment, were designated as not
attaining the primary and secondary
SO* NAAQS.
The EPA is. by this notice, identifying
those PM-10, SO>. and lead areas for
which EPA has provided notification to
the affected States that EPA believes the
area's designation should be revised to
nonattainment ornnclassifiable.
ADDRESSES: Information supporting the
basis for notifying a State that EPA
believe* an area's PM-10 or SOj.
designation should be revised to
nonattainment or unclassifiable. as well
as the basis for requiring States to
submit new nonattainment or
unclassifiable designations for lead, can
be obtained frrom the respective EPA
Regional Office which serves the State
where the affected area is. located. The
contracts and addresses of the Regional
Offices are:
Regional offices
• Acting Chief, Slats Air Program Branch. EPA Region I, JFK Federal BufcSng,
Boetcn, MA 02203-2211. <817) 565-3245; FTS 636-32*5.
• Wttam S. BaJtar, OM. Air Program Branch. EPA Region a, 28 Federal Plaza,
He* York, NY 10278, (212) 264-2517; FTS 264-2517.
• Herat SpMc. Chief, Air Program Branch, EPA Region HI. 841 Chestnut
BuMhg. PMabetprta. PA W107. (215) 587-0075; FTS 587-B075.
• Bruce P. MMer. Chief, Air Program Branch, EPA Region IV. 345 Coortand
Street. NE, Atlanta. GA 30365, (404) 347-2864; FTS 257-2864.
• Stephen R Roffttott. Chief. Air and Radiation Branch. EPA Ftogk* V, 230
Soutf) Dee/torn Street. Chicago. H 60604. (312) 363-2211; FTS 353-2211.
• Gerald Fcrtenot, Chief. Air Program* Branch. EPA Region VI, 1445 Rot*
Avenue. Dotes. TX 75202-2733, (214) 655-7204,- FTS 255-7204.
• Gale Wright. Cnief, Air Branch. EPA Reg.cn VII. 726 Umnexta A^nu*.
Ktrsa* CSJy. KS 86101. (813) 236-7020; FTS 276-7020.
• Douglas U. SMe. CSe/. Air Program* Branch, EPA Region VU1, 899 18th
Street, Denver Place—fiute 500. Denver. CO 80202-2405. (303) 293-1750;
FTS 330-1750.
David L Catons, CHel. Air Programs Branch, EPA Region DC, 75 Hawthorn*
Street. San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1219; FTS 484-1219.
• G«arga AM. Chief. Ar Programt Branch. EPA Ftegion -X 1200 Sotti Avenue.
Seattle, WA M101. (206) 445-1275; FTS 330-1275.
States
Connecticut. Maine, UasaachusAtts, New Hampshire. Rhode Wand, and Vermont.
NOT Jersey, New York. Puerto'Rkx), and Wgin Islands.
Delawara, District of Columbia. Marrtand, Pennsylvania. Virgra. and West Vryn-
•L
Alabama, Ftonda, Georgia. Kentucky. Irfissasippi, North Cvo&na. SccTi Carcima.
and Tennesaee.
Uira*, hdena. Wcrigan. Minnesota, Onto, and Vnsconsin.
Arkansas, Loucana, New Mexico. OUahoma, and Texas.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota. South Dakota, Utah, and Wyormr^.
Arocna, Caciomia, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada.
Alaska. Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry D. Wallace (PM-10). Particulate
Matter Programs Section, Air Quality
Management Division (MD-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. NC 27711. [919] 541-0906; FTS
629-0906.
Gretchen Hume (SOj), Sulfur Dioxide
Programs Section, Air Quality
Management Division (MD-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC 277T1. (919) 541-06*2; FTS
623-0642.
Laurie Ostrand (Lead). Sulfur Dioxide
Programs Section. Air Quality
Management Division (MD-15), Office
of Air Quality Plararmg and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. NC 27711. {91fl) 541-3277; FTS
629-3277.
SUPPLEMENTARY IWFOftMATIOM:
Background for PM-10
On Jury 1.1987. the EPA promulgated
revised NAAQS for particulate matter
(PM) (52 FR 24634), replacing total
suspended particulates (TSP) as the
indicator for PM with a new indicator -
called PM-10 that includes only those
particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
microns. Ai the same time, EPA set forth
regulations for implementing the revised
particulate matter standards and
-------
#
Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 77 / Monday,' April 22,. 1991 / 'Rules md Regulations ' 16275
announced EPA'» State implementation
plan (SIP) development policy
elaborating PM-10 control strategies
necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24872). The EPA
adopted a PM-10 SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
into three categories based on their
probability of violating the new
NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong
likelihood of violating the new PM-10
NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP
adjustment were placed in group I; (2) .
areas where attainment of the PM-10
NAAQS was possible and existing SIP's
needed less adjustment were placed in
group It and (3) areas with a strong
likelihood of attaining the PM-10
NAAQS and, therefore, needing
adjustments only to their
preconstruction review program and
monitoring network were placed in
group m (52 FR 24672,24679-24682).
Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(B) of the
Act areas previously identified as group
I and other areas which had monitored
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS prior to
January 1,1989 were, by operation of
' law, designated nonattainment for PM-
10. Descriptions of the areas identified
as group I and n areas were clarified in
a Federal Register notice on October 31.
1990 (55 FR 45799). That notice also
identified group n areas which violated
the standards as of January 1.1989. The
EPA has announced all of the areas that
were designated nonattainment by
operation of law for PM-10 upon
enactment of the Act in a Federal
Register notice dated March 15,1991 (56
FR 11101).
In addition, EPA is authorized to
promulgate the designation of new areas
as nonattainment for PM-10 pursuant to
section 107{d)(3) of the Act on the basis
of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-
related consideration that the
Administrator deems appropriate. Based
upon available information. EPA has
notified the governors of those States
with areas which recorded violations of
the PM-10 NAAQS on or after January
1.1989 and indicated that EPA believes
these areas should be redesignated as
nonattainment After notification, the
governor of each affected State must
submit to EPA the designation which he
or she considers appropriate for each
area in question within 120 days. For
administrative efficiency reasons, EPA
requested the States to submit the
designations by March 15,1991 (the date
the lists of designations for all ozone
and carbon monoxide areas are due
from the governor of each State
pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the
Act). No later than 120 days after the
State's response, if any, EPA must
promulgate those redesignations which
EPA deems necessary and appropriate.
The EPA is by today's notice
announcing that EPA believes available
air quality information indicates that 16
areas should be redesignated as
nonattainment for PM-10, and that EPA
has so notified the governors of the
affected States. A list of the 16 areas is
provided below in table L As discussed
above, after consideration of the State's
submittals, if any. EPA will promulgate
the designations which EPA deems
appropriate and necessary. Pursuant to
section 189(a)(2)(B] of the Act States
must submit PM-10 SIFs for these areas
' to EPA within 18 months after EPA
promulgates the nonattainment
designation.
Background for SOi
Following the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, EPA published
areas identified by the States as
nonattaninment attainment or
unclassifiable. Any area designated as
not attaining the primary or secondary
SOi NAAQS as of the date of enactment
of the 1990 Amendments was designated
nonattainment for SO* by operation of
law upon enactment pursuant to section
107(d)(l)(C)(i) of the Act The EPA will
formally codify these designations in 40
CFR part 81 when EPA codifies the
designations for other pollutants.
In addition, as described above, EPA
is authorized to promulgate the
designation of new areas (or portions
thereof) as nonattainment for SOi.
pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Act
on the basis of air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other
air quality-related consideration the
Administrator deems appropriate. Based
upon available information. EPA has
notified the governors of the affected
States that EPA believes certain areas
should be designated as nonattainment
for SOj. After notification, the governor
' of each affected State must submit to
EPA the designation he or she considers
appropriate for each area in question
within 120 days. For the reasons
described above, the EPA requested the
States to submit the designations by
March 15.1991. No later than 120 days
after the State's response, if any, EPA
. must promulgate those redesignations
EPA deems necessary and appropriate.
As mentioned above, for
administrative efficiency reasons, those
SOi areas designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act will be formally codified in 40 CFR
part 81 when EPA codifies the
designations for other pollutants. The
EPA is by today's notice announcing
that EPA has notified the governors of
affected States that EPA believes 13
areas, listed in table n of this notice.
should be designated nonattainment for^
so*
Pursuant to section 191(b) of the Act
States must submit SIP's by May 15,
1992 for those SO» areas which are
designated nonattaiment by operation of
law for the primary SO* NAAQS and
which lack a fully-approved SIP. For
those SQ» areas designated
nonattainment after enactment States
must submit SIFs to EPA within 18
months after promulgation of the
nonattainment designation, pursuant to
section 191(a) of the Act
Background for Lead
In 1978. when EPA promulgated the
lead NAAQS, it was not authorized to
designate areas nonattainment
attainment or unclassifiable. Under
section 107(d)(5) of the Act EPA is now
authorized to require States to designate
areas (or portions thereof) as
nonattainment attainment or
unclassifiable for lead. Sections 107
(d)(l) and (d)(5) of the Act permit EPA to
require States to submit lead
designations in a timeframe that EPA
deems reasonable, but no sooner than
120 days after date of notification noi(
later than 1 year after the date of
notification. For the reasons described
above, the EPA requested the States to
submit the designations by March 15,
1991. The EPA must then promulgate
these designations no later than 1 year
after notifying the State of the
requirement to submit designations of
certain areas, but first notifying the
affected State of any modifications EPA
deems necessary and appropriate to the
State's submittal.
By today's notice, EPA is announcing
that it has notified the governors of
affected States that they should proceed
to designate as nonattaininent those
areas that have recorded violations of
the lead NAAQS. In addition. EPA has
requested the governors to designate as
unclassifiable those areas that contain
stationary lead sources which EPA
believes to be capable of violating the
lead NAAQS, but for which existing air
quality data are insufficient to designate
as attainment or nonattaincient. A list of
those areas EPA believes should be
designated to nonattainment and
unclassifiable for lead is provided in
table m below.
Any State containing an area that J
ultimately designated as nocattai
for lead must submit a SIP to EPA
18 months of the promulgation of the
nonattainment designation, pursuant to
section 191(a) of the Act.
-------
JJ276 Federal ftagatar / Vol. 56. No. 77 / Monday. April 22. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
/
/ ft
Way's Action
The EPA is. by this notice, identifying
.or the public those PM-10. SO>. and
lead areas for which EPA has notified
the affected States that EPA believes the
area should be designated or the
designation should be revised to
nonattainment or undassifiable. Upon
receipt of responses by the governors of
the affected States. EPA will review the
submitted information and conduct
appropriate rulemaJdng, at which time
the public will have additional
opportunity for review and comment1
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control. Lead, Participate
matter, Sulfur dioxide.
Au&oaiy: Sections 107(d). 110 and 301 (a)
of the Clean Air Act u amended.
Dated April 15,1991.
MkhMl Sttspm,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
Table 1—PM-10 Designations
for which EPA baa reentry notified tia
affected Stite that EPA bclirrei the ares should
be redesign* t«ich EPA ha* raoanOy noofed t»
sftedad Stataa tat B>A baia-i^a tt» ana atw*d
b« radasignatad as nonattaimnaot tor SOJ
40 CFR Part 281
Mcttgan:
WtynaCo.
Ohte
BoOarCo.
Oklahoma:
Kay Co.
ParmsyVania:
TABLE IIL—LEAD DESIGNATJOMS
CAraas EPA bcfavoa ahcUd ba datlgnatad
nonattanmant and unda«arfac*B lor laad]
Stale and counties
Alabama:
Hk«rn
JwffarwiCo
Caacrrtar
Los Angela Ca
Fbnda:
WbborauoACo
Georgia:
MUSCOQM Co.
Indoflc
U^uxn rVi
Lodaanc
East Baton Rouge
pwixh.
Mhaout
Jartersm Co
Hn»r^
ImriO
rW*nn
Minoescii;
Q»kct« Co .._
Montana:
Lewa 6 Oert CO
Nebraska:
nnirjtM Ol
New Yorfc
rtranjd Ca
Ononda^i Co.
Ohta
Cuyahoca Co.
Perwsytvena:
fwt.rv,
Temaaac*:
ShsftyCo
Williamson Co.
n«lJnf>L
RRMffVl
Primary*.
secondary
stanoards
•ca«oJed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Camotb*
cfeMrtttd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
[FR Doc. 91-9389 FUed 4-13-31; 8:45 am]
M-UNO COOt tMO-60-M
Approval of Stata
Tank Program
.ental Protection
tica of Tentative
tionpn-T^plication of New
tor Final Approval Public
[earing, and Public Comment Period.
: The purpose of this notice is
to announce thac (1) The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
complete application from the State of
'Jew Hampshire requesting final
approval .of its underground] storage tank
UST) program under subtine I of the
ResourceTCbnservation IM Recovery
Act (RCRA); (2) EPA ha/reviewed New
Hampshire's application and has made
the tentative decision that New
(Hampshire's UST/program satisfies all
(of the requirements necessary to qualify
Tor final approval; (3) New Hampshire's
application fer final approval is now
available for public review and'copying;
(4) public Comments are requested: and
(5) a pubUf: hearing will bejield to solicit
comments on the application, if
requested. /
DATES: A public bearing is scheduled for
May 23,1991. The^tate of New
Hampshire will participate hi the public
hearing held by'EPA. The hearing will
begin at 10 ajn. and will continue until
the end of testimony or 1 pjn-,
whichevercomes first Req^esti-'to
present/ral testimony must be'nled by
May 17; 199L Written consenf most be
received by May 23,1961-JS'A. reservu
the r^ht to cancel the hearing should
there be no significanr'pubLic interest.
Those informing EPA of their intention
to testify will be notified of tile
cancellation. /
AOOfresSQ: Cbmmeirts and reqnesti to
testify shouW be mailed to Susan
Hanamcrtp{Underground Storage Tank
Program/HPU-1. U.S. EPA, Regfon I. JFK
Federai^uilding, Boston, M/
Copie/of New Hampahire's/nnal
application for program approval axe
available 8 a.m.-4 p.m, Vlonday through
Friday, at the foHowiroTlocations for
review.
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive, Confront NH 03302, Phone:
(803):
U.S. EP^rieadquarters. Library, room
401M Street, Washington, DC
20460, Phone: (202) 3S2-5926;
-------
G-8-91
Vol. 56 No. 153
Thursday
Augusts, 1991
EPA-OAQPS Library
MD-16
FTTP.NC 27711
United States
Government
Printing Office
RINTENDENT
DOCUMENTS
'attvngion. DC 20402
- DIGIT S7711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty (
-------
Federal ^Register /Vol. 56, No. 153 / Thursday. August 8. 1991 / Rule* and Regulations 37653
assurance/audit surveillance plan: (4)
an enforcement plan discussing legal
authority and penalties; and (5) train all
inspectors prior to program startup. All
five items have been satisfactorily -
addressed by the SUta and are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The vehicle will fall inspection if any
emission control component is missing,
disconnected or shows evidence that
tampering has occurred or. if the lead
detection teat reveals lead in the tailpipe
of a vehicle requiring unleaded fuel
Vehicles that fail the catalyst fuel inlet
restrictor. or lead detection test must
replace the catalyst before being
reinspected. Vehicles that fail any item
of the inspection will have to be
repaired by a mechanic of the owner's
choice and returned for reinspection
within thirty (30) days. If the vehicle
passes reinspection. then a certificate of
inspection will be issued.
The DPS rules and regulations require
"proper replacement" of tampered or
missing items. The State has submitted a
written interpretation by the DPS dated
July 28,1987. of the term "proper
replacement" in § 856.1(C] of the
Oklahoma statutes to mean "original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) or
equivalent." The catalytic converter
may be replaced by an OEM .
aftermarket catalytic converter, or one
that has demonstrated compliance with
EPA policy.
The annual anti-tampering inspection
requirement will be enforced through a
windshield sticker system. Vehicles
subject to the anti-tampering inspection
will display a larger and different
colored windshield sticker than vehicles
subject only to the safety inspection.
The sticker will also have the word
"EMISSION"1 across the front
Although the program will be enforced
by State, County and City Police
Departments, primary enforcement will
rest with the Oklahoma City Police
Department Oklahoma City has
adopted the State's regulation and
citations can b« issued with a maximum
penalty of $500 to owners operating non-
complying vehicles. The Oklahoma City
Police Department has committed to
aggressively enforce the anti-tampering
program. When a citation is issued the
owner has fifteen (15) days to secure a
proper inspection.
The rules and regulations manual
requires vehicles owned and operated in
the program area to be inspected in that
area. All inspection stations, statewide,
are required to verify the residence of
the vehicle owner prior to conducting an
inspection. This will be accomplished by
checking the owner's driver's license
and the certificate of insurance. The
insurance certificate was determined to
be the best method of verifying
residence since State law requires the
certificate to be carried at all times and
it must be renewed every six months. If
a vehicle subject to the program is
presented for inspection outside the
program area, the inspection station will
not inspect the vehicle and will inform
the owner that the vehicle must be
inspected in the program area.
A vehicle which baa failed an
inspection will be easily identified by
law enforcement officers since the
sticker will be marked with a large "X".
Inspection stations are required to
remove stickers which have expired
when the vehicle is presented for
inspection. If the sticker has not expired
and the vehicle failed the inspections, it.
will be marked with an "X". All
motorists have the right to appeal to the
DPS any rejection certificate issued
within seven days. When an inspection
decision is appealed, the DPS will
reinspect the vehicle within 30 days.
The DPS has trained all inspectors in
the I/M program area. The training
consists of inspecting the emission
control systems and detecting tampering
and misfueling. To be certified, an
inspector must complete the prescribed
training an(j pags a written test
Inspectors may not transfer from one
station to another without being
recertified and they are subject to
reexamination at any time.
Each inspection station wiH be visited
by a DPS trooper at least once every
two months. The trooper will audit the
records to ensure that the stickers are
accountable and he will observe
inspections to ensure compliance with
the proper procedures. If deviations are
noted, the station and/or inspector is
subject to suspension or revocation of
license or recertification by the DPS.
Any station operator or inspector who Is
convicted of a violation is subject to a
fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment
for not more than 30 days. As committed
in a February 7,1991. letter, the DPS will
annually conduct unannounced visits to
10 percent of the Oklahoma inspection
stations in unmarked cars driven by
troopers in civilian clothes to insure that
inspections are being properly
conducted. The February 7,1991. letter
states that a minimum of six inspections
will be accomplished each calendar
quarter. The DPS will also investigate
all complaints received from the public
with regard to inspection stations or
inspectors.
The I/M plan contains recordkeeping
or record submittal commitments. The
State has committed, in an October 12,
1990. letter to report semiannually to
EPA. information relating to the
effectiveness and enforcement of the I/
M program. Items to be reported include:
(1) The approximate number of vehicles
to be inspected based on vehicle type.
age, fuel type. (2) the number of vehicles
receiving and passing initial inspections.
(3) the number of vehicles failing the
initial inspection, (4) the number passing
after repair. (5) the number failing for
each emission control device, and (6) the
number of inspection stickers issued.
The state also committed to report data
concerning inspection facilities. Data
that will be reported include: (1) The
Dumber of facilities licensed to perform
inspections, and (2) the number of
facility licensees and inspector
certificates suspended and revoked.
A public information plan was
submitted to EPA on November 7,1386.
That plan described the program that
was implemented by the OSDH,
Periodic news releases began in October
1988 and increased near the program
start date of January 1987 and continued
into that year. A brochure, which
explains the program, was distributed in
June 1986 by the DPS and the OSDH.
Other activities during the month of
October 1988 were free tampering
inspections and the distribution of
pamphlets which discussed the
tampering inspection program and the
health effects of automobile emissions.
L Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) curve submitted with the
Oklahoma carbon monoxide SIP
predicted sufficient reductions would be
achieved to attain the carbon monoxide
NAAQS. The curve showed that a.
decrease of 103,535 tons of CO, or 36.1
percent would occur in Oklahoma
County between 1984 and 1988. The
OSDH demonstrated that a 32 percent
decrease of CO emissions was required
to attain the carbon monoxide standard.
The RFP report projected an attainment
date of April 1988. Since December 31.
1987, no violations of the carbon
monoxide NAAQS have occurred in
Oklahoma County.
The RFP curve demonstrated that
predicted reductions would be achieved
with the implementation of the I/M anti-
tampering program and the continuation
of the Federal Motor Vehicle Conirol
Program.
The State has also committed to
report annually on how the I/M program
contributes to reasonable further
progress. These reports have been
submitted by the State for years :.988
through 1988 and indicate that RFP was
being met during those years.
Nothing in this action should b-a
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any iiiture
-------
37*54 Federal Register / VoL tt. No. 153 / Thursday. Axigbat 6. 1991 / Role* and Regulations
request revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental
i and in relation to relevant.- -
lory and regulatory requirements. '
J. Final Action
Today. EPA is approving the SIP
revision submittals of October 17.1985,
January 29,1986. November 7,1988.
October 12.1090, and October 15,1990,
which include: (1) The I/M plan with an
anti-tampering regulation; and (2) the
carbon monoxide plan control strategy
and attainment demonstration.
Regulatory Process
Under 5 U-S-C. SOSfb). I certify that
this SIP revision will not have a
significant economic Impart on a
substantial number of small entities,
(See 48 FR 8709)
Under section 307(bXl) of the Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action most be filed In the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 7.1991. This action
may not be challenged later In
proceedings to enforce its requirements
(See section 307IbJf2)J.
The.Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
t Agency has reviewed this request
isionof the federally approved
SlFfor conformance with the provisions
of the 1990 Amendments enacted on
November 15,1990. The Agency has
determined that this action conforms
with those requirements irrespective of
the fact that the adoption of the revision
by the State preceded the date of
enactment
List of Subjects in 4Q CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Carbon
monoxide. Hydrocarbons, Incorporation
by reference. Intergovernmental
relations. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U&C. 7401-7842.
Note: Incorporation by reference of tte
State Implementation Plan for uu Siata of
Oklahoma was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1.1992.
Dated: June 28,1991.
William K. Ratify.
Adaiinisifoiar.
40 CFR part 52, Subpart U, is
amended as follows-.
Subpart LL—Oklahoma
Authority citation for part 52
to read as follows:
r. 42 U S C 7401-7642.
2. Section 52,1820 ic amended by
adding paragraph (c)(40) to read as
follows:
JS2.TWO Mwttftcaflonofpten.
* • * * •
(c) • * '
(40] On October 17.198S. the
Governor of Oklahoma submitted a SIP
revision designed to achieve the carbon
monoxide standard m Oklahoma
County. Supplemental information was
submitted on January 29,1986.
November 7.1S88, October 12,1990, and
October 15.1990. The anrHampenng
regulation was submitted to EPA by the
Governor on October 8,1985.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A] Oklahoma Official Motor Vehlde
Inspection Rules and Regulations
Manual adopted December 5,1985, and
effective January 11986.
(B) 47 O3. SUPP. Section 856J et seq.
adopted May 24.1984. and effective May
24,1984.
(C) OP. Oklahoma Attorney General
number 84-174 (December 12,1984).
(D) October 17.1985, plan reporting
commitments for Oklahoma County
Reasonable Further Progress schedule,
paged.
(E) The City of Oklahoma City
Ordinance No.-17.575, as passed by the
Council of the City of Oklahoma City on
March 31.1970, and approved by the
Mayor on March 31,1970.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) A February 7,1991 commitment
letter stating that the DPS will annually
conduct unannounced visits at 10
percent of the Oklahoma County
inspection stations.
(B) An October 12.1990. letter
mm mining to report semiannuaDy to
EPA. information relating to the
effectiveness and enforcement of the I/
M program.
[FR Doc. Sl-18823 Filed 4-7-B1; &4S amj
B«ujxacooc mte to-*
40CFRP*rt81
[>9s*jnatfons sjnd Cfasafflcaflofis for
Initial PM-K) NonattaJnmetrt Areas
AG04CY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACnotc Notice correcting EPA's
announcement of the designations and
classifications for the initial PM-10
(paniculate matter nominally 10 microns
or smaller in diameter) nonattainment
. ereas.
SUMUARY: On March 15, 1961 (58 FR
11101), EPA announced the designations
and classification* of areas with respect
to the national ambleat air
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 153 /-Thursday.- August 8. 1991 / Rulea and Regulations 37655
is located. The addresses of the
Regional Offices are as follows:
• State Air Programs Bunch. EPA ,
Region I. J.F.K. Federal Building.
Boston. MA 02209-2211.
• Air-Programs Branch. EPA Region H
28 Federal Plaza. N«w York. NY
10278.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region QL
841 Chestnut Building. Philadelphia.
PA 19107.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region IV,
345 Courtland Street ME* Atlanta. GA
30365.
• Air and Radiation Branch. EPA
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60604.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region VL
144S Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
2733.
• Air Branch, EPA Region VH. 728
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
vm. 99918th Street. Denver Place-
suite 500, Denver. CO 80202-2405.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region DC
75 Hawthorne Street. San Francisco,
CA 94105.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle, WA 98101.
L Background
A. 1987 Revision of the NAAQSfor
Pardculate Matter
On July 1,1987 EPA revised the
NAAQS for particular matter, replacing
total suspended particulates (TSP) as
the indicator for participate matter with
a new indicator that included only those
particles with an aerodynamic, diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 •
micrometers (called "PM-10") (see 52 FR
24634). At the same time EPA set forth
regulations for implementing the revised
paniculate matter standards and
announced EPA's State implementation
plan (SIP) development policy
elaborating PM-10 control strategies
necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24672). The EPA.
adopted a PM-10 SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
into three categories based on their
probability of violating the new
NAAQ&
1. Areas with a strong likelihood of
violating the PM-10 NAAQS and
requiring substantial SEP adjustment
were placed in Group L
2. Areas where attainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS was possible and existing
SIP'S needed less adjustment were
placed in Group IL
3. Areas with a strong likelihood of
attaining PM-10 NAAQS and therefore
needing adjustment only to their
preconstruction review program and
monitoring network were placed in
Group III (see 52 FR 24672. 24679-24682).
B. Prior Listing of the Modification to
PM-10 Group I. II. and III Areas
In accordance with the standards,
policies, and regulations published on
July 1,1987 for revising and
implementing the new participate matter
standard. EPA identified and listed the
Group I and Group n areas in each State
in a notice published on August 7.1987
(see 52 FR 29383). The 1987 notice also
indicated that any area of the country
not listed as Group I or n was placed in
Group m (see 52 FR 29383).
The EPA subsequently modified the .
identification for three areas and
announced these revisions in a notice
published on March 28,1989 (see 54 FR
12620). Specifically, the 1989 notice
indicated that Porter County, Indiana,
was changed from Group I to Group H
Mono Basin. California, was changed
from Group in to Group It and
Sandpolnt Idaho, was changed from
Group I to Group IL
On October 31.1990 EPA published
technical corrections modifying the
identification of the locations of concern
for some of the areas previously
identified as Group I and n areas (see 55
FR 45799). When EPA listed the initial
groupings for areas in the'August 1987
notice, the Group I and n areas of
concern were generally described as
cities, towns, counties, or planning
areas. The EPA indicated at that time
that these descriptions were only the
initial definitions of the areas to be
investigated in the SIP development
process and would be better defined
later. The modifications to the
identification of the Group I and n areas
announced in the October 1990 notice
specifically defined and delineated the
boundaries of the Group I and Group II
areas in question based on information
obtained in the SIP development process
and EPA guidelines and procedures for
determining participate matter
boundaries. Generally, prior Jo
modifying the identification of
boundaries in the October 1990 notice,
EPA consulted with the affected States,
reviewed technical information, and
was guided by applicable EPA policy.
Weighing these various factors, EPA set
the boundaries it believed appropriate.
H. Today's Action
On March 15,1991 (56 FR 11101). EPA
announced the designations and
classifications occurring for PM-10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act (the "initial PM-10 nonattainment
areas").1 Sections 107(d)(2)(A)
(referencing section 107(d)(4)
designations] and 188(a) of the Act
specify that EPA must make the:ie
announcements. In the March 1991
notice, EPA explained the operative
legal provisions governing the
designation and classification of these
initial areas (see, e.g., sections
107(d)(4)(B)(i), (ii). (iii). and 188(a) of the
Act). The EPA also provided an
opportunity for the public to comment
on EPA'« announcement As noted, this
did not stem from any legal obligation.1
Rather, as a matter of policy. EPA
requested public comment on thu
announcement in order to facilitate
public participation and avoid
committing errors. In today's action.
EPA has responded to pertinent
comments addressing the March 15,1991
notice.* The EPA has made adjustments
1 in that notice EPA deferred codlfictticn of the
PM-10 designation* and classifications ui til EPA
codifies tha designation* and classifications of
areai across the country with respect to UK
NAAQS for other pollutant*. This codifies tioa
should occur sometime within the next few month*.
As discussed below, codification of the designation
of th« Initial PM-10 nonattainment areas i-rill
represent the Agency's final action on those
designation* within the meaning of section 307(b) of
the Act 42 U.S.C. TeOTTb).
* In the March IS. 1991 notice EPA notad (and has
reiterated In today's notice) that neither ti-e
announcement of the Initial designation* DOT the
initial dajaificattoM for PM-10 wen sabjiict to lh»
requirement! for notice-and-comment ralemakicj
under either the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 US.C SS3-SS7) or section JCTtf) of the Ad
(see generally M FR 11103). Regarding designation*.
section 107{dH2) of the Act requires the
Administrator to publish a notice aanotmciag
designations occurring pursuant to section
but explicitly provides that such annonna-ment u
not subject to APA notiee-and-comm«nt nilemaiias
procedure*. That, Congress has expreuly exeopteo
from the notice-and-comment procedural
requirements of the APA the announcement of tfao«*
areas designated oonattainment (or PM-lci by
operation of law under section 107(dX<)(B>
Regarding classifications, section 188(«) oi the Ac:
requires the Administrator to publish a no^ce
announcing the classifications of the*4 areas.
Section l«8(a] explicitly states that the previsions of
section 172(a)(l)(B) pertaining to lack of notice and
comment and judicial review shall apply vrhen tise
Administrator announce* these dajtlficatiotu.
Section 172(aKlKB). In torn, txpresaly exrnpts 6e
classification announcement from the notiix-and-
commenl procedures set forth In S (J.S.C. 5S3-S57.
1 The EPA received many pertinent cociinenu in
direct response to the notice. However. EPA hat
attempted also to respond lo pertinent comment*
received from affected States submitted in response
to another Agency action. In January and f'ebruary
of 1891, EPA Regional Administrators provided
letters to the Nation's Governors explaining some of
the specific State actions that were to be completed
In order to initiate Implementation of title I of the
Act as recently amended by the 1990 Amendments
("RA Letters"). Regarding PM-NX for example. EPA
Informed the Governors of tho*< areas designated
nonattainment (or PM-10 by operation of l.iw upon
enactment of the Act and explained some of the SIP
requirements applicable to such areas und'jr the
-------
37158 Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 153 / Thursday, August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
to the Initial PM-10 nonattainment areas
»t of the comment*, where EPA
ed appropriate and where there
legal basu to do so.
A. Legal Framework
Section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of DM Act
clearly specifies those former Group I
areas that were designated
nonattainment at enactment That
provision states that each former Group
I area identified In 52 FR 29383 (August
7.1987] or modified before enactment of
the Act (November IS, 1990) is
designated nonattainment for PM-10. As
discussed previously, the Federal
Register notice published on October 31,
1990 (55 FR 45799) clarified or
"modified" EPA's identification of the
Group I areas listed in the August 1987
notice.* Thus, as explicitly provided by
the statute, the Group I areas listed in
the October 1990 notice became
nonattainment for PM-10 by operation
of law upon enactment of the Act on
November 15,1990, The EPA, then,
announced that these areas were among
the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas in
its March 15.19S1 Federal Register
notice. Because the Act explicitly
provided that the former Group I areas
Identified in the October 1990 notice
became nonattainment for PM-10 by
«ion of law at enactment. EPA
M the law generally prohibits any
cation of these areas at this
juncture. The one exception is where,
before enactment. EPA committed error
in identifying and/or modifying a Group
I area as referenced in section
107(d)(4)(B)(i)oftheAct
There are a few circumstances where
there is evidence that EPA intended that
the boundary for a Groxrp I area
identified and/or modified in itg
October 31,1990 Federal Register notice
(and reiterated in the March 1991
announcement of initial PM-10
nonattainment areas) be different an^
through administrative oversight or
other error failed to to provide.* In one
revised law. By thme Wotr* EPA aim icutictod the
prt«e*«o(r»ie»tgnaliaj additional CM* a
nonattainmtirt tor PVMO. pumuat la a*caaa
107(dX3) of tin Act. Sectioa M7T.dJ(3| «cprw4y
provide* u opportunity lor SUU p»rtidp«£joo. in
rec!e*igaa4n( xtftirtoitil PM-10 aoutuiaacai
areaa. Section 107(dX*XB), UM provision
dtfifuOon of (be ioitUJ PW-10
trMu (La, thoa« occurring by operation of law upon
nuctaicsl], doej ool cooUmpUu such • prn~m
N«v«1kei«»4, torn* Governor* aad State ague?
officUli subgritted cnmrnrnU an the initial WM* la
rwpoading to EPA't tu«geatad kddlttaaal
rtooatltlmaeat *r+u. Tk* EPA ixj mpoodad lo
a«3r «cca partisan^ ooenerUi in thiinotio.
( no&fiotioa* lo UM AagMt 1087
! w«n alao n*bVl In aS« Petard gi«Msr notice
i on March at, 108*. dtiCTtsad previooiiy.
' TUa *rrer w«a hni^fcl lo EPA'a aOtocioB la
i rubmitled In response to EPA'i March IS.
instance, for example. EPA mislabded a
highway number. EPA ha* made
adjustments to the boundaries' In such
circumstances. Faced with the choice of
designating erroneoos nonattainment
areas or interpreting section
107(d)(4)(B)(i) such that it includes the
areas identified before enactment in the
October 31.1990 notice but corrected for
error. EPA believes the latter approach
the most reasonable.* Moreover. EPA
believes that In providing that the areas
identified and/or modified in the
October 31.1990 notice would be
nonattainment areas by operation of
law upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments, Congress and the
President could not have intended to
ratify dysfunctional or evidently
erroneous boundaries not grounded hi
fact Note that these circumstances are
in contrast to the situation where
commenters requested modification of a
former Group I area because they
believe, as a technical or policy matter,
that all or part of the area should not be
designated nonattainment EPA hat not
adjusted former Group I areas where
there is a Judgment dispute about the
proper scope of the area or its very
designation as nonattainment7
The prior categorization as a Group n
or in area bears differently on an area's
nonattainment status, in comparison
with the Acts' treatment of former
Group I areas. Specifically, section
107(d)(4)fBp) of the Act states that
"any area containing a site for which air
quality monitoring data show a violation
of the national ambient air quality
standards for PM-10 before January 1,
1989 (as determined under part 50,
appendix K. of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations) i* hereby
designated nonattainment for PM-10." *
1991 anaouncaDetit or la EPA'i review of Ui
record* In preparing response* to comnvnl*.
• Further, section 110(V}(61 expreaaly authorize*
the AdmlnUc-ator to r*vr*e demgoattom,
. etc. where tfae
a*tannioe« Ikat Mcb de*i«nittoe*. claMificatioa*.
•tc. wen la error.
7 In atct when there «re dUpute* regarding the
proper tcope of the d«tgn»tion. if « State Inter
thai EPA't factoof ooochaioca la klentU>U« a
former Group I area wen in trror. UM Agency will
consider whether il would b« appropriate to correct
the gum rerjrtng on the aatbority in MCtSon 11O(VXS)
of the AOL
• Since EPA jro»p»d all are** of ttve country aa i
n. or in wfaen it revved th« PM-10 NAAQS (tee '
previou* ducuaaion) and because all former Croup I
areaa were dengnated nonallairunent by operation
of taw under lection 107{d)(4)(BXil. fee niartaot lo
. "any ana" In »ection 107(dK<)(Birul d< f«cto
appjie* to aK areaa formcriy (rouped «a 0 «ad ffl.
That all forner Oc*«p I
The language of »ectioQ 107(d](4)(B)(ii)
suggests that EPA haa more discretion in
determining which of the former Grocp
II and III areas were designated
nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment of the Act For example, EPA
must exercise some judgment in
construing what is a violation within the
meaning of 40 CFR part SO. appendix K,
to the extent these regulations leave
discretion.
Further, section 107(d}f4)(B)(ii) does
not define the boundaries of "any area"
measuring a pre-1989 violation. The Act
does, however, set forth a revised
definition of nonattainment area for
purposes of section 107(d) designations
generally. Specifically, section
107(d)(l)(A)(i] of the Act defines a
nonattainment area as "any area that
does not meet (or that contributes la
ambient air quality in a nearby area that
does not meet) the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard
for the pollutant" Thus, coincident with
providing that certain former Group n
and m areas were designated
nonattainment by operation of law at
enactment the Act provided a standard
to govern the scope of what that area
should be. This definition suggests that
EPA must apply its expertise and
knowledge to bolate as rKmattalnment
any area it believes violates th«
standard or any area that significantly
contributes to such violation in a nearby
area,* Further, noaattaiaarent area
definition is being applied to these areas
for the first time since under EPA's pre-
enactment grouping scheme they were
not designated nonarUinment The EPA
therefore believes that coniiatent with
this new standard, it has some
discretion to appfy its technical
expertise and appropriately adjust the
boundaries of the former Group n or 01
areas for purposes of determining which
enactment of the Act while former Croup U/ITJ-
am* wouid save tom«*«Hn a riotaOan prVorto
jaoaary 1. 1MB to b* «o detignatwi. b grotmd«d ki
»on>e logic and rea«on. AJ noted above, wb«n EPA
placed areaa of tSe cotmtrj into Croopa t CL or ffl.
Croup I areai w«re t2x»e wttfa a itroog Uket&ood of
violating the PM-10 tUadard.
' In the contfxt where the Agency hat *4jujted
the boundariei of a former Croup D or m area
became It contribute* to « notation tn a utailiy
area, the Agncy haj coratrmod the definttiaa of
nonattabunent area to requin
-------
Federal Register / Vol.1 56; Ko.' 153' / Thursday: August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 37657
areas were actually designated
npnattainment by operation of law.10
Where appropriate. EPA has exercise
both types of discretion In responding to
comments addressing former Group II
and III areas that wets announced as
initial PM-10 nonattainment areas in the
March 1991 notice. Specifically. EPA has
considered whether a violation within
the meaning of part 50. appendix K,
occurred and EPA has adjusted
nonattainment area boundaries for
those areas based on the standard set
forth in section 107(dKlKA)(i).11
B. Responses to Comments
1. Former Group I Areas
a. Hoyden/Miami Planning Area
Arizona. Comments were submitted on
behalf of ASARCO. Incorporated
(ASARCO). addressing EPA's
designation of the Hayden/Miami
Planning Area in Arizona as an initial
PM-10 nonattainment area. ASARCO
acknowledged that as a former Group I
area "the 'Hayden/Miami' Group I area
identified in the notice published at 52
FR 29383 on August 7,1987, must be
designated a nonattainment area * * * "
However. ASARCO stated that the
March 1991 notice "expands the
boundaries of the Hayden/Miami
nonattainment area far beyond the
limits of the planning area used by the
state when developing Us PM-10 SIP for
Hayden." ASARCO commented that
these boundaries are unsupported by
ambient monitoring data, information
the State of Arizona discovered in its
SIP development for the Group I area.
10 Former Croup Q areas, for example. present an
extreme case, dearly compelling EPA to extrd»e
diicrttion in this way. Th* August 1987 and October
1990 F«danl Eati**** notice* staled that any *r*« of
a State not listed as Croup 1 or II ii considered to be
Croup 01 (Me 12 FR Z3M4 and S5 FR 4S799}. Where
EPA determined that such an ana measured a
violation of the PM-10 standard prior to (aooary 1.
1989. It would be irrational for tte Agency to
detignata aa nonattatmnent entire portion* of State*
far removed from aod not significantly corrtribotlng
to the araa monitoring the violation. Rather. EPA
must exercise toot (udgmeot.
11 In contrast, unle** EPA has committed an
error, the statute's treatment of former Croup I
area i doe* not cue template rach adjustment. Ai
mentioned, ths provision at tb* Act addressing the
nooattainnsent designation at forms* Group 1 area*
if quite specific. Section 107td]f.<)(B)(l) call* for the
nonattalnment designation of "each area identified
in S2 FR 293S3~ or aa subsequently modified before
the data of enactment of the Act. Thus, th* law
•pecifie* "each area" that waa designated
nonartalnmenL The EPA cannot rely on the Act'i
definition of nonattainment to adjust these area.
The EPA beileve* luch adjustment would
coatravena th* general canon of atatutory
construction that when Interpreting the Act specific
provisions control those that are more general In
this case. EPA believe* that Congress ha* specified
that former Croup I areas will be nonartalnnunt
and EPA cannot rely oo th* general definition of
nonattainment area to adjust the boundaries of
these area.
EPA guidance documents, and the
language of the amended law.
Consequently. ASARCO requested that
the boundaries of the area be
substantially revised.
ASARCO has misinterpreted the legal
weight of the October 1990 notice. In its
August 1987 notice, EPA only generally
referenced the "Hayden/Miami area." In
the October 1990 notice, EPA modified
and clarified this, enumerating in detail,
portions of the Hayden/Miami planning
area deemed Group L These
modifications, hi turn, were adopted by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act (see section 107(d)(4](B)(i)).
ASARCO argues that EPA can
disregard the boundaries in the October
1990 notice because it "did not *modif[y]'
the 'identification' of PM-10
nonattainment areas; rather, that notice
defined the boundaries of nonattainment
areas that had already been identified in
previous notices." This extreme reading
of section 107(d](4)(B)(i) has no basis in
reason. An area is identified by its
boundaries. Thus, when EPA modified
the boundary of a Group I area in its
October 1990 notice, it was modifying
the identification of the area as section
107(d)(4)(B)(i) expressly contemplates.
ASARCO.also argues that the October
1990 notice is not within the intended
ambit of section 107(d](4)(B)(i) because
the operative language appeared in the
legislative history before die publication
of the October notice. This argument
ignores the express and plain meaning
of the text of section 107(dX4)(B){i). That
provision states that any modification of
the August 1987 notice "before the dale
of enactment of the Act" is effective. It
clearly does not state, for example, that
only modifications occurring before
legislation or legislative" history was
introduced are effective, as the
commenter apparently believes it should
be read.
The EPA has no basis to disregard the
boundaries for this former Group I area
as modified in the October 1990 notice
and adopted by operation of law.
ASARCO argues, for example, that EPA
should adjust the boundaries because
they are inconsistent with the Group I
SIP develop for that area, monitoring
data, and EPA guidance documents.
That the State of Arizona was
developing a SIP focusing on certain
portions of this former Group I area
does not compel EPA either to agree
with the SIFs scope or to adjust the area
boundaries to comport with that scope.
In fact EPA has taken no action on the
former Group I SIP for this area.
Generally, prior to modifying the
boundaries in the October 1990 notice,
EPA consulted with the affected States.
reviewed technical information, and
was guided by applicable EPA policy.
Weighing these various factors. EPA set
the boundaries it believed appropriate,
and on November 15.1990 these
boundaries were adopted as the
nonattainment boundaries for the former
Group I area in question.
The Governor of Arizona also
submitted comments addressing the
Hayden/Miami PM-10 nonattainment
area. The Governor commented that the
State has submitted a SIP demonstrating
attainment in the Hayden area. He also
commented that since 1983, monitoring
in the vicinity of industrial sources at
Miami has not revealed any violations
of the PM-10 standards. The Governor
stated that the State of Arizona "will be
submitting a SIP revision to designate
only the area within T5S, RISE as
nonattainment" However, in an
attachment to the Governor's letter, he
provided a more detailed and
apparently inconsistent description of
portions of Hayden that the Governor
believed should be designated
nonattainment
As indicated In response to
ASARCO's comments, there is no
evidence that EPA Intended to premde
boundaries for the Hayden/Miami area
that are different from those identified
in the October 1990 notice and
announced in EPA's March 1991 no See
in reliance on the October notice.
Essentially, there is no evidence of EPA
error. Moreover, as explained in the
response to ASARCO's comments, EPA
is in no way obligated to set
nonattainment boundaries for former
Group I areas according to the scope of
the State's implementation plan for the
former Group 1 area. In fact EPA hsa
taken no action on the former Group I
SIP for this area. In sum, the boundjries
for this initial PM-10 nonattainment
area will remain as set forth in the
March 15,1991 Federal Register notce.
b. New Haven. Connecticut. The
Governor of Connecticut and the State
of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP]
submitted comments requesting thai the
boundaries for the New Haven
nonattainment area be modified to
include only that portion of the city east
of the Quinnipiac River. The CDEP
noted that CDEP staff had sought to
have the boundary revised in the
October 31.1990 notice but that EPA,
had informed them that "a municipality
was the smallest geographic area th.it
could be designated." The CDEP also
commented that CDEP staff were told by
EPA that the State would have another
opportunity to refine the boundaries.
-------
37658 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 153 / Thursday. August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA regrets any
miscommunication between Connecticut
ondEPA that may have occurred when
^Ac ing the modification of Group I
VKor the October 1990TIotice..
However. Connecticut has not submitted
any documentation indicating that EPA
committed an error in designating the
City of New Haven as an initial PM-10
nonattainment area, in reliance on the
October 1990 notice. There is no
evidence that EPA intended that the
boundaries for this area be different
from those set forth in the March notice
and through administrative oversight or
other error failed to so provide. Thus,
the City of New Haven is a PM-10
nonattainment area, as described in the
March 1991 notice.
c. Pinehurst. Idaho. The Administrator
of the Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ). on behalf of the
Governor, requested that EPA
significantly adjust the City of Pinehurst
nonattainment area. Believing the
nonattainment problem in this area to
be a valley airshed problem, IDEQ
requested that EPA expand the
boundaries to include additional
townships along Silver Valley.
There is no documented evidence that
EPA committed an error when it
modified the boundary for this area in
its October 1990 notice or as reiterated
^ March 1991 notice announcing the
I PM-10 nonattainment
itions. Thus, there is no basis to
alter the boundaries identified as the
"City of Pinehurst" and set forth in the
March 1991 notice.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the
boundaries described in the State's
correspondence are broader than those
initially designated nonattainment, EPA
is considering whether the State's
submittal should be treated as an
unsolicited redesignation request within
the meaning of section 107(d)(3)(D) of
the Act Under that provision EPA must
"approve or deny" a revised designation
"[wjithin 18 months of receipt of a
complete State redesignation submittal
* • * *.
If EPA finds that the submittal is
complete and approves the submittal,
then the City of Pinehurst and any
revised nonattainment area surrounding
it in the Silver Valley will be subject to
somewhat different statutory deadlines
for SEP submittal, attainment
demonstration, etc. Compare, e.g.,
section 189(a)(2)(A) (first SIP for initial
nonattainment area due 1 year from
enactment) and section 189(a)(2)(B) (first
SIP for later redesignated nonattainment
«due 18 months from the
ttainment designation). However,
notes that nothing in the Act
prohibits the State from submitting a SIP
for the entire area they have identified
by November 15,1991. the SIP submittal
deadline applicable to the portion of the
area initially designated nonattainment
and announced in the March IS. 1991
notice.
a". Pocatello, Idaho. The Administrator
of the DDEQ submitted information to
EPA indicating what portion of the
Pocatello area in Bannock and Power
counties should be designated
nonattainment In the October 1990 and
March 1991 notices, this area was listed
as "City of Pocatello." Both of those
notices identified Bannock and Power as
the affected counties. After reviewing
IDEQ's submittal. EPA realized that the
"City of Pocatello" sits only in Bannock
County. Thus, there is a disconnect or
gap between EPA's listing of the "City of
Pocatello" as the nonattainment area for
both Bannock and Power Counties.
As evidenced by its listing of both
counties. EPA intended to include that
portion of the Pocatello area in both
Bannock and Power Counties in the
October 1990 notice. The EPA now
realizes that listing was in error. This
error, then, was adopted inadvertently
in EPA's March 1991 notice announcing
the initial nonattainment areas for PM-
10. The EPA corrects this error in
today's notice as explained in the "Legal
Framework" discussion above. The EPA
has clarified the boundary for this area
consistent with IDEQ's request and
EPA's original intent
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also
submitted information addressing the
boundary for the Pocatello
nonattainment area. The Tribes
indicated-that they agreed with the
clarification and expansion of the
Pocatello nonattainment area as
indicated in IDEQ's submittaL They also
requested that EPA include an
additional section which they said
would include a seasonally operated
"open pit silica mine with a rock
crushing operation and attendant
storage piles * * *."
The EPA has corrected the error it
committed with respect to Pocatello as
described previously. However. EPA
does not believe that the additional
section identified by the Tribes was
among those intended to be included
with the initial Pocatello nonattainment
area. Thus, at this time, EPA will not
adjust the boundaries for this area to
include this section. Nevertheless, if
after further study EPA concludes that
there is evidence that this area violates
the PM-10 standards or significantly
contributes to such a violation in a
nearby area, then EPA would initiate the
process to redesignate this area
nonattainment pursuant to section
l07(d)(3)(A) of the Act :
e. Cook County. Illinois. The EPA
received no formal comments about the
portion of Cook County. Illinois,
designated nonattainment for PM-10.
However, in reviewing records
subsequent to the publication of the
March 1991 notice. EPA realized that a
highway number in the description of
this area had been inadvertently
mislabeled. This announcement corrects
that error in accordance with the legal
rationale described above.
/. Presque Isle. Maine. The Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
(MDEP) and the City of Presque Isle
submitted comments addressing EPA's
designation of the City of Presque hie as
an initial PM-10 nonattainment area.
The City of Presque Isle commented that
Presque Isle was incorrectly placed in
Group I in August 1987, the notice first
announcing groupings after EPA revised
the NAAQS for PM-10 in July 1987.
Thus, the dry requested that it be
removed from nonattainment status. The
MDEP also objected to the designation
of the city as nonattainment and.
alternatively, argued that the boundaries
of the nonattainment area should be
reduced to Include a Vt mile radius in
the city's urban center. The MDEP
submitted a number of supporting
documents.
The designation of Presque Isle as
nonattainment and the scope of its
boundaries appears to be a judgment
dispute. In its October 1990 notice, EPA
modified the boundaries for this Group I
area as it believed appropriate. This
area and attendant boundaries then
became nonattainment for PM-10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act. The EPA regrets any
miscommunication between EPA and
MDEP which may have occurred during
the development of the October notice.
Nevertheless, this is not a situation
where EPA intended that the boundaries
in the October 1990 notice be different
and, through an error, failed to so
provide. Thus, as announced in EPA'a
March 1991 notice, the boundaries of the
Presque Isle PM-10 nonattainment area
will consist of the entire city (see
section 107(d)(4)(B)(i)).
g. Libby. Montana. The State of
Montana submitted information to EPA
in conjunction with EPA's development
of the October 1990 notice. The EPA
reviewed this information and intended
to modify the boundaries for this area in
accordance with the State's submittal.
Through administrative oversight this
modification was not reflected in the
October 1990 notice and, consequently,
was not announced in the March 1991
notice. The EPA has corrected that error
-------
...J
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 153 / Thursday. August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 37859
in today's notice In accordance with the
legal rationale described above.
h. Misaoula County. Montana. The
Governor of Montana submitted
comments to EPA Indicating that EPA .
committed an error in modifying the
Croup I area of concern for this county
in EPA's October 1990 notice. Through
administrative oversight EPA
inadvertently omitted sections of this
area that records indicate it intended to
include. This error then was reiterated
in EPA's March 1991 notice announcing
the initial nonattainment areas. The EPA
has corrected its error In accordance
with the legal rationale explained
above.
/. Butts, Montana. As was the case
with Libby, the State of Montana
submitted information to EPA in
conjunction with EPA's development of
the October 1990 notice and, after
deciding to Include it in the notice. EPA
inadvertently omitted the information.
As with Libby. this error was reiterated
in the March 1991 notice announcing the
initial PM-10 nonartainment areas. The
VPA has remedied its administrative
oversight and corrected the boundaries
as originally intended in accordance
with the legal rationale described above.
In a February 27.1991 letter to EPA.
the Governor of Montana submitted
additional information addressing
Libby's PM-10 boundaries. The
Governor indicated that Montana had
completed technical analyses since the
publication of the October 1990 notice
and submitted detailed boundaries. The
Governor indicated that the suggested
boundaries would expand the Butte
nonattainment area, as listed in the
October 1990 notice, far beyond the city
limits. Upon comparing the
nonattainment boundary submitted by
the Governor and the corrected
boundary in today's notice, EPA has
determined that the boundaries are
similar, however, the Governor's
suggested boundary for the area is
slightly broader. There is no evidence
that EPA intended to include the
additional area identified in the
Governor's letter when EPA modified
Group I area* In the October 1990 notice
(or announced the Initial PM-10
nonattainment areas in the March 1991
notice, in reliance on the October 1990
notice) and through administrative error
failed to so provide. Thus. EPA will not
adjust the boundary for this area to
include the additional area identified in
the Governor's letter.
However, to the extent that the
boundary described in the Governor's
correspondence is broader than that
listed in today's notice. EPA will treat
the Governor's submittal as an
unsolicited request for redesignation
with the meaning of section 107(d)(3){D)
of the Act. Under that provision, EPA
must approve or deny a revised
designation within 18 months of receipt
of a complete State redesignation
submittal.
If EPA finds that the submittal is
complete and approves the submittal.
then the additional area submitted by
the Governor for the Butte
nonattainment area will be subject to
somewhat different statutory deadlines
for SIP submittal, attainment
demonstrations, eta Compare, e.g.,
section 189(a)(2)(A) (first SIP for initial
nonattainment area due i year from
enactment! and section 189(a)(2)(B) (Erst
SIP for later redesignated nonattainment
areas due 18 months from the
nonattainment designation). However.
EPA notes that nothing In the Act
prohibits the State from submitting a SIP
for the entire area they have identified
by November 15,1991. the SIP submittal
deadline applicable to the portion of the
area initially designated nonattainment
and announced La today's notice.
/ Anthony. New Mexico (Dona Ana
County). The State of New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED)
submitted comments addressing the
nonattainment designation, of the
Anthony. New Mexico, area. The NMED
stated that Anthony Is a rural fugitive
dust area (RFDA) and under EPA's
"Rural Fugitive Dust Policy" (RFDP),
"RFDA sites shall not be designated.
nonattainment" Further NMED stated
that EPA's RFDP remains in effect
because EPA Indicated "in the October
29.1990 Federal Register, the existing
RFDA policy shall remain in effect until
it is revised by EPA." Finally. NMED
requested that former RFDA's now
designated nonattainment have most o£
their requirements waived if EPA
discontinues the RFDP.
Two 1977 EPA memoranda constitute
what has been called EPA's "Rural
Fugitive Dust Policy." These memoranda
set forth treatment of areas identified as
"Rural Fugitive Dust Areas" for the
purposes of attainment/nonattainment
status as well as SIP development and
new source review under the Act before
the 1990 Amendments (see, e.g.. 52 FR
24716 (July 1.1987) (historical
discussion)). This policy was issued
when TSP was the indicator for
particulate matter. When EPA revised
the particulate matter NAAQS in July -
1987. changing the indicator to PM-10,
EPA proposed a number of alternative
policies. In that notice EPA indicated
that the existing policy would remain in
effect until EPA adopted a final policy
(see 52 FR 24716 (July 1.19S7)).
Since then, the 1990 Amendments to
the Act were enacted. As discussed.
section 107(d)(4)(B)(l) of the Act
provides that all former Group I areas
were designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Amendments, Further. EPA is unaware
of any error it may have committed
when it modified the boundary for the
Anthony area in its October 1990 notice.
Thus, on November 15.1990 the
Anthony. New Mexico, area (as listed in
the October 1990 notice) became
nonattainment for PM-10 by operation
of law. The EPA announced this
designation in its March 1991 notice.
The EPA believes the waiver
provision alluded to in NMED's
comments provides a statutory
alternative to EPA'a RFDP (see section
18(f) of the Act). The EPA intends to
provide guidance to the States on ti,e
meaning of section 188(0. later *bi» year.
In the meantime, areas designated
nonattainment for PM-10, Including
former RFDA's, should proceed with SIP
development hi accordance with the
new law.
The October 29,1990 Federal Register
notice referenced by NMED was EPA's
semiannual Regulatory Agenda (see 55
FR 45134145198). This notice is
published for informational purposes
and has no regulatory effect In addition,
the October publication preceded
enactment of the Act Any confusion
created by the reference to the RFDA in
that notice should be cleared by today's
notice. Finally, EPA notea that former
RFDA's will receive the same treatment
that all other areas requesting a waiver
will receive. If EPA finds that an area
satisfied the operative legal standard
then, within the construction of the law,
EPA will waive those requirements it
believes appropriate.
k. Jefferson County, Ohio. Ohio EPA
(OEPA) submitted comments indicating
that EPA erred in setting the boundaries
for that portion of Jefferson County.
Ohio, that was designated
nonattainment at enactment After
examining the documentation submitted
by OEPA, EPA agrees that an error was
committed. In both the October 1990 and
March 1991 notices. EPA Identified c
boundary for this area that was
incomplete. It appears, for example, that
EPA failed to clearly delineate a
western boundary. The EPA has
corrected its error in accordance with
legal rationale described above.
/. El Paso. Texas. The Texas Air
Control board submitted comments on
this area noting that "on March 8,1991.
the Texas Air Control Board (TACB|
passed a resolution * * * approving the
Texas Air Control Board Designation
Proposal, where the nooattaiament area
for PM-10 in El Paso was changed Urthe
-------
37660 Federal/Register / Vol. 56. No.. 153 / Thursday." August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
City of El Paso including Fort Bliss."
Apparently. TACB sought to clarify that
cort Bliss, which is within the city limits
«ot part of the municipal entity, was
ded in the City of El Paso . •
ttainment area. Generally, when
EPA lists municipal boundaries or other
boundaries identifying a perimeter, all of
the area within those boundaries is part
cf the nonattainment area unless
otherwise specified. More specifically.
Federal faculties are subject to the
requirements of the Act unless thay
have been expressly exempted from a
requirement because the President has
determined that it is in the "paramount
interest of the United States to do so"
(-,ee section 118 of the amended Act).
The EPA is unaware of any such
exemption for Fort Bliss. Thus, as
indicated in EPA's March 1991 notice,
the City of El Paso, and any area within
i'.s municipal boundaries, is an initial
FM-10 nonattainment area.
m. Wallula, Washington. The
Governor of Washington submitted
information to EPA requesting that the
Wallula nonattainment area be
expanded to include Kennewick,
Washington. The Governor's submittal
stated that these two areas should be
combined into one nonattainment area
because the Wallula nonattainment area
does not include all of the major sources
contribute to the air quality
m in the area. The Governor also
the close proximity of the
monitoring sites in the two areas.
The Wallula area, as described in the
October 1990 and March 1991 Federal
Register notices, was designated
nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment Further, there is no evidence
that in developing either of these notices
EPA intended the boundary to be
different but through an error failed to
so provide. Thus, the Wallula area is
currently a moderate PM-10
nonattainment area. As such, the State
cf Washington must submit a SIP
revision for the area by November 15,
1991 containing the applicable statutory
requirements and demonstrating
attainment by December 31.1994 (see.
generally subpart 4 of part D of title I of
the Act).
The EPA agrees that Kennewick has a
PM-10 air quality problem and has
already initiated the process to
redesignats this area nonattainment (see
January 31.1991 letter to the Governor
of Washington from the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region X; see also
56 FR 16274 (April 22,1991)). However,
absent error, EPA cannot expand the
ndaries of the Wallula
attainment area to include
. If Kennewick is designated
as an additional PM-10 nonattainment
area, it will be subject to statutory
deadlines for SIP submittal. attainment
demonstration, etc., which are different
from those of Wallula. However. EPA
notes that nothing prevents the State
from submitting a SIP for the entire
Wallula and Kennewick area by the
November 15,1991 SIP submittal
deadline applicable to the initial PM-10
nonattainmenl areas and. consequently,
treating this as a single nonattainment
erea. The opposite is not true. Under the
law, the State of Washington cannot
defer submittal of a SIP for Wallula until
a SIP for Kennewick is due. assuming
Kennewick is ultimately redesignated to
nonattainment.
n. Yakima, Washington. The EPA
received ro formal comments about the
portion of Yakima, Washington,
designated nonattainment for PM-10.
However, in reviewing records
subsequent to the publication of the
March 1991 notice, EPA realized that a
set of coordinates were missing from the
boundary description for the area. This
tnnouncement corrects that error in
accordance with the legal rationale
described above.
2. Former Group n and HI Areas
a. Ajo, Arizona. Comments were
submitted on behalf of the Phelps Dodge
Corporation (Phelps Dodge) addressing
EPA's announcement of the Ajo
planning area as an initial PM-10
nonattainment area. Phelps Dodge
commented that air quality data do not
show "a violation of the national
ambient air quality standard for PM-10
before January 1,1989 (as determined
under part 50, appendix K of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations)"
because only one exceedance of the 24-
hour standard has been measured (see
section 107(d)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act).
Phelps Dodge commented that
alternatively, the exceedance in
question should be treated as an
exceptional event
The PM-10 standard is expressed in
terms of an expected value. Section 3.1
of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, describes
the adjustments that must be made to
24-hour data in order to estimate the
number of expected exceedances when
FM-10 sampling is not conducted on a
daily basis. Section 3.1 states that "[i]n
this adjustment the assumption is made
that the fraction of missing values that
would have exceeded the standard level
is identical to the fraction of measured
values above this level." The regulations
recognize that this adjustment may lead
to overprediction. Thus, § 3.1 also states
as follows: 'To reduce the potential for
overestimating the number of expected
exceedances, the correction for missing
data will not be required for a calendar
quarter in which the first observed
exceedance has occurred if: (a) There
was only one exceedance in the
calendar quarter, (b) everyday sampling
is subsequently initiated and maintained
for 4 calendar quarters in accordance
with 40 CFR 58.13. and (c) data capture
of 75 percent is achieved during the
required period of everyday sampling."
Sampling is conducted once every 6
days at the Ajo Station monitoring site.
After the exceedance in question was
measured, daily sampling was not
commenced. Thus, the regulations
require correction for the missing data.
After applying the adjustment
referenced above, the expected
exceedances of the 24-hour standard at
Ajo constitute a violation of the PM-10
standard consistent with part 50,
appendix K.
Section Z4 of part 50. appendix K,
governs the inquiry of whether the
exceedance measured at Ajo should be
treated as an "exceptional event" That
regulation states that an exceptional
event is "an uncontrollable event caused
by natural sources of particular matter
or an event that is not expected to recur
at a given location." Pheips Dodge
commented that "gusts in excess of 20
mph" were measured at the closest
meteorological station on the day the
exceedance was measured. The level of
the wind gusts was noted presumably to
illustrate the anomalous nature of the
event However. Phelps Dodge
submitted no information indicating
whether that high wind was the cause of
the exceedance and, if so, whether the
wind was likely to recur. In fact Phelps
Dodge suggested that the wind gusts
were due to the area's seasonal
monsoon. Specifically, Pheips Dodge
stated that "(tjhe conditions at Ajo were
characteristic of monsoon weather
patterns in southern Arizona." Further,
recent meteorological data collected
near Ajo by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality indicate that
hourly wind gusts greater than or equal
to 20 miles per hour occur at least 7 days
per year. The EPA, therefore, does not
believe the event is properly deemed
exceptional. Thus, as described in the
March 1991 notice, the Ajo planning
area is an initial PM-10 nonattainment
area.
Finally, the State of Arizona appears
to agree with the Ajo boundaries. In a
May 15,1991 letter to EPA, the Governor
of Arizona suggested boundaries for the
Ajo nonattainment area that were
consistent with those set forth in EPA's
March 1991 announcement.
b. Bullhead City. Arizona. The
Arizona Center for Law in the Public
-------
Federal Raster / VoL 56, No. 153 / Thursday. August a 1991 '/ Rules and "Regulations ' ',37661
Interest (the Center) commented that
".EPA should add the Bullhead City.
Arizona, planning area (Mohave
County) to the list of initial PM-10
nonattainment areas baseoTon Us.
violation of the annual standard in 1989
and its exceedance of the 24-hour
standard in the same year."
Bullhead City was a former PM-10
Group 111 area. Section 107(d)(4)(B)(u)
governs the initial nonattainment
designations of former Group II and ffl
areas. That provision indicates that a
former Group n or HI area can be
designated nonattainment by operation
of law upon enactment of the Act only if
"monitoring data show a violation of the
NAAQS for PM-10 before January 1.
1989 * * *." Violations of the standard
occurring in 1989 would not qualify as a
violation occurring before January 1,
1989.
Note, however, that pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act EPA has
initiated the process to redesignate this
area as nonattainment for PM-10. By
letter dated January 24,1991, the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region
DC notified the Governor of Arizona that
available information indicates that
Bullhead City should be redesignated
nonattainment for PM-10 and, on that
basis, called on the State to submit a
redesignation for the area (see also 58
FR16274 (April 22,1991}].
c. Payson, Arizona. The Center
submitted comments claiming that
Payson. Arizona, should be designated
as an initial PM-10 rionattalnment area.
The Center stated that "Payson violated
the annual mean PM-10 standard in
1988 and 1989, and also recorded five
violations of the 24-hour standard in
1989
Payson was a former Group HI area.
For the reasons noted in the Bullhead
City response, those violations occurring
on or after January 1,1989 cannot be a
baais for designating Payson as an
initial PM-10 nonattainment area.
Further, the 1988 data record for this
area did not meet EPA's general data
capture requirements (i.e., was
incomplete) and was not otherwise
sufficiently unambiguous to establish
nonattainment (see 5 2J of part 50,
appendix K). More specifically, § Z3
states that it is "generally necessary" for
a monitoring site to have data which '
includes a minimum of 75 percent of the
scheduled PM-10 samples per quarter in
order to assess whether a violation of
the standard.has been recorded. With a
minimum sampling frequency of once in
8 days, a valid annual mean must be
based on at least 48 observations (12
observations per calendar quarter).
However. 5 2.3 also states that there are
"less stringent data requirements for
showing that a monitor has failed an
attainment test and thus has recorded a
violation of the particulate matter
standard." Section 2.3 sets out examples
of how nonattainment may be
demonstrated when a monitoring site
does not meet the completeness criteria.
With respect to the annual standard.
§ 2.3 provides, for example, that
nonattainment may be demonstrated
"on the basis of quarterly mean
concentrations developed from observed
data combined with one-half the
minimum detectable concentration
substituted for missing values."
Applying this analysis to the data
collected in 1988 at the Payson
monitoring station, EPA concluded that
Payson should not be an initial PM-10
nonattainment area. First, according to
the State of Arizona data report a total
of 19 PM-10 samples were produced in
1988 by the Payson monitor. This clearly
fails the completeness requirement If,
then, one-half the minimum detectable
concentration of (4.0 micrograms per.
cubic meter (yg/m3)) is substituted for
the missing values (say. 29, Le-,
29+19=48). then the resulting annual
mean would be approximately 32 fig/m3.
which is below the annual PM-10
standard.
However, similar to the Bullhead City
situation, pursuant to section 107(d)(3)
of the Act EPA has initiated the process
to redesignate this area as
nonattainment for PM-10, By letter
dated January 24,1991, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region DC notified
the Governor of Arizona that available
information indicates that Payson
should be redesignated nonattainment
for PM-10, and on that basis called on
the State to submit a redesignation for
the area (see also 58 FR 16274 (April 22.
1991)).
d. Tucson, Arizona. The Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest
also commented that Tucson should be
an initial PM-10 nonattainment area.
The Center's request was based on
monitoring data from three different
sites in the Tucson area.
First the Center stated that the
Orange Grove Road sampling station
monitored one 24-hour exceedance in
1985 and two in 1988, Since the 1985
exceedance was produced prior to the
promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24634, July 1.1987), EPA
did not adjust it for incompleteness of
sampling and counted it as 1.0 in the
calculation of the average number of
estimated exceedances.11 The analysis
specified in § 3.2 of part 50, appendix K.
was then applied to the two
exceedances observed in 1988.ts On this
basis, 3>A calculated 3.1 exceedances
for 1968. Section 2.1 specifies that the
number of exceedances is determined
by averaging the number of exceedances
over the past 3 calendar years.
Therefore, the number of expected
exceedances for the 3-year period from
1986-68 is 1.033. After the rounding
called for in S 2.1.1.033 would be less
than or equal to 1.0 which does no"
constitute a violation of the standard.
Assuming for purposes of illustration
that the 4-year period from 1985-58 is
representative, then, consistent with
5 2J3, the 1985 exceedance may be
considered. In this situation, the
11 Generally when sampling It not conducted on a
daily baiii. EPA «dju»u exceedances of the 24-hour
standard in order to e*timate the number o/
expected exceedances (*ee } 3.1 of 40 CFR'part 50,
appendix Kl Section 1.1 states that f.i)n this
adjustment, the ••sumption it made that tin
fraction of *"'*«''"; value* that would havt
exceeded the standard level U Identical to £«
fraction of measured value* above this IrnL*
However, some monitoring of PM-10 occmred
prior to the promulgation of part SO, appendix K.
This U true of the 24-hour exceedance measured In
1965 at the Orange Grove Road stapling lit* In
Tucson, Part SO. appendix K. was published on July
1.1987 (effective d«te of July 31,1887) when .EPA
reviled th« indicator for particuUte matter to PM-10
(te« generally 52 FR 24634). When It revised the
PM-10 itandardi and promulgated appendix K. EPA
did not designate tret* and therefore, could not
have Intended, to subject pre-oromulgatioa data ta
adjustment due to less than daily MT*""; for the
purpose of designating an area nonattainmetU.
Further, because those collecting data before the
rule's promulgation had no notice of the
consequences of less-thta-every-day sampling, it
would be unfair to adjust data collected pre-
promulgation at this time. That, EPA mterpn U
appendix K such that data collected prior to 'ie
rule's promulgation and used for establishing an
area's designation Is not construed as constituting
"Incomplete data" within the ""^'"fl of appendix
K for the narrow purpose of adjusting data for le«i
than daily sampling.
The manner In which the Agency has
Implemented part 60, appendix K. provide* rridence
of tie Agency's general concern with the unfairness
of subjecting pre-promulgation data to adjustment
for incompleteness, even before the newly revised
Act provided designation for PM-10. In a Jan.: 1988
policy document EPA noted that if the firrt
exceedance In an area occurred prior to the
promulgation of the PM-10 standard. U would be
exempt from the daily sampling requirement [see
generally Response to Questions Regarding FM-10
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Developrcen l at
page 27). Finally, there is no evidence in the rewly
revised Act that Congress intended EPA lo apply
appendix K In a manner different from how die
Agency had applied It prior to enactment.
'• The computations for estimating exceedincei
lo adjust for missing data are performed quarterly.
There are special appendix K formulas to address
the situation with unscheduled samples in onier to
reduce a bias which may be Introduced by
nominiform sampling during the quarter. During the
third quarter of 1988, when the two exceedances
occurred, there was a chang* in sampling frequency
from every-other-day to every-day. Accordingly, for
the purposes of estimating exceedAivces. lh« sample
schedule was assumed to b« every-other-d»y for the
entire quarter and. for computational purpose's.
some of the every-day samples are treated ai
unscheduled-
-------
37662 Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 153 / Thursday. August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
expected number of exceedances would
be 4.1 over a 4-year period which is
1.025.J\Jter the rounding called for in
§ ^|^LS would be less than or equal to
l.i^^Hvould not constitute"* violation
of the standard.
The Center commented that elevated
levels of PM-10 were monitored at the
Congress Street station. Specifically, the
Center states that the annual standard
was violated In 1989 and that three
exceedances were monitored in 1989.
Tucson was a former Group n area. As
noted, under section 107(d)(4)(B)lii) a
former Group n area can be designated
nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment of the Act only if "monitoring
data show a violation of the national
ambient air quality standard for PM-10
before January 1,1989 * * *." Because
the violations cited by the Center
occurred on or after this date, they
would not constitute a basis for
designating Tucson as an initial PM-10
nonattainment area.
The Center also commented that the
monitor located at Prince Road
monitored a violation of the 1989 annual
standard. Again. EPA notes that a
violation must be monitored prior to
January 1.1989 to constitute a basis for
designating Tucson as an Initial PM-10
nonattainment area.
Correcting EPA'g announcement of the
pM-10 nonattainment areas is the
question addressed by the
J in today's action. Nevertheless,
the Center has alerted EPA to possible
attainment problems in the Tucson area
which may be a basis for redesignating
this area as nonattainment pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act The EPA
will review the PM-10 data collected in
Tucson on or after January 1,1989 and
expects that it will reach a conclusion
about Tucson's status (and whether to
initiate the section 107(d)(3)
redesignation process) sometime this
Fall.
e. Bonner County. Idaho. The
Administrator of the IDEQ -submitted
comments addressing the Bonner
County nonattainment area. The EPA
announced that "Bonner County" was
an initial nonattainment area in the
March 1991 notice. The EDEQ submitted
a more detailed description, isolating
that portion of Bonner County believed
to warrant nonattainment designation.
Consistent with the definition of
nonattainment area In section
107(d)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. In today's
notice EPA has refined the boundaries
for this area as requested by IDEQ.
/. Qglesby, Illinois. The Governor of
Illinois submitted information to EPA
(ting that an additional section be
i that portion of Oglesby
designated nonattainment for PM-10.
Consistent with the definition of
nonattainment area in section
107(d)(l)(A)(i). EPA has added the
section and announces that the Oglesby
PM-10 nonattainment area is as
described in Table L
In January 28,1991 correspondence to
the Governor of Illinois, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region V had
initiated the process to redesignate as
nonattainment this portion of LaSalle
County. That process has been mooted
by the action announced in today's
notice.
g. Clinton Township. Indiana. The
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) requested that the
boundaries for the Clinton Township
nonattainment area be reduced to
include eight sections in the Township
and submitted technical information
supporting their request The EPA has
reviewed the information submitted by
IDEM and agrees that the area should be
modified to include only the eight
sections identified. The IDEM'i
information shows that violations of the
standard are attributable to a coal mine
in the area. The EPA believes that
limiting the boundaries to the eight
sections suggested by IDEM does not
exclude any significant sources or any
likely nonattainment portions of this
area. Thus, EPA ia refining the
boundaries of that portion of Clinton
Township that is designated as
nonattainment for PM-10 to include
these eight sections, consistent with the
definition of nonattainment area in
section 107(d)(l)(A)(i) of the Act
h. Rochester. Minnesota. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) commented on the City of
Rochester's nonattainment status. The
MPCA requested that the boundaries for
the nonattainment area not include the
entire city. They submitted information
supporting this request including
documents indicating that EPA had
intended to include the modified
boundaries in its March 1991 notice but
through administrative oversight failed
to do so.
The EPA believes that the
nonattainment area should be less than
the entire city, and EPA intended to
provide more refined boundaries in its
March 1991 notice- Violations in
Rochester have been attributed to coal
storage at a power plant This facility is
the only significant source in the city.
The EPA's refined nonattainment area
includes the source and all the area EPA
believes to be monitoring violations of
the NAAQS due to the source. Thus,
consistent with the definition of
nonattainment area in section
107(d)(l)(A)(i) of the Act EPA has
refuved the nonattainment area.
Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) also
submitted comments addressing this
area. The RPU requested that EPA
reconsider Re heater's nonattainment
designation. Ine RPU commented that
no violation of the NAAQS has occurred
in the area. Specifically. RPU asserted
that there has been no violation of the
NAAQS because only one exceedance
of the standard has been measured and
there have never been two exceedances
during any 1 year. Further. RPU
commented that the event causing the
exceedance was an "exceptional
meteorological event" and should not
trigger a nonattainment designation. The
RPU also commented that the sampler
malfunctioned and did not reliably
measure PM-10 on the day the
exceedance occurred.
The PM-10 NAAQS is expressed in
terms of an expected value. Section 3.1
of 40 CFR part 50. appendix K. describes
the adjustments that must be made to
24-hour data in order to estimate the
number of expected exceedances when
PM-10 sampling ia not conducted on a
daily basis. Section 3.1 states that "ir|n
this adjustment the assumption is made
that the fraction of missing values that
would have exceeded the standard level
is identical to the fraction of measured
values above this level" The regulations
recognize that this adjustment may lead
to overproduction. Thus, 5 3.1 also states
as follows; 'To reduce the potential for
overestimating the number of expected
exceedances, the correction for missing
data will not be required for a calendar
quarter in which the first observed
exceedance has occurred if: (a) There
was only one exceedance hi the
calendar quarter, (b) everyday sampling
is subsequently initiated and maintained
for 4 calendar quarters in accordance
with 40 CFR 56.13. and (c) data capture
of 75 percent is achieved during the
required period of everyday sampling."
Sampling is conducted once every 8
days at the site where the exceedance in
Rochester was measured. Daily
sampling was not commenced after the
exceedance. Thus, the regulations
require a correction for the missing data.
After applying the adjustment
referenced above, the expected
exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS at
Rochester constitutes a violation of the
PM-10 NAAQS consistent with part 50,
appendix K.
Section 2.4 of part 50, appendix K.
governs the inquiry of whether the
exceedance measured at the Rochester
monitoring site should be treated as an
"exceptional event." That regulation
states that an exceptional event is "an
uncontrollable event caused by natural
sources of particulate matter or an event
-------
Federal Register / .Vol. 56, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 1991 -I Rules and Regulations 37663
that is not expected to recur at a given
location." The RPU commented that
extremely high winds occurred on the
day *»e exceedance was measured. The
RPU cited a memorandum by MPCA
requesting that EPA treat the
exceedance as an exceptional event and
noting that the Rochester National
Weather Service Office measured wind
speeds in excess of 40 miles per hour on
the day the exceedance was measured.
As noted, EPA believes that coal
storage at a power plant is responsible
for the exceedance. Thus, the event in
question would not qualify for treatment
as an exceptional event under the first
prong of the exceptional events
standard since it is controllable and was
not caused by natural sources. Further.
EPA has no basis to believe the event
would meet the second prong of the
operative legal standard. While high
winds were cited, no information was
submitted indicating whether that high
wind was the cause of the exceedance
and. if so, whether the wind was likely
to recur.
The EPA also believes there is
insufficient technical basis to cast doubt
upon the reliability of the measurement
The RPU noted that it had been
informed by MPCA that the sampler
was encumbered with large particles
and possibly a dirty sampler head "such
that quantification of PM-10 could not
be accurately and reliably measured
• * *." Previously. MPCA had
submitted to EPA a microscopist's
analysis of the filter sample. The
analysis concluded that large particles
were collected which should not have •
been measured and suggested that the
. sample point be invalidated. The EPA
found the microscopist's analysis
technically deficient since it did not
document the quantity of large particles
collected and encumbering the sampler.
Thus, EPA will not disregard the data
due to the inadequately substantiated
claim that the sampler malfunctioned.
• In sum, EPA has adjusted the
boundaries for this area in light of
MPCA's comments and consistent with
the definition of nonattainment area
under section 107(d)(l)(A)(l) of the Act
However, for all of the reasons
explained above. EPA denies RPlTs
request to totally eliminate this area's
nonattainment designation.
i. Audrain County. Missouri. The
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources [MDNR} submitted comments
addressing EPA's designation of •
Audrain County, Missouri, as an initial
PM-10 nonattainment area. The EPA
identified Audrain County as an initial
nonattainment area because of an
exceedance of the PM-10 24-hour
standard occurring on August 1.1987.
The MDNR submitted information
suggesting that these data were invalid.
After reviewing the technical
information associated with this
measured exceedance. EPA has
concluded that the PM-10 sampler
malfunctioned on August 1.1987 and
operated for a period exceeding 24
hours. Section 1.0 of part SO. appendix K.
specifies that a "daily value" is a "24-
hour average concentration of PM-10
calculated or measured from midnight to
midnight * * V The EPA has
invalidated the exceedance since EPA
believes the sampler ran for longer than
24 hours and was not measured from
midnight to midnight. By today's notice
EPA removes Audrain from the list of
initial PM-10 nonattainment areas
because EPA believes Audrain County
has not measured a "violation" of the
PM-10 NAAQS within the meaning of
part 50, appendix K.
/ Colombia Falls. Montana (Flathead
County). The Governor of Montana
requested that EPA expand, by adding
one section, the Columbia Falls
nonattainment area. In light-of the
Governor's comments and consistent
with the definition of nonattainment
area set forth in section 107(d)(l)(A)(i) of
the Act EPA has adjusted the
boundaries set forth in the March 1991
notice.
k. Lubbock. Texas. The TACB as well
as the City of Lubbock submitted
comments on the March 15,1991 Federal
Register notice providing an analysis of
the Lubbock PM-10 air quality data
collected over a 4-year period from
1988-1989. The TACB commented that
they had performed an analysis of all
PM-10 filters showing an exceedance of
the NAAQS. These analyses included an
interpretation and evaluation of soil
samples and particulate matter collected
on the filters. The results of the analysis
of the filter and soil samples Indicated
that there was a distinct difference
between the particulate matter
deposited on the filters from routine
monitoring days and those from the
days of high gusty winds and blowing
dust The three exceedances of the PM-
10 24-hour standard at the Lubbock
monitoring sites since 1988 were
determined by the TACB to be
influenced by wind-blown dust
transported from out of State sources.
As a result the TACB and the City of
Lubbock contend that the days on which
exceedances were measured were days
with unusually high wind gusts and. as
such, these days should be considered
as exceptional events and excluded
from the records in accordance with
EPA'a exceptional events policy under
40 CFR part 50, appendix K. § 2.4. They
also contend that if the days with the
high winds were excluded as
exceptional events, the highest 24-hour
concentration recorded at the Lubbock
monitoring sites would be 128 fig/m1,
which is below the national standard of
150 ng/m*.
The EPA has reviewed all data
submitted by the TACB and the City of
Lubbock in making its decision on the
attainment status of the Lubbock area.
Section 2.4 of part 50, appendix K.
indicates that certain exceedances of
the PM-10 NAAQS can be adjusted to
take exceptional events and trends into
account The data available indicate
that Lubbock has monitored a limited
number of PM-10 levels in excess of the
24-hour PM-10 standard. Further, the
influence of long-range transport of
wind-blown dust on these measured
exceedances makes it difficult to
determine the associated frequency and
nature of these exceedances. This
results in uncertainty in how to treat
these exceedance events. Because c f
this uncertainty, EPA feels that an
unclassified status is appropriate for
Lubbock while additional information is
collected.
ED. Table Describing the Initial Moderate
PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Corrected
by Today's Notice
Based on the foregoing discussion,
EPA today is changing its March 15,
1991 (58 FR11101) announcement of the
initial PM-10 nonattainment areas. The
nonattainment designations for those
areas corrected by today's notice are. set
forth in the following table. Consistent
with EPA's announcement in the March
1991 notice, all of these areas were
classified as "moderate" PM-10
nonattainment areas by operation ol
law, pursuant to section 188(a) of this
Act
-------
37684 Federal Regtater / Vol. 66. No. 153 / Thursday. August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.—PM-10 iNrrut. NONATTAINMEMT AREAS* VVVT
State and counties
^^Baonock
and Power.
Bonrter County.
lis:-
Cook _
USa&t.
Indans:
Verm*>
Minnesota:
CVnsted-
Rattwad-
Uncoln.
Mtoouta.
Slvor Bow.
Otxz
Jeflercoru
Washlnglon:
Area of concern
* Qty of Poc-ate Section. 1«6 of mog. 33 ~* «nd town** 5
towmh* 5 win; Section 31 of ™noe 36 -ft and *>£•<* «.•??
Sections 1-M of range 34 east and township « «**»: Sacttona 5-3« o< tango 35 east and «o«»"P « "uOX Sectone 7. a. 15-
east and township 6 south; Sections 4-« o< range 33 «aat and towns*) 7 eoutfi; Section. 1-4, 10-14,
townshto 7 south; Sections 1-30, and 32-36 of rang* 35 east and township 7 tooth; Sections 2-11.
asTend «°*n»NP 7 iouth: S**00" V-l of renje 36 east end township 0 sou*; Sections 3-« of
. 15. 1«, 21. 22, 27. 28 o< range 2 ««st and townahJp 67 north; and tha weaiem % o<
, and » of tha aame townshjp and range coordnstea.
s ^rhTarea bound** on tha north by 79th Street, on the waat by Intsrmte 57 between SMey Boutevtrd and Marslata »4 and by
•nterstata »4 between Interstate 57 and Ttth Street, on tha wuti by Sttey Boulevard, and on 9w east by the Mnoit/lnctsn*
State Ina.
Ogtesby Hdudhg tha (dlowlng Townships, ranges, and aacfcns: T32N. R1E. Si; T32N, R2E. S6; T33N, R1E. 524; T33N, R1E.
S2& T33N. R2E, S31; T33N. R1E, S36; and T33N, R2E. S3a
Part o< Canton Township induding tha (ollcwring toctonx Sacfiona 15,16, 21. 22. 27,2S, 33 and »4.
Tha area bounded on the sooth by U.S. Highway 14; on tha wast by U.S. Wghway 62; on tha north by 14th S«re«t NW. between
U.S. Highway 52 and U.S. Root* 63 (Broadway Av«nuei U.S. Route 63 north to Northern Heigbts Drive, NE, and Noriham
Heights Drive NE. extended east to tha 1990 Oty o< Rochester knits; and on tha aaat by tha 1990 Oty of Rochester Irrate.
The area bounded by Inea from Universal Transmarcalor (UTM) cooroinale TOOOOOroE. 534700mN. east to 704000m£. S347000mN.
«ooth to TCkOOOmE. S341000mN, west to TOSOOOmE. S341000mN, aouth to 703000m£. 5340000mN. west to TOSOOOnC.
£340000ntf4, south to 702000mE. S339000mN. east to TOSOOOmE 5339000R/4. aouth to TCQOOOmE. S3380OOmN, east to
704000mE. 5338000mN. aouth to 704000(1)6. 533£OOOmN. waet to 7O2000m£ 5336000mN, touth to 702000me. 5335000mN,
west to TOOOOOmE. 5335000mN, north to TOOOOOmE. 5340000ntt. west to 695000n£. 534OOOOmN, ncrti to SSSOOOmE.
S345000mN. «aat to 700000mE. 5345000mN. north to TOOOOOmE. 6347000mH.
Colurnbia Fafts and vicinity: Township T30N, R20W—Secttona 7. 8. fl, 16.17, and 18.
Ubby and ricintv: T30N. R31W—Sectiona 2, 3, 4, 5, 0. 10.11.14,15, 23. 26, 35. and west U of Section 24. weet U ot Section 23,
and west H of Section 36; plua T31N, R31W—Sectkxw 26. 27. 29. tha east H o( Sections 30, 32, 33, 34. and 35.
Miasoufa and vicinity Jndudng tha toflowlng factions: T13N. R19W—Sedcns 2. 8. 11,14, IS, 16. 17. 19, 20, 21, 22. 23. 24, 27. 28,
29, 30. 31. 32, 33, and 34; T12N, R19W—SecSona 4. S, 6. 7; T13N, R20W—S«c«ona 23, 24, 2S, 26. 35, and 36.
BuQe: Tha Northwest comer o( section 2. TJ3N, R8W, thance Easterly to Northeast comer Sectkx) 5, T.3N, R.7W.; ffwnca
Southeny to Northwest comer Sec&xi 9. TJH. R7W; thence Easterly to Northeast comer Section 10, T.3N. R7W,- etanoe
Southerly to Southeast comer Secflon 22. T^H, RTW^ thence Westerly to Southwest comer Section 19, T.2H, R7W,- thence
Northerly to Northwest comer Section 19, T^Jt, R7W.; thenca Westerly to Soothweat comer Section 14, T^tC R8W^ twnca
Northerly to Southwest comer Section 35, TJtt, R8W^ thence WeaJerty to Southwest comer SecSon 34, TJtt, R«W4 thence
Northerly to Northwest comer Sectfon 27, TJN, RSW^ thence Wes^rty to Southwest comer Section 20, TJN, RSW.- Ihercs
Northarty to Noflftwest comer Section 17. T.3K, RJW^ ftenee Easterly to Northwest comer Section 14, TJIi, R5W^ thenca
northerly to tha point o< beQiornng.
Tha area bounded by Market Street (State Route 43) from tha West WgJnia/ONo bonier west to Sunset Blvd. (OS. Route 22).
Sunset BtvdL west to tha SteubenvAe Townarup/Croaa Creek Township boundary, the township boundary aouth to the
Staubermla Corporation Smrt, the corporation boundary east to State Route 7, State Route 7 South to the SteubenviBe Townsnp/
Wefls Township boundary, the township boundary east to the West Wgmla/Ohlo border, and North on the border to Market
Street
The area bounded on the south by a Ine from UTU coorcSnata 6S4000mW, 51S7000mN, west to 6810OOmW, StSTOOOmN, thence
north along a Ine to coordinate 6810OOmN. 5l72000mN, thence east to 694000mW. 5172000mN, thence south to the beginreng
cooroVvita 694000mW, 5157000mN.
14 When cbes or towns are showa the area of concern is deflnerj by tfw municipal boundary Emtts a* of NoverrtfMr 15, 1990 (the oela of enacknont of the AcQ
except fcx area* wtncfi »er« tormer+|f Group I, In which case tha area o< cooosm « cl*fc>»d by the muradpal tioundary 6mrt« M of October 31, 18SO (S«« S5 FR
•i579ff). (7>M footnote b tppCcat>i« lo tocay1! ackon and aiso corrects the first footnote to the table teed in the March 15. 1991 FEDERAL REGISTER notice (56 FR
11105).)
" When a planning area Is shown, the area at concern Includes the entire planning area as of Noeater 15, 1990 (the dale cf anactment of *>a Act) except for
are&t wtuch were formerly Group 1, in which cue the area c< concern '• defined by the entire ptemng area as of October 31, 1990 (see 55 FR 45798). Tha is *oa
except to the extent the ptanmog area is further defined fe.g_r by township, range, and/or secSoni. Such geograpNca) Ouaolglun remain a part of the nonaflaJnment
boundaries irreapecave of wriether they are Induced In tha planning aree. {This footnote is apoicable to today's action and ateo corrects t>e second footnote to the
UWe toed in the March 15, 1981 FeDCRAL ReGtSTB? notice <5S FR 111051.)
•• Audratn County, Missouri, was removed u an IntiaJ PM--KJ nonattagirnent area. See comments above.
17 Lucoock. Texas, was removod as an inAal PM-10 nonattainment area. Seecommenta above.
IV. Significance of Today1! Action
By November 15,1991. States must
adopt and submit to EPA a SIP revision
for all those areas that were classified
as moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
by operation of law upon enactment of
the Act (see subpart 4 of part D of title I
ofjh^ Act as amended). In particular,
1189(a) of the Act requires that all
_ tial moderate PM-10
i.onattainment areas submit a SIP by
November 15,1991 which includes the
following: (1) Either a demonstration
(induding air quality modeling] that the
plan will provide for attainment by. .
December 31,1994 or a demonstration
that attainment by that date is
impracticable; and (2) provisions to
assure that reasonably available control
measures (including reasonably
available control technology] for the.
control of PM-10 are implementpd-by
December 10,1993. In addition, a new
source permit program meeting the
requirements of part D of the Act is
required for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 (including,
in some cases, PM-10 precursors). A SEP
revision meeting this requirement is due
by June 30,1992 for all of the initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
The EPA will provide additional
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 37665
^»dance on SIP requirements for these
areas in the near future. Also note that
EPA will be redassifying some of these
initial PM-10 nonattainment areas from
moderate to serious because they
cannot practicably attain the PM-10 air
quality standards by December 31,1994
(see section 188{b)(l) of the Act). If
reclassified as serious, these areas will
be subject to additional control
requirements and a new attainment
date. The EPA will work with the States
in order to develop a proposed list of
moderate areas to be reclassified as
serious.
V. Effective Date of This Notice
As mentioned, the effective date of
the announcement of the designation
and classification of areas adjusted or
corrected in today's notice is August 8,
1991. While 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (the APA)
states that the effective date of certain
administrative actions must be 30 days
after publication, EPA does not believe
that provision of the APA is applicable .
to this action. Section 107(d](2) of the
Act expressly states that "promulgation
or announcement" of a designation
under section 107(d}(4) shall not be
subject to 5 U.S.C. 553-557. The
provision establishing the PM-10
designations that occurred by operation
of law upon enactment of the Act (the
designation of the "initial PM-10
nonattainment areas") appears at
section 107(d)(4)(B). Thus, •
announcement of the initial PM-10
nonattainment areas is exempt from the
notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553-557,.
including the § 553(d) requirement that
the effective date of certain actions must
be 30 days after publication.11
VL Finality
The EPA will take final action on the
initial designations for PM-10 (under
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act)
for the purposes of section 307(b) of the
Act when EPA formally codifies these
designations in 40 CFR part 81. This
includes those designations announced
in the March 15,1991 notice and any
subsequent modifications made in this
notice. As noted EPA is expected to
' • If the APA requiieuient that publication
precept the effccdv* date of certain action* bjr 30
day* waa deemed applicable to today'* action. EPA
believe* this action would be within the purview of
the good cause exception to thia requirement. See 5
U.S.C. SS3(dmThe March 15.1991 Federal
Itogistar noticeannornncing the Initial PM-10
nonattainmeat area* was effective 60 day* after
publication (Ke, May 14,199J) In order to allow for
a SO-day comment period and any appropriate
follow-up adjustment* by EPA. In thi* Ftderal
Register notice, EPA respond* to comment*
addressing the March 1991 notice. Thn*. there la no
reason to defer the effective date further.
complete a part 81 codification for PM-
10 and other title I air pollutants in the
near future.
VH. Authority
Sections 107(d)(2), 107(d)(4), 110
(including 110(k)(6)). 188(a). and 301 of
the Act provide authority for today's
action.
Dated: July 31.1991.
Michael Shapiro,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 91-18827 Filed 8-7-91; 8:45 am]
BtLUI« C006 tWO-SM*
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[FCC 91-217]
Standards for Assessing Forfeitures
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission. •
ACTION: Policy statement
SUMMARY: This policy statement
establishes standards to be used by the
Commission in assessing forfeitures.
Adoption of the Policy Statement will
assist the Commission in ensuring that
similarly situated violators are treated
in a similar manner and will provide
guidance to the public regarding the
forfeitures that can be expected in
connection with specific violations,
EFFECTIVE DATE August 8,1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David H. Solomon, Office of General
Counsel, Federal Communications
Commission (202) 632-6990.
SUPPUEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Policy Statement
Adopted: July 11,1991; Released: August 1,
1991.
By the Commission:
/. Introduction
- 1. In. this Policy Statement, we
establish standards for assessing
forfeitures. These standards are set forth
in the appendix. We intend to be guided
in the future by these standards, —'.
although we note that we remain "free
to exercise * * * discretion in
situations that arise" in specific case.
See Guardian Federal Savings & Loan
Ass'n v. Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Co.. 589 F. 2d 658, 666 (DC Cir.
1978).
//. Background •
2. The Commission has traditionally
•assessed forfeitures on a case-by-case
basis, in light of relevant precedent. In
1989. Congress substantially increased
the dollar amounts of our forfeiture
authority. Public Law No. 100-239,103
Slat. 2131. As the Commission
implements this increased forfeiture
authority, we believe it is appropriate to
depart from our traditional case-by-case
approach and adopt more specific
standards for assessing forfeitures. Such
standards will assist the Commission in
ensuring that similarly situated violators
are treated in a comparable manner, and
will provide guidance to the public
regarding the forfeitures that can be
expected in connection with specific
violations. (The Commission remains
free, of course, to respond to violations
with other or additional action, for
example, admonishment, revocation or
non-renewal.) Establishing forfeiture
standards is consistent with a
recommendation of the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS),
and is similar to approaches taken by
some other independent regulatory
agencies. See Agency Assessment and
Mitigation of Civil Money Penalties,
Recommendation No. 79-3,1 CFR
305.79-3; General Statement of Policy
and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions, 10 CFR chapter 1. part 2,
appendix C.
///. Discussion
3. Section 503 Forfeitures. Most
Commission forfeitures are issued under
the Commission's general forfeiture
authority contained hi section 503 of die
Act- Under section 503(b)(2), for each
violation or each day of a continuing
violation, the Commission may now
assess forfeitures of up to $25,000
against broadcasters, cable operators or
applicants for such facilities, 5100,000
against common carriers or applicants
for such facilities, and $10,000 against
others. In addition, there is a limit on
forfeitures for continuing violations
involving a single act or failure to act of
$250,000 for broadcasters, cable
operators or applicants for such
. Jacilities and Sl.OCO.OCO for common
carriers or applicants for such facilities.
.A limit of $75,000 applies to continuing
violations involving a single act or
failure to act by others.
4. Our new standards for section 503
forfeitures establish base forfeiture
amounts for specific classes of section
503 forfeitures. The base forfeiture
amounts are based on a ranking of a
relative gravity of the violation
involved. The base amounts are
computed as a percentage of the
statutory maximum for the service
involved. For example, failure to comply
with prescribed tower lighting and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 6543,'
petroleum and coal and is responsible for its
worldwide supply, «torage, end distribution.
d. Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC).
Buys and manage* industrial items such as
bearings, ferrous and nonferrous metals.
electrical wire, gasket material and certain
mineral ores and precious metals^
e. Defense Personnel Support Center
(DPSC). Buys and manages food, clothing.
and medical supplies for all the armed
services, some Federal agencies and
authorized foreign governments,
f. Defense General Supply Center (DCSC).
Buy* and manages such categories of
materials as electrical hardwire, materials
handling equipment, kitchen and laundry
equipment woodworking and melalworking
machines, photographic supplies, and
precision measuring instruments.
2. ZJcpets.DLA depots are responsible for
the receipt, storage, and distribution of DLA-
niarvaged materiel. The principal depots are:
Defense Distribution Region We«t fDDRW)
Defense Distribution Region Ea«t (DDRE)
Defense Depot Memphis (DDMT)
Defense Depot Ogden (DDOU]
3. Service centers. JDLA operates six
ssrrice centers ithich.provide technical ar.d
logistics services. The «ervice centers.ate:
a. Defense Logistics Services Center
(DLSC). Responsible" for maintenance ol the
Federal Supply .Catalog System, including the
development and dissemination of cataloging
acd item intelligence data to the Military
Departments and other authorized customer?.
i>. Defense BeatHirau'oti*nd Marketing
Servict! (DRMS). Thecentral clearinghouse
for the reutilizalioo, donation, sale, or
disposal of DoD-owned excess property.
bcluding scrap and waste.
c-'Defense Industrial Plant Equipment
Center, {DTPECVManages the reserve of DoD-
owned industrial plant equipment The center
repairs,Teboild3."«nd updates equipment to
avoid new-procurement co»l»-
d. DLA Administrative Support Center
(DASC). Provides general sdrainiitratiVE
support to designs ted DLA.aca'vitiej.
e. Defense National Stockpile Center
(DNSC). Maintain* the national reserve of
stralegicmaterials stored for use in event of
war or other national .emergency.
f.TDLA Systems Automation Center
(DSAC). Develops and maintains DLA's
automated and computerized systems.
4. Contract district!. Six districts, tach
responsible for contracts covering a
euhistate or ipecialii*gdea. UT W407-5000.
"Defense Distribution "Region West Attn:
DDRW-WX Tracy. California 95376-5000.
Defense National Stockpile Center Attn:
"DNSC^L.1745 Jefferson Da vis Highway.
.Crystal- Sr«paratJon,-AdoptionI.and^ubTrrrttal
of State rmptementationTtans, Wethcc!
for *leasurwn«nt of CondensJbte ^
Particular Embolorw From Stationary
Sources
AGENCY-.Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Method 202 for the
measurement of condensible paniculate
matter (CPM) */as proposed in th«
Federal Repiter on October 12,1990. a!
[55 FR 41546). This action procrulzates
this method. On April 17.1950 at (55 FR
14248) EPA promulgated two methods
for measimag particulate matter (PM)
with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 p.rr.
or less (PM »•)." Since CPM emissions
.form very.fzrje particles in the PM-.o size
rangerand are considered PM »
.•prnunions. the.Agency is adding a
method for measuring CPM-emissions
feom «tBtionary-«oorce8-to appendix M
in 40 CFR part Si/The purpose of this
-------
65434
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
rule is to provide the States with a
method for measuring CPM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17,1991.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Document The Background Information
Document for the promulgated test
methods may be obtained from-Candace
Sorrell or Peter WesUin. MD-19, U.S.
EPA. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-1064. Please refer to "Summary of
Comments and Responses for Method
202."
Docket Docket No. A-90-03,
containing materials relevant to this
mlemaking, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30
ajn. to 12 Noon and 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's Air
Docket Section. Waterside Mall, room
M1500,1st Floor, Gallery 1,401 M Street
SWM Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
TO« FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Candace Sorrell or Peter Westiin.
Emission Measurement Branch (MD-19),
Technical Support Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1064.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L The Ruleznaking
The EPA is proposing to add a method
for measuring CPM emissions to
sppendix M in 40 CFR part 51 to provide
a method that States can use in their
State implementation plans.
fl. Public Participation
The opportunity to hold a public
hearing on November 2,1990 at 10 a.m.
was presented in the proposal notice,
but no one desired to make an oral
presentation. The public comment
period was from October 12,1990 to
December 17.19SO.
HI. Significant Comments and Changes
lo the Proposed Rulemaking
Six comment letters were received.
from the proposal rulemaking?7\.
detailed discussion of these comments is
co&tained in the background document
entitled "Summary of Comments and
Responses for Method 202" which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
cf this preamble. The major comments
raised in these letters and the Agency's
responses follow.
One commenter suggests that EPA
determine the chemical composition of
the material collected in the sampling
train to verify that it will form ambient
condensibles.
The EPA believes that material will
collect in the impingers only by
condensation or dissolution. Dissolved
gases will evaporate during analysis and
will not be measured unless the gases
react to form a solid or liquid while they
are in solution. The EPA has designed
Method 202 to prevent the formation of
reaction materials from dissolved gases.
The EPA believes that any remaining
material collected and measured by
Method 202 represents the material that
would condense in the ambient air.
Additional analysis of chemical
composition is not necessary.
Another comment raises the concern
that the method may collect some
portion of the sulfur dioxide (SOi) as
condensible.
The dissolution of SOi in water
does not lead immediately to the
formation of sulfuric acid (HjSO^,
but tends to lower the solution pH,
which further inhibits sulfate or
HjSO< formation. The method
includes a purging procedure which
effectively removes SOj before
significant oxidation occurs. No
additional revisions are necessary.
The commenter feels that if EPA is
allowing Method 202 to be used in
conjunction with Method 201 or 201A or
another dry catch procedure to
determine the total PMJa
msasurerr.cnt the combined methods
should be tested for precision.
The imprecision associated with
combining Method 202 with Method 201
or 201A or any other dry catch
procedure is not additive because each
train provides a separate measurement
Since the total precision associated with
the combined methods cannot be larger
than the least precise sampling method,
a precision evaluation of a combined
sampling system is unnecessary.
A commenter suggests that EPA add
specific language to the applicability
section of the method stating that
Method 2C2 cannot be used on wet
sources. He notes that Method 17 is
excluded frcm use on wet sources, and
Methods 201 and 201A are not
recorsmended for wet sources.
The EPA agrees that Method 202 with
an in-stack filter is not recommended for
wet-sources, and such a statement has
been added to the applicability.
However, a heated Method 5 filter could
be used in Method 202 instead of the in-
stack filter which would allow
application to wet sources.
One ccmmenler requests that EPA
cleai-iy stats that Method 202 should not
be used for assessing compliance with
emission limits set on the basis of data
derived from a different measurement
approach. . .
The EPA agrees that a violation must
be shown, in the first instance, by means
of measurements made with the
applicable test method. Once such a
showing is made, however, section
113{e) of the Clean Air Act allov;s the
Agency to rely on any credible evidence,
including evidence other than the
applicable test method, to establish the
duration of the period of noncompliance
for the purposes of assessing a penalty.
A commenter believes that thi: sample
collection efficiency and method
precision may be affected by the
sampling conditions such as impinger
temperature and sampling flow rate and
the method should address this
possibility.
The EPA agrees that the nature of the
material in the sample gas may affect
collection efficiency. For examp le, a
field demonstration of Method 202 at an
oil-fired boiler resulted in about 75
percent impinger collection efficiency.
This collection efficiency can be
improved with the addition of a second
filter place between the second and
third impmger. This option has been
included in the method with a
discussion of applicability.
The commenter feels the 1-hour
nitrogen (N 5) purge is too long. He
believes the majority of the SQi is
removed in the first few minutesi. He
suggests the method be revised to
reduce the purge time in conjunction
with maintaining the sample under cold
conditions and analyzing it within 43
hours.
The EPA coes not agree with reducing
the purge time. Laboratory tests have
shown that a 1-hour p'urge time is
necessary to ensure the adequaie
removal of SOj from the impinger
solution.
Another commenter suggests that the
method should be revised to give credit
for ammonium sulfate ((NKiJjSC);)
dihydrte and other condensible
particulate matter formed in the gas
stream due to ammonia (NHO injection
used to enhance the efficiency of a
control device.
The EPA does not agree. The
condensible particulate matter forrr.ee! in
the gas stream due to NHs injeclion is
emitted to the atmosphere. The EPA
believes that condensible particulate
matter emitted from the source nhoulc
be counted ss such even if it is a proc'uct
of a pollution-control technique.
The commenter suggests that EPA
consider an alternative to MeClr
consistent with the Montreal Protocol.
The EPA investigated the
effectiveness of a chlorofonn-ethar
extraction during the method
development phase. The chloroform-
ether was not as effective as the MeClj
in removing organic materials; however.
the chloroform-ether procedure was
I
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 65435
found to be acceptable for organic •
extraction. The method has been revised
allow a chloroform-ether extraction.
e commenter, supports the exclusion
'ammonium chloride as a .condensible;
however, he expresses concern about
(NH«kS04 forming in the impiugere.
The Ni purge removes SO» before
significant oxidation occurs. If NHi is
present in the flue.gas. the (NIDiSO*
formed in the impingers would notbe
counted as acondensible. although the
HjSO«. which reacted-vrith NHa. would
be counted-as a condensible. Method
202 corrects.forthe NHj by-measuring
the sulfate using an 1C analysis and
subtracting out the ammonium ion
(NTU*) mass.
The commenter agrees that the NHj
added during.the titration should be
subtracted from Ihe "final weight
However..he does not agree with adding
back in the water removed by the acid-
base reaction.
Because HaSQ^isiygroscopic/.the
HzSQt mass, found in the atmosphere
would have the water attachedto it. The
method'has been revised to allow the
source to correct for only the'NHt* or for
both NHt* and water as an option
depending on the basis .for the
regulation.
. A. Socket
"The docket is an organized and
coxpieteJIle of.all the information
submitted.to.or.otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this.proposed
mlemaking..Tbe principle-purposes of
the docket are to: (1) Allow interested
parties to identify »nd locate documents
so that-they can effectively participate
in the rulemaking process,-and (2) serve
as the record in case of judicial review
except for interagency review materials
[Section 307(d](7)(A)).
B. Dfficejyf Management and Budget
Review
Ur.derlExecu live-Order 12291. EPA
cust judge whether a.regulation is
"rcajcr" and. therefore, subjecrvo The'"
requirement of-a.regulatory impact
analysis. This rulemaking would not
rresulUn.any of the adverse economic
effects setforth in "Section! of the Order
as grounds for finding a "major-rule." It
will neither have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, nor
•mil it result in aina jor increase in costs
or prices.There will be no significant
adverse effects on competition.
employment..investment, productivity.
innovation, or on the-ability.of U.S.-
baa«d enterprises to.-compete with
foreign Abased .enterprises-, in domes tic at
export markets. rThis ruleaiaking-was
submitted toihe Office-oLManagement
and Budget (OMB) for review as
required by Executive Order 12291.
C Regulatory Flexibility Act
Compliance
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
60S(b). I hereby certify that this attached
rule., if promulgated, will not have any
economic impact on small entities
because no additional costs will be
incurred.
.This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork -Reduction Act of 1980, 44
ILS.C. 3501 et seq.
Dated: December ft. 1991.
F. Henry Habicnl n,
Acting Administrator.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part SI
Administrative practice end
procedure,
Air pollution control,
Carbon Monoxide,
"Inter-governmental.relations,
Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone,
•Partirulate matter,
•Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Sulfur Oxides,
'Volatile Organic Compounds.
The EPA amends title 40,.chapter L
part.51 of the .Code of -Federal
Regulations as follows:
PARTS 1-{ AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues totead as-folkrws:
Antbority: SectJon'llO of the Clean Air Act
as-amended (42 U.S.C.7410).
2. Appendix M, to part.51 Table of
Contenls.is. amended. by addiag an entry
to-read as follows:
Method 203—J3etenniaation of
Condensibie-Particulata Emissions From
Stationary -Sources
3. By adding Method 202 to Appendix
M to part 51 to read .as follows:
Method 2C2— CMerminatjoQ of Condensible
PartJculate-Einifsionj From 5 la Senary
Sources
1. Applicability ar.d Principle
1.1 Applicability, l.l.l "Thii method
applies to the determination of conceojible
particulate matter (CPM}emissions-fro!n
stationary M Uxollected
in the linpinger portion of a Method 17
(appendix A. 40 CFR part flO) type sampling
train. The impinger content* are Immediately
purged after ihe run with nitrogen (Ni) to
remove dissolved sulfur dioxide (SOi) gases
from the impinger contents. The impinger
solution is then extracted with methylene
chloride (MeO>). The organic and aqueous
fractions are then taken to dryness and lhe
residues weighed.The total of both fraction*
represents -the CPM.
1.2-2 "The potential for low collection
efficiency exist at oil-fired boilers. To
improve lhe collection efficiency at these
type of sonrces. an additional filter jriaced
between the seccnd and third impinger is
recommended.
2. Precision, aadinterference
2.1 "Precision. The-precision-based-on
method development tests at an-oil-fired
boiler and a catalytic cracker were 11J and
4.8 percentTespectively.
iz '• Interference. Ammonia, in soacts
that use ammonia mjectioiv»s-a-control
technique for hydrogen-chloride (HCl), the
ammonia interferes by reacting with HCl in
the gas-itream-to-fonnwnmoainjn-ciilonde
(NH in Method
17, section 2.1, with ^he following
noted below (see Figure 202-1). Note:
Mention of trade names or specific products
does cot conatihrte endorsement by EPA,
3.1.1 The probe extension shall be giasj-
lirisd or Teflon.
3.1.2 Botnthetrstend second inrpir.geri
shall be of the Greenborj5mrtlni«rgn wti
the-standard tip.
•3.1.3 All -sampling-train-glassware shall be
cleaned prior to tie rest with, soap end tap
water,-water, and-rinsed using-tap water.
water, acetone, «nd-finally, MeCV». It is
important to coorpietelyremove all silicoue
grease from areas-tlrabwfll-be exposed tolhe
MeClt during-semphr recovery.
3^2 -SampleReiaveiy.Seiae as in-Xetsoa
17, section li-with-thefoUowing-additrcc-s:
Sil 'Ni-Parje-Hne.inert-rirbuig-aiid
fittings capabk-ofiien'vering'OtcrJSilrers/
min of Nj
-------
65436 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
standard gas cylinder (see Figure 202-2).
Standard 0.9S cm (%-inch) plastic tubing and
compression fittings in conjunction with an
adjustable pressure regulator and. needle
valve may b« used.
3.2.2 Rotameter. Capable of measuring
gas flow at 20 liters/rain. _
3.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
necessary in addition to that listed in Method
17, section 2J:
3.3.1 Separatory FunneL Glass. 1-liter.
3J.2 Weighing Tina. 350-ml
3.3.3 Dry Equipment Hot plate and oven
with temperature control
3.3.* Pipets, S-mL
3 J.5 Ion Chromatognph. Same as in
Method 5F. Section 2.1.8.
4. Reagents
Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents
must conform to the specifications
established by the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
Where such specifications are not available.
use the best available grade.
4.1 Sampling. Same as in Method 17,
section 3.1. with the addition of deionized
distilled water to conform to the American
Society for Testing and Materials
Specification D 1133-74. Type n and the
omittance of section 3.1.4.
42 Sample Recovery. Seme as in Method
17. section 3.2, with the following additions:
4-2.1 N, Cas. Zero N, gas at delivery
pressures high enough to provide a flow of 20
liters/min for 1 hour through the sampling
train.
4^2 Methylene Chloride. ACS grade.
Blanks shall be run prior to use and only
methylene chloride with low blank values
(0.001 percent] shall b« used.
4-2.1 Water. Sane as in section 4.1.
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 17.
section 3.3, with the following additions:
4.3.1 Methylene Chloride. Same as section
4.2.2,
4.3.2 Ammonium Hydroxide.
Concentrated (14.8 Ml NKOH.
4,3.3 Water. Same at in section 4.1.
4.3.4 Phenolphthalein, The pH indicator
solution, 0.05 percent ir. 50 percent alcohol.
5. Procedure
5.1 Sampling. Sarce at in Method 17.
section 4.1, with the following exceptions:
5.1.1 Place 100 ml of water in the first
three impingera.
5.1.2 The use of ulicone gje'aVe ih'train
assembly i« not recommended because it is
very soluble in MeCl, which may result in
sample contamination. Teflon tape or similar
means may be used to provide leak-free
connections between glassware.
5.2 Sample Recovery. Same as in Method
17, section 4.2 with the addition of a post-test
N. purge and specific changes in handling of
individual samples as described below.
5.2.1 Post-test Nt Purge for Sources
Emitting SO,. (Note: This step is
recommended, but is optional With little or
no SO, is present in the gas stream, i.e.. the
pH of the impinger solution is greater than
4.5, purging has been found to be
unnecessary.) An soon is possible after the
post-test leak check, detach the prob« and
filter from the impinger tain. Leave the ice in
the impinger box to prevent removal of
moisture during the purge. If necessary, add
more ice during the purge to maintain the gas
temperature below 20 'C. With no flow of gas
through the clean purge line and fittings.
attach it to the input of the impinger train -
(see Figure 202-2). To avoid over- or under-
pressurizing the impinger array, slowly
commence the Nt ga* flow through the line
while simultaneously opening the meter box
pump valve(s). When using the gas cylinder
pressure to push the purge gas through the
sample train, adjust the flow rate to 20 liters/
min through the rotameter. When pulling the
purge gas through the sample train using the
meter box vacuum pump, set the orifice
pressure differential to AH« and maintain an
overflow rate through the rotameter of less
than 2 liters/min. This will guarantee that the
N'i delivery system is operating at greater
than ambient pressure and prevents the
possibility of pasting ambient air (rather than
N,) through the impingers. Continue the purge
under these conditions for 1 hour, checking
the rotameter and AH value(s) periodically.
After 1 hour, simultaneously turn off the
deliverj' and pumping systems.
5.2.2 Sample Handling.
5.2.2.1 Container Nos. 1. 2. end 3. If filter
catch is to be determined, as detailed in
Method 17. section 4.2.
5.2^.2 Container No. 4 (Impinger
Contents). Measure the liquid in the first
three impingers to within 1 ml using a clean
graduated cylinder or by weighing it to within
0.5 g using a balance. Record the volume or
•weight of liquid present to be used to
calculate the moisture content of the effluent
gas. Quantitatively transfer this liquid into a
clean sample bottle (glass or plastic); rinse
each impinger and the connecting glassware.
including probe extension, twice with water,
recover the rinse water, and add it to the
saine sample bottle. Mark the liquid level on
the bottle.
5.2.2.3 Container No. 5 (MeClt Rinse).
Follow the water rinses of each impinger and
the connecting glassware, inciudir^ the probe
extension with two rinses of MeCU: save the
rinse products in a clean, glass sample jar.
Mark the liquid level on the jar.
5.2.2.4 Container No. 6 (Water Blari).
Once during each field test pJace 500 ml of
water in a separate sample container.
5.2.2.5 Container No. 7 (MeClt Blank).
Or.ce during each field test place in a
separate glass sample jar a volume of MeCl,
approximately equivalent to the volume used
to conduct the MeClt rinse of the impingers.
5.3 Analysis. Record the data required on
a sheet such as the one shown in Figure 202-
3. Handle each sample container as follows:
5.3.1 Container Nos. 1. 2, and 3. If filter
catch is analyzed, as detailed in Method 17.
section 4.3.
5.3.2 Container Nos. 4 and 5. Note the
level of liquid in the containers and confirm
on the analytical data sheet whether leakage
occurred during transport If a noticeable
amount of leakage has occurred, either void
the sample or use methods, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to correct the
final results. Measure the liquid in Container
No. 4 either volumetrically to il ml or
gravimetrically to-±0.5 g. Remove a 5-ml
e'.iquot end set aside for later icn
chromatographic (1C) analysis of sulfates.
(Note: Do not use this aliquot to determine
chlorides since the HCI will be evaporated
during the first drying step: Section 12 details
« procedure for this analysis.) .
5.3.2.1 Extraction. Separate tt,e organic
fraction of the sample by adding the contents
of Container No. 4 (MeCli) to the contents of
Container No. 4 in a 1000-ml sepwatory
funnel After mixing, allow the aqueous and
organic phases to fully separate, and drain
off most ol the organk/Med, phase. Then
add 75 ml of MeCli to the funnel mix well
and drain off the lower organic phase. Repeat
with another 75 ml of MeCl,. This extraction
should yield about 250 ml of organic extract.
Each time, leave « small amount of the
organic/MeCl, phase in the separatory funnel
ensuring that no water is collected in the
organic phase. Place the organic extract in a
tared 350-rol weighing tin.
S.32.2 Organic Fraction Wei ;hr
Determination (Organic Phase from
Container Nos. 4 and 5). Evaporate the
organic extract at room temperature and
pressure in a laboratory hood. Following
evaporation, desiccate the organic fraction
for 24 hours in a desiccator containing
anhydrous calcium sulfate. Wet;h to a
constant weight and report the results to the
nearest 0.1 mg.
SJ.2.3 Inorganic Fraction Weight.
Determination. (Note: If NH.C1 is to be
counted at CPM. the inorganic traction
should be Uken to near drynesn (less than 1
ml liquid] in the oven and then allow to air
dry at ambient temperature. If multiple acid
emissions are suspected, the ammonia
titration procedure in section 8-1 rcay be
preferred.) Using a hot plate, or equivalent.
evaporate the aqueous phase to
approximately 50 ml; then, evajwrste to
dry-ness in a 105 "C oven, Redissovle the
residue in 100 ml of water. Add five drops c:
phenolphttalein to this solution: then, add
concentrated (14.8 M] NH.OH unol the
sample turns pink. Any excess NK.OH will
be evaporated during the drying step.
Evaporate the sample to drynesa in a 105 'C
oven, desiccate the sample for 24 hcurs.
weigh to a constant weight and record the
results to the nearest 0.1 mg. (Note: The
addition of NH.OH is recommcndec. but is
optional when little or no Sd is present •„-.
the gss »rr»am i.e., when the pH of the
impinger solution is greater th;m 4.5. the
addition of NH.OH is not necessary.)
5.3.2.4 Analysis of Sulfate 'ay 1C to
Determine Arrjnoruum Ion (NtV) Retair.ec :n
the Sample. (Note: If NH.OH ii not added.
omit this step.) Determine the amcu.nl of
sulfate in the aliquot taken from Container
No. 4 earlier as described in Method 5F
(appendix A. 40 CFR part 60). Based on the 1C
SOr* analysis of the aliquot 'lalculate the
correction factor to subtract the NK.*
retained in the sample and to add the
combined water removed by the acid-ba>e
reaction (see section 7.2).
5.3.3 Analysis of Water and MeCU EisrJ
(Container No*. 6 and 7). Analyse these
sample blanks as described above in ser
5.3.2.3 and 5-3.2.2, respective! f.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
65437
5-3.4 Analyst* of Acetone Blank
(Container No. 6). Same a* In Method 17.
section 4J.
4 Calibration
Same aa In Method 17. section 5, except for
the following:
6.1 1C Calibration. Same as Method 5F.
section 5.
&2 Audit Procedure. Concurrently.
analyze the audit sample and a set of
compliance samples in the same manner to
evaluate the technique of the analyst and the
standards preparation. The same analyst.
analytical reagents, and analytical system
shall b« used both for compliance samples
and the EPA audit sample. If this condition it
net. auditing of subsequent compliance
analyses for the same enforcement agency
within 30 days is not required. An audit
sample set may not b« used to validate
different sets of compliance samples under
the jurisdiction of different enforcement
agencies, unless prior arrangements are made
with both enforcement agencies.
8-3 Audit Samples. Audit Sample
Availability. Audit samples will be supplied
only to enforcement agencies for compliance
leiU. The availability of audit samples may
be obtained by writing:
Source Test Audit Coordinator (MD-77B).
Quality Assurance Division. Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory, US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle, Park. NC 27711
or by calling the Source Test Audit
Coordinator (STAC) at (918) 541-7834. The
request for the audit sample must be made at
least 30 days prior to the scheduled
compliance sample analysis.
6.4 Audit Results. Calculate the audit
sample concentration according to the
calculation procedure described in the audit
instructions included with the audit sample.
Fill in the audit sample concentration and the
analyst's name on the audit response form
included with the audit instructions. Send
one copy to the EPA Regional Office or the
appropriate enforcement agency and a
seccnd copy to the STAC The EPA Regional
Office or the appropriate enforcement agency
will report the results of the audit to th«
laboratory being audited. Include this
response with the results of the compliance
samples in relevant reports to the EPA
Regional Office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.
7. Calculation* - _^ ... ±---
Same as In Method 17. section 6. with the
following additions:
7.1 Nomenclature. Same as in Method 17,
section 6.1 with the following additions.
CM,=Concentration of the CPM in the stack
gas, dry basis, corrected to standard
conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf).
C»« = Conc8ntrationaf SOr'ln the sample.
mg/mL
ex = Sum of the mass of the water and
blanks, mg.
m, = Masj of the NHt* added to sample to
form ammonium sulfate, mg.
m,=Ma»4 of Inorganic CPM matter, mg.
ra,=Mass of organic CPM. mg.
m,=M&ss of dried sample from inorganic
fraction, mg.
V,=. Volume of aliquot taken for 1C analysis.
ml.
Vk=Volume of impinger contents sample, ml.
72 Correction for NH,* and H»O.
Calculate the correction factor to subtract the
NH,* retained in the sample based on the 1C
SO,"1 and if desired, add the combined water
removed by the acid-base reaction.
m,=K C«i V,. Eq. 202-1
where:
K=OX20S. when correcting for NH,* and
H,0.
»= 0.1840, when only correcting for NH,*.
7 J Mass of Inorganic CPM.
m, = m.
Eq. 202-2
7.4
Concentration of CPM.
Eq. 202-3
& Alternative Procedures
8.1 Determination of NH.* Retained in
Sample by Titration.
8.1.1 An alternative procedure to
determine the amount of NH«* added to the
inorganic fraction by titration may be used.
After dissolving the inorganic residue in 100
ml of water, titrate the solution with 0.1 N
NH.OH to a pH of 7.0, as indicated by a pH
meter. The 0.1 N NH.OH Is made at follows:
Add 7 ml of concentrated (14J M] NriOH to
1 liter of water. Standardize against
standardized 0.1 N HiSO. and calculate the
exact normality using a procedure parallel to
that described in section S.S of Method 6
(appendix A. 40 CFR part 60). Alternatively.
purchase 0.1 N NH.OH that has beea
standardized against a National Institute of
Standards and Technology reference
material
8.1-2 Calculate the concentration of SO»~'
in the sample using the following nq
CSO.=
Eq. 202-4
100
where
N=Normolity of the NH,OH mg/ml
V,= Volume of NH.OH titrant mi
.
100=Volume of solution, mi
8.3.1 Calculate the CPM as described in
section 7.
8J! Analysis of Chlorides by 1C At the
conclusion of the final weighing as described
in section 5.3.2.3, redissolve the Inorganic
fraction In 100 ml of water. Analyze an
aliquot of the rediasolved sample for
chlorides by 1C using techniques similar to
tho»e described in Method SF for suifates,
Previous drying of the sample shouid have
removed all Hd Therefore, the remaining
chlorides measured by 1C can be assumed to
be NHiQ. and this weight can be subtracted
from the weight determined for CPM.
8J Air Purge to Remove SOi from
Impinger Contents. As an alternative to the
post-test Ni purge described In section Sil.
the tester may opt to conduct the post-test
purge with air »t 20 liter/min. Note: The use
of an air purge is not as effective as a Nt
purge.
8,4 Chloroform-ether Extraction. As an
alternative to the methylene chloride
extraction described in section 5.3-2.1. the
tester may opt to conduct a chloroform-ether
extraction. Note: The Chloroform-ether was
not as effective as the MeG* in removing the
organics. but it was found to be an
acceptable organic extractant. Chloroform
and diethylether of ACS grade, with low
blank values (0.001 percent), shall be used.
Analysis of the chloroform and diethylether
blanks shall be conducted according to
Section 5JJ for MeCk
8.4.1 Add the contents of Container No. 4
to a 1000-ml separatory funnel Then add 7S
ml of chloroform to the funnel mix well and
drain off the lower organic phase. Repeat two
more times with 75 ml of chloroform. Then
perform three extractions with 75 ml of
diethylether. This extraction should yield
approximately 450 ml of organic extraction.
Each time, leave a small amount of the
organic/MeCl» phase in the separator)- funnel
ensuring that no water is collected in the
organic phase.
8.4.2 Add the contents of Container No. 5
to the organic extraction. Place
approximately 300 ml of the organic extract
in a tared 350^nl weighing tin while storing
the remaining organic extract in a sample
container. As the organic extract evaporate*.
add the remaining extract to the weighing tin.
8.4.3 Determine the weight of the organic
phase as described in Section 5.3.2-1
8.5 Improving Collection Efficiency. If low
impinger collection efficiency is suspected.
the following procedure may be used.
8.5.1 Place an out-of-stock filter as
described in Method 8 between the »econd
and third impingers.
8J>-2 Recover and analyze the filter
according to Method 17, Section 4.2. Include
the filter holder aj part of the connecting
glassware and handle a: described in
sections 5-2-2J1 and 5-2.2,3.
8.5.3 Calcilate the Concentration of CPM
as follows:
Eq. 202-5
where:
m, = amount of CPM collected on out-of-
stack filter, mg.
8.6 Wet Source Testing. When test'ng at a
wet source, use a heated out-of-stacx filter as
described in Method 5.
9. Bibliography
1. D«Wees, WJX S.C. Steinsberger. G.S1.
Plummer. LT. Lay, C.D. McAllster. and R.T.
-------
65436
Federal Rayiater / Vol. 56> No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Shigehara. "LaboratOfy, «nd Field Evdaation
•f tbc EPA Method 5 Impinger CUch for
Vteaaiuing Condenuble Matter from
Stationary Source*.** Paper presented at the
1989 EPA/ AWMA IiUcnwtianal Sympowani
oo Meajiiremfcnt of Toxic «ad Related Air
Pullataat». Raleigh. North Carolina. May I-S.
2. DeWeei. W JX aad ICC. Stcinabcrger.
''Method Devdopmest md£v«bi*iioa a£
Draft Protocol for Measurement of
Condeniible ?artiral»te EmuawDs." Draft
Report. Novc9tbcrl?.lS
-------
. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17.1991 / Rules and Regulations
65439
Federal Register / Vol. 56
27
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tueaday. December 17.1991 / Rules and Regulations
E
O
c
CJ
o
Jj
«•-(
c
C.1
c
c.
o
u
s
o
i
(Nl
C
AUNQ COOC K40-40-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. December 17. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 65441
Moisture Determination
Volume or weight of liquid in unpingers:
ml org
^Weight of moisture in silica get 8
imple Preparation (Container No, 4)
Amount of liquid lost daring transport
.ml
Final volume:.
.ml
pH of *amp!e prior to analysis:.
Addition of NH.OH required:.
Sample extracted 2X with 75 ml Med,?:
For Titration of Sulfate
Normality of NH.OH:
Volume of sample titrated:.
Volume of arrant
Simple Analysis
.N
.ml
.ml
Conaowr number
i 4 5 (r*^ni-(
Wagm ol ecnoanaib*
paniculate, mg
Final
weight
Tar*
weight
1
Weight
gam
Total:
Lew Blank
\Yeight of Conseraible P-irticulate:
Figure 202-3. Analytical data sheet
[FR Doc. 91-29S37 Filed 12-16-91; 8:45 am]
•LUNQ COC€ CMQ-50-W
40 CFR Part 52
IP A-14-1-5353; A-1-f Rt-4Se3-6l
Deficiency for the Allegheny County
Portion of the Pennsylvania Slate
Implementation Plan—Banking
Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
A.CTIO*: Notice of deficiency.
-------
63442 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 242 / Tuesday. Decemjer 17. 1991 / Rolej and Regulations
*»<*
standards. All external offsets must be
federally enforceable. External offsets
are those emission credit transactions
which involve two or more sources of
different ownership/control.
Schedules
EPA's SIP call required that Allegheny
County submit a workplan by August 15.
1988 indicating the schedule for
completing, among other activities,
correction of deficiencies including
those listed for the generic bubble
regulations in Allegheny County. The
schedule was not to exceed one year
from the date of the workplan submittaL
On September 1,1988, Allegheny County
submitted a workplan with a schedule to
submit a final draft to correct all SIP
deficiencies by September 30,1989 and
to adopt those changes on a schedule
dependent on Pennsylvania's adoption
of similar changes. The correction of
section 808 deficiencies, while implied in
the May 28,1988 SIP call was not
specifically included. However, the SIP
call letter stated that while every
attempt had been made to identify all
deficiencies, the State (or County) was
requested to affirm the list of
deficiencies by comparing its SIP with
the guidance provided Therefore,
Allegheny County should correct the
deficiencies identified in section 808 by
submitting an approvable SIP revision to
EPA by January 17.1992.
On April 3,1990, EPA informed
Allegheny County that its banking
regulations are substantially identical to
Pennsylvania's regulations and that ita
regulations pertaining to bubbles and
banking are deficient in the same
respect On September 28,1990.
Allegheny County was formally notified
that EPA could begin the process of
rescinding approval of. among other
provisions, the generic bubble and
banking provisions In the Allegheny
County SIP if an approvable SIP revision
was not submitted The consequence of
rescinding approval of the Allegheny
County banking regulation will be to
remove Allegheny County's, authority to
approve banking transactions without
prior EPA approval
Conclusion
Through the May 28,1988 SIP call. '
Allegheny County was formally notified
that its generic bubble regulations
(section 506) and banking regulations
(section 808) are deficient. EPA has
previously brought to Allegheny
County's attention the deficiencies in
the banking regulations. Although EPA
believes that the May 28,1988 SEP call
provided Allegheny County with formal
notification that the banking regulations
are deficient this notice provides further
notification of the specific deficiencies
in section 808 banking provisions.
Nothing in this notice should be
construed as implicitly or explicitly
making any determination regarding the
nonattainment new source review
portion of the Allegheny County SIP.
Action
The purpose of this notice is to
reiterate the County's previous
obligation to correct the banking
regulations (or delete them), and to -
notify Allegheny County that it must
submit an approvable SIP revision to
EPA by February 18,1992. Failure to
submit an approvable SEP revision could
result in an EPA action to rescind federal
approval of the banking regulations in
Allegheny County.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). the Regional
Administrator certifies that this SEP
revision will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. (See 48 FR
8709.)
This Agency action is consistent with
the provisions of the 1990 amendments
enacted on November 15,1990. The
Agency has determined that this action
conforms with those requirements
irrespective of the fact that the
deficiencies identified in the Allegheny
County generic bubble and banking
regulations were first identified prior to .
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
This action, pertaining to a notice of
deficiency for the Allegheny County
banking regulation, has been classified
as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register en
January 19.1989 (54 FR 2214-2225).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone,
Hydrocarbons. Intergovernmental
relations. Reporting and Recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority. 42 U.S.C. 7401-7542-
Dalei December 6.1991.
fdwin B. Erickion.
FUgional AdxtinJstrQtor.
\TR Doc. 91-30098 Filed 12-18-91: S:45 anj]
cooe MW-SO-U
ACTION: Final Rule.
[OPTS-42118; FRL 3S45-«1
40 CFR Part 7S9
Testing Corwent Order For Sodium
Cyanide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
SUMMARY: This document announces
that EPA has signed an enforceable
testing Consent Order with EJ. du Pont
de Nemours and Company (DuPont). ~
FMC Corporation (FMC). Degjussa
Corporation (Degussa). ICI Americas
Incorporated (ICI). and Cyan :o
Company (Cyanco). hereinafter referred
to as "the Companies." The Companies
have agreed to perform certain chemical
fate and terrestrial effects lewis on
sodium cyanide (NaCN: CAS No. 143-
33-9). This sodium cyanide (NaCN)
Consent Order is added to the list of
testing consent orders in 40 CFR
799.5000 for which export notification
requirements of 40 CFR part 707 apply.
This rule constitutes EPA's response to
the Interagency Testing Committee's
(TTC) recommendation that E!PA
consider chemical fate and terrestrial
effects tests on sodium cyanide.
EFFECTIVE DATE December 17.1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Ming. Acting Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-
799). Office of Toxic Substances, nn E-
543B, 401M SU SW., Washington. DC
20460. (202) 554-1404, TDD (:ffl2) 554-
0551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
procedures described in 40 CFR part 790,
the Companies have entered into a
testing Consent Order with EPA, ar.d
have agreed to perform certain chemical
fate and terrestrial effects tests for
NaCN. (CAS No. 143-33-9). This rale
amends 40 CFR 799.5000 by adding
NaCN to the list of chemical substances
and mixtures subject to testing Ccr.sen!
Orders.
I. Recommendation
In its Twenty-sixth Report to EPA.
published in the Federal Register of June
5,1990 (55 FR 23050). the FTC
recommended with intent-to-designate
NaCN for environmental effects testing
The rationale for the original
recommendation with intent-to-
designate appeared in the FTCs Twenty-
sixth Report. In its Twenty-seventh
Report to EPA published in the Federal
Register of March 6,1991 (56 FR 9334).
NaCN was designated as a candidate
for rulemaking under TSCA and the
testing recommendations were changed
because discussions with the
Department of Interior (DOI). EPA. and
industry identified additional testing
data gaps. The Twenty-seventh "Report
designated certain chemical fate and
terrestrial effects tests for NaCN.
Specifically, the FTC recommended soijj
sorption testing as well as testing for
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
FEB251992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Contingency Measure Due Date for^Initial PM-10
Moderate Nonattainment Areas////J j,
/ ' e //
FROM: John Calcagni, Director (^- < /-dt-
tdn (MD-1
Air Quality Management .Division (MD-IS^
TO: Director, Air, Pesticities and Toxics/-''
Management Division, Regions I(-an"d IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
In the August 1991 "Questions and Answers" guidance, the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards indicated that
States containing areas designated nonattainment for particulate
matter (PM-10) under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act
(Act) ("initial nonattainment areas") were obligated to submit
the contingency measures required by section 172(c)(9) of the Act
on November 15, 1991. This memorandum explains that the Agency
has not taken the steps necessary to sanction States with initial
PM-10 moderate nonattainment areas for failing to submit the
contingency measure requirement by November 15, 1991.
Section 172(c) of the Act spells out general nonattainment
plan provisions that applicable implementation plans required
under Part D must meet. Section 172(c)(9) addresses the
requirement for contingency measures. Section 172(b) indicates
that the Administrator shall establish a schedule according to
which the provisions required under section 172(c) must be
submitted; such schedule, however, may not extend later than 3
years from the affected areas' nonattainment designation.
-------
Part D also contains provisions specifically addressing
PM-10 requirements [see generally, Subpart 4]. Among other
things, these provisions set out specific plan requirements and
associated submittal dates for PM-10 nonattainment areas. For
example, section 189(a) indicates that moderate nonattainment
areas must submit plan provisions demonstrating attainment by the
applicable attainment date or demonstrating that attainment by
such date is impracticable. Section 189(a) also requires
moderate areas to submit provisions assuring the implementation
of reasonably available control measures (RACM) by certain dates
as well as provisions meeting new source review requirements.
Section 189(a) sets out the specific schedules for these plan
provisions, requiring, -for example, that the initial PM-10
nonattainment areas submit RACM and a demonstration by
November 15, 1991.
The Office of General Counsel has informed us that because
Subpart 4 contains no express contingency measure requirement arid
because the contingency measure requirement does not appear to be
integrally related to any other requirement in Subpart 4, the due
date for the requirement would be the schedule set by the
Administrator under section 172(b).1 However, the Administrator
has not set a schedule for the PM-10 contingency measure
submittal. The August 1991 guidance was not issued by the
Administrator. Therefore, until the Administrator establishes
the due date, States are not obligated to submit contingency
measures.
To the extent that States have already submitted contingency
measures, we encourage the Regions to approve these plans, as
appropriate. However, States should be advised that they will
have additional time to submit contingency measures meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(9). Therefore, if a State has
submitted or submits the contingency measure requirement before
the due date and it appears that the submittal will not be fully
approvable, the State could withdraw the measures and submit a
revised plan without penalty. Alternatively, the Region could
grant a limited approval..of the plan. In this instance, the
limited approval should not be accompanied with a limited
disapproval since EPA would be acting on the State's submittal
before it is due. However, the State would be obligated to
supplement its submittal appropriately by the deadline.
•'•Note that some provisions in section 172(c) appear to be
integrally related to a requirement in Subpart 4. For example, the
emissions inventory required under section 172(c) is integrally
related to the demonstration required under section 189(a). In
such instance, the timing of the requirement would be controlled by
the Subpart 4 submittal.
-------
Please do not hesitate to contact Gwen Jacobs (FTS 629-5295)
if you have any questions about these procedures.
cc: Alan Eckert, OGC
Rich Ossias, OGC
Joe Paisie, AQMD
Gwen Jacobs, AQMD
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
.^ . /•* \fff.
NiAR l o K-!L
Ref: 8ART-AP
Jeffrey T. Chaffee, Chief
Air Quality Bureau
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59620
Re: East Helena -Lead SIP
Dear Jeff:
EPA has reviewed the two most recent reports prepared in
support of the East Helena Lead SIP, namely the February 3, 1992
Helena, Montana, Lead SI?" and the February -0, ;992 report
entitled "Supplementary Reconciliation and Verification of ISCST
Dispersion Model Lead Apportionments for East Helena, Montana - —-
First and Second Quarters, 1991". Our review of these reports
with regard to the respective protocols, which were conditionally
approved on December 24, 1991, indicates that, in general, the
analyses have been performed in accordance with the approved
modeling protocols. However, EPA requests that, for future
reports related to the Lead SIP, the State also provide a summary
of its review of the material received from Asarco; to date, we
have received only verbal comments frcrr. John Coefield on these
rerorts- E?>. in its oversight and technical sucpcrt role will
then review the information provided. This type cf coordination
will greatly assist both cf our agencies in reducing the amount
of questions that may arise during EPA's review of the SI?
=ubmittals. Because cf tr.e short tirr.e:rarr.es associated '-ith the
East Helena Lead SIP, we appreciate receiving the materials
concurrently with the State; however, in the future we would like
to receive the State's comments before providing our final
comments on these materials.
The model verification work shows that the reconciled ISCST
model meets the performance verification criteria established for
this study, and therefore EPA is approving the reconciled ISCST
model for use in the Lead SIP attainment demonstration. The
supplemental analysis prepared for the first and second quarters
of 1991 greatly increases our confidence in the year-round
applicability of the ISCST model to the East Helena area.
• — • - • I.-H 4-
With respect to the design value modeling, EPA does not
concur with the request contained in Asarco's letter of January
31, 1992, that certain receptors be exempt from the Lead SIP
modeling .efforts. All receptor locations that may affect control
-------
strategy requirements, and meet the definition of "ambient air",r
must be included in regulatory modeling applications. Ambient
air is defined in 40 CFR Part 50.1(e) as "that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public
has access". Receptor points 180 and 197 are adjacent to a
roadway to which the public clearly has access; thus, they must
be included in the SIP modeling analysis. Although siting
criteria may preclude placement of ambient monitors at these
receptors, as was discussed by Asarco, this does not preclude the
placement of model receptors at these sites. Finally, EPA notes
that a successful model reconciliation has been completed,
pursuant to an agreed-upon modeling protocol which did not
provide for possible downwash effects of the slag pile. EPA thus
considers the ISCST predictions at receptor locations 180 and 197
to be reliable, and that it is inappropriate at this time to
reopen the issue of slag pile downwash.
Therefore, based upon the design value modeling, the
predicted design value of 11.493 ug/m3, modeled at receptor 180,
appears to be valid. Specific comments on the design value
repcrz are included in the enclosure to this letter. These
comments do not affect the "bottom line" of the design value
modeling; however, the final SIP submittal describing the design
value modeling must address these issues to ensure accurate ^
documentation of the design value calculation. "~
Because the March 11, 1991 revised East Helena Lead SIP
modeling protocol only briefly addressed the development of
control strategies and the attainment demonstration, in this
letter EPA would like to summarize the procedures which we
believe are necessary during those phases sof the SIP development.
In particular, the following procedures and protocol will need to
1 . The East Helena area has been designated as nonattainment
for the lead NAAQS; this designation was effective January
5. 1SS2 (see Federal Register notice 56 F?. 566S4. )
Therefore, the forthcoming SIP must: meet the Part D
nonattainment plan provisions which are set forth in Section
172 of the CAA. Section I72(c) specifies that SIPs
submitted- to meet the Part D requirements mu.c.t,. among other
things, include reasonably available control measures (RACM)
(which includes reasonably available control technology
(RACT)), provide for reasonable further progress, provide
for nonattainment area new source review, contain
contingency measures, and meet the applicable provisions of
Section 1lO(a)(2).
Therefore, the attainment year strategy must reflect the
implementation, at a minimum, of RACM and RACT. The SIP
must fully and adequately document these control measures;,
and indicate how these measures meet all requirements for
-------
• federal enforceability. Using the controls determined by
. ' the attainment year control strategy analysis, the State
should develop a "post-control" attainment year emission
inventory. This inventory should reflect allowable
emissions. As indicated in Table 9-1 of the Guideline of
Air Quality Models (Revised), allowable emissions are
determined as follows: for emission limits, this is the
maximum allowable or federally-enforceable permit limit; for
operating level, this is the actual or design capacity
(whichever is greater), or federally-enforceable permit
condition; for operating factor, this is the actual
operating factor averaged over the most recent two years.
Also, the impact of growth on emissions should be considered
in the attainment year modeling analysis.
2. Using the emissions inventory developed as indicated above,
the reconciled ISCST model should be re-run, using the one
year of on-site meteorology. One condition for approval of
the Lead SIP is that the predicted attainment year quarterly
average lead concentrations must be equal to or below 1.5
ug/m^ at all receptor points. Other than emission rate
changes to reflect RACM/RACT, and other changes directly
associated with the implementation of the control measures,
the inputs to the SIP attainment demonstration modeling run-
should be identical to those used in the design value
modeling.
Please feel free to contact Mindy Mohr at (303) 294-7539
with any questions regarding this response. We look forward to
continued excellent progress on the East Helena Lead SIP.
Sincerely*
Jouglas M.'^SJcie, Chief
cj-e.Trs Branch
Enclosure
cc: Terry Coble, Asarco (with enclosure)
P.O. Box 1230
East Helena, MT 59635
-------
Thursday
April 16, 1992
Part II!
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 52
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990; Proposed Rule
-------
13498 Federal Register /• Vol 57. No. 74 / Thursday, April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rulea
t i
111
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-4120-2]
BIN 2060-AD12
State Implementation Plans; Genera).
Preamble for the Implementation of ;
Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: General preamble for future
proposed rulemakings.
SUMMARY: Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 revamped
the requirements for areas that have not
attained the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon •
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM-
10), sulfur dioxide (SOs). nitrogen .
dioxide (NO-), and lead. In addition.
title I made numerous changes in the . •
requirements for State implementation
plans (SIPs) in general, including the
provisions governing EPA's processsing
of SIP revisions, as well as the
repercussions of State failures to meet
the various SIP requirements. Many of
these requirements call for early action
by the States. For example, under title I.
States with pre-enactment ozone
nonattainment areas were to begin
submitting SEP revisions 6 months after
enactment (May 15.1991).
This General Preamble principally
describes EPA's preliminary views on
how EPA should interpret various
provisions of title I. primarily those
concerning SIP revisions required for
nonattainment areas. Although the
General Preamble includes various
statements that States must take certain
actions, these statements are made
pursuant to EPA's preliminary
interpretations, and thus do not bind the
States and the public as a matter of law.
In the near future. EPA wiH begin to take
action, pursuant to notice-and-comment
rulemaking. on SIP revisions submitted
by the States, and issue rules, pursuant
to notice-and-comment rulemaking. on
various title 1 provisions. During the
comment periods for those subsequent
actions, members of the public will have
the opportunity to comment on the
relevant issues. This General Preamble
is an advance notice of how EPA
generally intends, in those subsequent
rulemakings. to take action on SIP
submissions and to interpret various
title I provisions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Brock Nicholson, Chief, Policy
Development Section, OzoneYCO
Programs Branch (MD-15) at (919) 541-
5517. for issues'related to ozone or
carbon monoxide; Mr. Eric Ginsburg at
(919) 541-0877. Sulfur Dioxide/
Particulate Matter Programs Branch
(MD-15). for issues related to sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, or lead: Mr. -
Gary McCutchen at (919) 541-5592,
Permits Programs Branch (MD-15), for .:•"
issues related to new source review,: - -.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. .
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina ."
27711: Ms. Paula Van Lare at (202) 260- -,
3450 for issues related to mobile - :- ...
sources. 401M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. '
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .."!,;....
Note: In accordance with 1 CFR S3(c}. this
document is published in the Proposed Rules
category. .".
A list of cited references are contained in -
the appendices which are available from the
public docket. A-91-35 at EPH. 400 M Street.
S.W. Washington. D.C. Appendices A ' ....
through E will be published in a subsequent; '
Federal Register. '':'.•'.'.
OUTLINE
L Purpose
0. Background
A. History
B. Overview of title lof 1990 CAAA
1. Designations/classifications
2. Pollutant-specific requirecents • '
3. General requirements
4. Part D. »ubpart 1
5. Miscellaneous
6. Relationship between lilies I and n of
1990 CAAA
EL SIP Requirements
A. Ozone
1. General
2. Marginal areas
3. Moderate areas
4. Serious areas
5. Severe areas
6. Extreme areas
7. Nonclassifiable nonattair.se::: areas
8. Transport areas
9. Multi-state ozor.e nonat!sL"e-t areas
E Carbon Monoxide
1. Moderate areas 12.7 ppn ar.c beiow
2. Moderate areas above 12.7 ppr,
3. Serious areas
4. Nondassifiable areas
5. Multi-state CO attainment areas
8. Areas with significant stationary source
emissions
7. Guidance on waivers for mobile source
measures
- C. Particulate Matter
1. Statutory background
2. Determination of RACM/RACT -
3. SIP'S that demonstrate attaL-.=ent
4. SIFs that do not demonstrate • .
attainment
D. Sulfur Dioxide
1. Designations
2. Classifications
3. Plan submission deadlines
4. Attainment dates
5. Nonattainment plan provision •
8. Sources of SO; policy and guidance
ELLead
1. Statutory background
2. Pre-SIP *ubmittaJ activities
3-Transition issues
. F. Nitrogen Dioxide
1. Designations ,
2. Plan deadlines !
3. Attainment dates
4. Nonattainment plan provisions
G. New Source Review (NSR)
• Nonattainment Permit Requirements
• L Contraction bans
• .-^2. Emissions offsets
"^3. Creditable emission reductions fcr
y netting . .
4. Growth allowances
5. Analysis of alternatives
6. Control technology information
. 7. Innovative controls for rocket eigines
-. and motors
1 8. Exemptions for stripper wells
' '9. Outer Continental Shelf Source
.-"••". Applicability
:.-. 10. Tribal lands applicability
11. Stationary source definition
.. 12. Temporary clean coal technology
- / demonstration projects
- • 13. Failure to submit NSR rules by statutory
deadlines
R General
1. Part D. subpart I/section 110 (to the
- .• extent not covered under pcllutant-
• - specific)
2. Conformity
3. Planning requirements including section
. . 174
4. Economic incentives
5. Section 172(c)(l) requirement for all
"Reasonably Available Control Measures |
(RACM)
6. Redesignations
7. Transition issues
8. General savings clause
IV. EPA Requirements
A. SIP Processing Requiremerts
'1. Completeness
2. Partial approvals
B. Sanctions and Other Safeguards
1. Background under 1977 CAAA
2. Available measures ur.der: 990 CAAA
3. Application and timing of the section ITS
Sanctions
C. Federal Implementation P!;i.-.s [TIP'S)
V. Miscellaneous
A. Relationship of Title I to T tie V
1. Introduction
2. Purposes of a SI?
3. Fundamental principles for SI?'S''ccr.'.:c:
strategy
4. Satisfying SIP principles
5. Approaches to ensure that perrJ'.s
properly support SIP's
B. Tribal Implementation Plans
C Section 179B Requirement:
VL Other Requirements
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Purpose
The primary purpose of this prearr.blr
is to provide the public with advance
notice of how EPA generally intends to'
interpret various requirements and
associated issues that have arisen under
• title 1 of the CAAA. The information
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
13499
;sw
i
_
provided in this preamble is therefore
intended to guide States and to help
ensure that they prepare and submit
SIFs or SIP revisions that adequately
comply with the title I provisions. For
quick reference, title I submittals and
other actions concerning ozone and CO
nonattainrnent areas required during the
early years following the November 15,
1990 enactment of the 19SO CAAA. are
listed chronologically (by the date each
action is due] on Table 1.
TABLE 1.—MAJOR REQUIRED STATE SUBMITTALS AND ACTIONS
. . Submittal/action
By March 15, 1991 (120 days after enactment) ':
A request for more time to study boundaries for serious -f area
.that was designated and classified as of enactment (due 45
days after certification).
List of afl areas. with proposed designations and boundaries
' (except boundaries for serious + anuts with requests lor more
tame to study). * • - -
A request tor more time to study boundaries lor serious + area
' that was designated and classified at 240 days after enactment
(requested to be in March 15. 1991. sufcmjttal; latest dale for
request is August 27. 199U
Commitment to submit SIP revision to correct I/M program (La.,
of revision tor I/M) *.
Commrtnent to submit SIP revision to rciptement basic I/M
program ("Immediate sutxnrtuT of revision tor I/M) (plus seri-
ous areas where urbanized population < 200,000) •.
By May 15, 1991 (6 month* after enactment):
SohfTMl RAT OMrTtXrt''^
Northeast ozone transport commission convenes (applies to
Northeast transport region). .
By May 15, 1992 (18 months after enactment):
Commence actions to adopt and implement enhanced monitoring
program r&Quvemonis.
By November 15, 1992 (24 months after enactment):
Sirtxnit co^prehef^'v* wr^wn" Qram .
Submrt Enhanced I/M program; begin implementation "
Submrt re 12.7 ppm.
4 As applicable in regards to Title II requirements.
The EPA's interpretation of title I approval or disapproval of SIP
provisions provided in the preamble will - submittals concerning NAAQS
also provide a basis for subsequent EPA nonaUainment areas. While this
preamble should reflect the majority of
the SIP requirements under title I.
unique circumstances or as yet -
-------
13500 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
I
I
I
I
?«!•
te
i
1
ill
3!!
i.
unrecognized issues are likely to cause
case-by-case exceptions to arise. The
EPA intends to provide the public with a
formal opportunity to comment on the
provisions of this preamble, and other
issues that may arise during subsequent
rulemakings that take action on SIP
revisions submitted by the States under
title I and that set out EPA policy on^
various aspects of title I. This preamble
is a General Preamble for those
subsequent actions.
This preambles focuses primarily on
the SIP submissions required for
nonattainment areas under part D of the
amended Act It discusses specific
issues concerning the proper
interpretation of the title I requirements
of areas designated nonattainment (and,
for some pollutants, classified) under .
part D, title I. as well as the proper
treatment of nonattainment areas that
fall outside of the classification
schemes. This preamble discusses
requirements for the SIP-submissions
required for ozone. CO. PM-10, SOj.
NO-, and lead nonattainment areas. In
addition, this preamble discusses
interpretation issues that have arisen
concerning redesignations at attainment,
some general SIP requirements, and EPA
action on SIP submissions, as well as
the various types of possible State
failures to meet certain requirements
and the consequent sanctions and
Federal implementation plans (FIP's).
This preamble also sets forth EPA's
interpretation of the various provisions
in the amended Clear Air Act (Act)
which change new source review (NSR)
requirements for new and modified
sources in nonattainment areas. The
discussion includes EPA's intended
interpretation of the minimum changes
a!! States must make in their SIP's in
c:de: to comply with the amended NSR
requirements and the deadlines for
making these changes. States should use
this Genera! Preamble as guidance for
revision of their NSR programs and
submittai of their NSR SIP's. The Act
mandated deadlines for NSR SIP
submiltals are: May 15.19S2 for areas
without approved SO? SIP's prior to
enactment; November 15.1993 for all
other SO; nonattainment areas
designated prior to enactment; May 15.
1S92 for NO:; July 6.1993 for lead
nonattainment areas designated January
6,1992: June 30,1992 for PM-10
r.or.attainment areas; November 15.1992
for ozone nonattainment areas and
transport regions; November 15.1993 for
CO nonattainment areas with a design
value of 12.7 ppm or less; and November
15.1992 for CO nonattainment areas
with a design value above 12.7 ppm. For
future designations. NSR SIP submittals
are due within 18 months from
redesignation of all SOj. NO-. PM-10
and lead nonattainment areas, and
within 2 years of redesignation for
ozone and many CO nonattainment
areas (within 3 years for CO
nonattainment areas with design values
less than 12.7 ppm).
Note also that.these changes apply
not only in designated nonattainment
areas, but in ozone transport regions.
certain tribal lands that are either in
nonattainment areas or ozone transport
regions, and to specified sources in the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) area. The
EPA intends to amend its existing NSR .
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166,
5121, and 52.24) to reflect the changes
mandated by the 1990 CAAA. Certain
changes to the NSR requirements of the
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program, part C, title I, will be
addressed in a separate EPA proceeding
and are not addressed in this preamble.
The timeframe. or scope, of this
General Preamble covers the 6-year
period following enactment The SIP
submittals for all affected areas are
required to be developed, submitted,
and approved by EPA within this time
period. Complete plan submittals are
required for certain PM-10 areas within
1 year of enactment. For ozone and CO
nonattainment areas, regulations.
emission inventories, ccntrol-rr.easure
strategies, and attainment
demonstrations are due at varying dates
frcrn 6 months to 5 years after
enactment. Generally, the guidance
provided this document is intended to
guide nonattainment SIP development
until further statutory requirement are
issued or EPA determines that revisions
are appropriate.
The scope of this General Preamble is
limited regarding several new provisions
of the 1990 CAAA concerning emissions
of the oxides of nitrogen (NO^).
Spec:fically. the Genera! Preamble does
r.ct include a discussion of the new NO,
provisions with respect to the following
topics: reasonably available central
technology, new source review,
interaction of titles I ar.d IV. ozone
transport region, section 185B report.
and section 132(f). However, EPA
recongizes the importance of providing
timely guidance to the states to help
assure the development arid
implementation of cost-effective control
measures to reduce ozone levels.
Accordingly. EPA will issue guidance as
soon as possible, as in supplements to
the General Preamble.
Six years is a significant milestone in
the 1990 CAAA. Within 6 years of
enactment, ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and above must
achieve a 15 percent reduction in
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, and moderate areas rr-.ust
attain the NAAQS. In addition.
moderate CO nonattainaent areas must
also attain the NAAQS by December 31.
1995. Sulfur dioxide. PM-10, l«:ad. and
NO? nonattainment areas must also
meet significant statutory milestones
within the 6-year period.
The appropriate SIP components
necessary to meet these goals by the
sixth year and to provide adequate
plans (due within the first 6 years) for
attaining the NAAQS by the appropriate
dates beyond the sixth year are covered
in this General Preamble. To some
extent this preamble also applies to the
period beyond 6 years. For exa—ple, it
includes much of the guidance
applicable to areas designated
nonattainment for SOi, PM-10, and lead
beyond the 6-year period. Other
guidance that covers the period beyond
6 years from enactment demonstrating
attainment of milestones or NAAQS and
future planning for cities with the most
significant air pollution problems, will
be covered in future supplements to this
General Preamble, as necessary.
This preamble is organized to meet
the needs of individuals wanting either -.
an overview of EPA's preliminary
interpretation of the various previsions
of title I of the 1990 CAAA or a detailed
discussion of SIP submittal requirements
for a specific NAAQS ncnatiainrnent
classification. An area with a higher
nonattainrr.er.t classification (i.e., it
more greatly exceeds a NAAQS than do
areas with lower nonattainmer.1.
classifications for the same N.---.QS)
generally must adopt all measures
required of areas with lowe:
nonattainment classificstiors. aicng
with specific measures requ.rsc for the
higher classification. Therefore, the
general introductory materid =.'. the
beginning of the preamble ar.d U-.e
material describing SIP req^i.".~enis for
al! those levels of NAAQS'
nonattainment equal to c: lower than
the classification promulgated fcr a
particular nonattainrr.er.t ares, are
"applicable to the area.
The General Preamble includss
citations to its own sections ar.d to
sections of various Act (or CAAA)
versions. Citations usually co-ply with
the following conventions:
1. General Preamble sections begin
with a roman numeral.
2. The Act is referenced by section |
by title (I-V), part (A-D of title 1. A-C
title III).
Z. Earlier versions of the A.ct and the
1990 (or earlier) CAAA are identified by
date or other specific reference.
i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13501
.
, A glossary listing the various
acronyms used in this document is in
appendix A. The bibliography for and
list of cited references in this preamble
, is in appendix B.
II. Background
A. History
The long history of the Clean Air Act
(Act) extends back before 1970. A
summary of significant events occurring
during its development is given in 52 FR
45044 (November 24.1987}.
That summary was part of EPA's
proposed Post-1987 Ozone and CO
Policy, which focused on requirements
for areas that failed to attain the
NAAQS by the statutory deadline of
December 31.1987. These proposed
requirements included correcting certain
SIP deficiencies and fully implementing
the 1982 SIP's, adopting enhanced
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs, and submitting revised SIP's
that demonstrated attainment over an
expanded planning area as
expeditiously as practicable by
achieving at least a 3 percent per year
reduction in the base year emissions.
On May 28,1988 (in accordance with
section 110(a)(2)(H)),"EPA began issuing
notices of SIP inadequacy (SIP calls)
contained in letters to the Governors of
States with areas that failed to atfain -
the ozone and CO standards or that
contributed to violations of the
standards (see 53 FR 34500 (September
7.1988]). These letters called on States
to complete "Phase I" of their SIP call
response. Under that phase, the States
were to correct the SIP where it failed to
meet EPA's existing part D guidance
relating to control of VOC and CO
emissions from stationary sources.
satisfy unimplemented SIP commitments
by adopting any missing control
measures, and begin updating the base
year emissions inventory for future
attainment plans.
Beyond the basic attainment planning
requirements discussed in the proposed
Post-1987 Ozone and CO Policy, the 1977
CAAA included preconstruction
permitting requirements for major new
and modified sources under two
programs, PSD and nonattainment NSR
(respectively, parts C and D of title I). In
nonattainment areas, new or modified
sources as part of a preconstruction
review process must (among other
things): Obtain emissions offsets, and
adopt control technology meeting a
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
standard. In 1980, EPA adopted new
final regulations detailing SEP
requirements to implement the NSR
Programs of parts C and D (see 45 FR
52676]. The preamble to these
regulations should be consulted for an
in-cepth discussion of the history of the
NSR provisions of title I as well as a
detailed explanation of program
requirements prior to the 1990 CAAA.
B. Overview of Title I of 19SQ CAAA
One of the main goals of the 1990
CAAA was to overhaul Act provisions
that concerned planning for NAAQS
attainment Although one of the chief
motivations for amending the Act was
the failure of areas to attain the ozone
and CO standards, the process of
amending the statute provided an
opportunity to address on a
comprehensive basis the defects in •
existing law. . •
Title I of the CAAA (Provisions for
Attainment and Maintenance of
NAAQS) for the most part amends and
supplements tide I of the Act (Air
Pollution Prevention and Control).1 In
light of the massive sweep and
complexity of title I (1990 CAAA), the
reader may find it helpful to view the
Title as a collection of six sets of
requirements. The following discussion
provides a brief overview of these six
" sets:
1. Designations/Classifications
This set of requirements amends
section 107 and the classification
provisions in part D (Plan Requirements
for Attainment) of the Act. For instance,
section 181 addresses ozone
classifications and section 186
addresses^CO classifications. Specific
requirements, by classification, are
discussed in section ni.A. and section
1ILB. of this notice.
2. Pollutant-specific requirements
Pollutant-specific requirements for
designated ozone: CO; PM-10; and SO?.
NCb. sr.d lead nonattainment areas are
found in part D at subparts 2, 3, 4. and 5.
respectively. Where a conflict exists, the
pollutant-specific requirements override
the new-source permit requirements cf
section 173.
3. General Requirements
The revised general requirements for
all plans regardless of the attainment
demonstration required appear eariy in
tide I of the CAAA.
Note: The amendments modify numerous
sections of the Act, Including sections 107.
710, acd 1/1 through 179. These general
requirements include procedures for EPA
review of SIP submittab (new Act section
llOfx)): action on SIP revisions (section
1 The CAAA «lio amend other tides: for exaaple.
new section 301 of the Ac! adds proMjiorj
regarding treatment of Indian tribes to ritJe ffl of the
Act.
110(1)) and B revised list of requirements for
all plans (section 110(a}(2)).
4. Part D. subpart 1
This set includes general requirements
for all designated nonattainment areas.
especially those designated under new
and revised NAAQS. In Subpart 1.
Congress repealed the 1987 attainment
deadlines for ozone and CO. In some
cases, the pollutant-specific
requirements contained in subparts 2-5
of part D override subpart 1's general
provisions. Subpart 1 also includes a
process governing sanctions for State
failure to meet statutory requirements.
Beyond that, it includes revised new-
source permit requirements (section
172(c)(5) and section 173).
5. Miscellaneous
Other provisions of the Act address a
variety of topics. Most of these
provisions appear toward the end of
title I of the CAAA. For example, new
Act section 193 (technically in a new
subpart 6 of part D) sets forth a
"General Savings Clause" governing
retention of certain types of previously
enacted or mandated requirements. The
new Act section 301(d) contains
provisions related to Indian tribes. The
miscellaneous provisions also include
guidance on planning and
transportation-related provisions.
6. Relationship Between Titles 1 and H of
1990 CAAA
Title I generally addresses the
nonattainrceat SIP requirements and
title n deals with control of mobile
source emissions. While title II
principally deals with Federally
implemented programs [e.g.. Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program
fFMVCP}]. requirements related to SIP's.
such as fuels programs and Reid vapor
pressure (RVP). are also contained LI
the title. Therefore, guidance on
implementing these programs will also
be provided in this document.
HI. SIP requirements
A. Ozone
1. General
(a) Classifications. New subpart 2 of
part D (section 181) sets a new
classification structure for ozone
nonattainment areas based on the
severity of the nonattainment problem.
For each area classified under this
section, the attainment date shall be as
expeditious as practicable but no later
than the date in the following table. The
classification scheme is as follows:
-------
13502 Federal Register /Vol. 57; No. 74./ Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed; Rules
fc-
fi
I
Area
classification
Mflrfif^'
Moderate :
-StfifXrt,
S"W1 . '
E^wn^ ' * '
Design value.
ppm
0.121 up to
(but not
Including) .
0.138.
0.138 up to
.. (but not
'* inducing)
"0,160.'. '
0.160 up to .
' (but not ..
• -Including) . :
1 0.180. • .-•
0.180 up to .-.•:
.(butnot
" hdudincj "
"0.280. :
0.280 and
• -above. . .
Primary
• standard
attainment
date
November 15,
1993. .
November 15.
1996. .
*• . -' ' •
November 15.
..1999. '- -.'•
November 15,
: 2005.-;.
November 15, -
2010.
Additionally, a severe area with a 1986
to 1988 ozone design value of 0.190 up
to, but not including, 0.280 parts per
million (ppm) has 17 years (until " •
November 15, 2007) to attain the
NAAQS. . :• - " • : •"• ' '
The designation/classification process
for ozone was described in 58 FR 56694
(November 6,1991). •'. --' . . . '
.. (b) Special classifications. In addition
to the five air quality-based ;..: • • -_-
classifications, some nonattainment • • -
areas do not fit into the classification
scheme of section 181(a). The EPA has .
classified these areas as transitional, .
subnarginal, or areas with incomplete
data. Section ffl.A of this preamble
describes the requirements for all areas
(marginal to extreme and the special
classifications) in much the same way
as they are described in section 182,
(c) Planning. As provided in subpart 2,
emssion inventories, provisions for
Stage II gasoline vapor recovery, motor
vehicle I/M, NSR, stationary-source
reasonably available control technology
(RACT), and certain other planning or
control measures are required within 2
years after enactment (November 15,
1992) for most of the previously and
newly designated nonattainment areas.
For a very few nonattainment areas,
final determination of the nonattainment
area boundries may not occur until only
a few months before several major rules
(e.g.. Stage II, I/M, transportation
control measures (TCM*s). NSR, RACT)
and the emission inventory must be
submitted. These nonattainment areas
should not delay their adoption of rules
or preparation of inventories while the
boundary determinations are
proceeding. Rather, these areas should
be prepared to readily adopt rules and
complete their emission inventories for
the broadest area under consideration .
should EPA conclude that such broader
area is appropriate. The 1990 CAAA •
require all submittals due within 2 years
(November 15,1992) to address the
entire nonattainment area: these
submittals can not be delayed due to the
final boundaries rulemaking under
section 107(d). / . .".-.• - . •
(d) Enforceability. The EPA has
recently developed new model RACT
rules (which supersede the previously
issued model rules) for controlling VOC
emissions from source categories * .
covered by the'Group I, II, and ffl '.
control technique guidelines (CTG's). r '
These model rules are intended to be -.',
used by areas subject to RACT -fix-up" -
requirements in correcting existing
RACT rules, as required by section
182(a) (see section HI.A.2, marginal
areas below), and by areas subject to -,
RACT "catch up" requirements that are
required to apply RACT measures in
accordance with section 182(b)(2) of the
Act (see section HLA.3, moderate areas
below). The model RACT rules include
provisions for compliance certification,
recordkeeping. reporting, monitoring.
and lest methods and procedures to
enable EPA and the States to determine
compliance with the requirements of the .
regulations. For a number of source
categories, these compliance provisions
have been added to the model RACT
rules to improve enforceability because
the CTG's and previous guidance for
these sources did not include such
requirements. .
In general, for a SIP regulation to be
enforceable, it must clearly spell out
which sources or source types are
subject to its requirements ar.d what its
requirements (work practices, emission
limits, etc.) are. The regulation also
needs to specify the time frames within
which these requirements must be net,
and must definitively state
recordkseping and monitoring
requirements appropriate to the type of
sources being regulated. The
recordkeeping and monitoring -
requirements must be sufficient to allow
determinations on a continuing basis
whether sources are complying. An
enforceable regulation must also contain
test procedures in order to determine
whether sources are in compliance.
(e] Structure of requirements, fcr
areas classified marginal to extreme,
virtually all requirements are additive
(e.g., a moderate area has to meet all
marginal and moderate requirements,
unless otherwise specified]. The text
below presents the requirements in the
first applicable classification, then
repeated only if the requirements are
different for a higher classification.
2. Marginal Areas
(a) Emission inventory. Se« appendix ~
B for pertinent guidance on emissions
inventory requirements.". ..>-.- ,
(1) Schedule. Section 182(a){l) : '
requires all nonattainment areas to -
submit a final, comprehensive, accurate.
and current inventory of actual ozone
season, weekday emissions from all
sources within 2 years of enactment
-(November 15.1992).The EPA requests
.that the.draft inventory be submitted .
between January 1 and May 1,1992 in
order to facilitate early review and
allow the submittal.of an acceptable
inventory in November 1992. -_ -"
(2) Requirement. This initial •" --•
inventory Is for calendar year 1990 and
is denoted as the base year inventory. It
includes both anthropogenic and
biogenic sources of VOC, NOx and CO-
The inventory is to address"tictual VOC,
NOx, and CO emissions for the area
during the peak ozone seasd a, which is
generally the summer "months. AH
stationary point sources and area
sources, as well as highway and
nonhighway mobile sources within the
.nonattainment area, stationary sources
with emissions of 100 tons o:r greater per
year within a 25-mile wide buffer of the
designated nonattainment aj-ea, and an*:
OCS sources are to be included in the
compilation. Including sources within a
25-mile buffer is necessary to ensure
that all sources capable of affecting air
qualiry within the nonattaincnerit area
are adequately accounted fcr Li
modeling demonstrations aid strategy
development. For nonattakunent areas
that are required to do photocherJcal
grid modeling pursuant to section 182(c]
(2) (A) (see sections IDA.4.e. serious
areas, and IQ.A.9, multi-Stale areas), the
modeling domain will determine the
appropriate size of the area that must be
inventoried for modeling purposes.
As one of the first steps in developing
the base year inventory, the Slates are
to prepare an inventory preparation plan
(IPP), which is due in final farm to EPA
by October 1,1991. The I?? should
briefly state how the State intends to
develop, document, and submit its
inventory. Another early step is the
inventory development process is
preparation of the point source portion
of the base year inventory. Guidance for
preparing emission inventories was
issued in May 1991 ("Procedures for the
• Preparation of Emission Iiw enterics for
Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of
Ozone, Volume 1"). Because the point
source portion of this guidance is
essentially the same as it was for the
post-1987 SIFs, States should have
' already begun gathering data on those
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 / Thursday.' April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13503
sources. States are encouraged to .submit
the point source portion of the inventory
to EPA as early as January 1.1992." "•'-"•
.' States that have fully completed .-. " -
portions of their base year inventories' -
for 1987.1988. or'l989 may request EPA •
. approval to update these portions^ • .'" { ""-
Otherwise, States are required toT/! -.;'. ,.
prepare a completely new inventory',;'."7:
. with'a 1990 base year. The EPA ^V.v ;::f'- V.;
/ guidancejbnthe'procedufe to request an'/
" update was 'provided in May i991-'f-;'"\:'T?;
-_• f Trocedufes for the Preparation"pf v:':" •"• -
•/Emission Inventories for Carbon •";-';-"'-}">
•" Monoxide' and Precursors of Ozone! •. ''-•
' Volumerj.; ].:-:^-'-; r^'-::'^'•'•'- - • '.-
. .In July 1991, EPA issued an updated .
. version of MOBILE4, its mobile source - -
•emissions estimation model The
updated version MOBEE4.1, replaces
and supersedes MOBILE4. States, with • •
the exception of California,'are required '
.. to use MOBILE4.1 in determining - •'
highway mobile source emissions for all '
of their base year emission inventories '•
under the CAAA. California will consult'
" "with the EPA Region IX Office in .. - .
determining the appropriate mobile . -:•
. source model to use. If other States • •".•"-•-
." adopt California tailpipe standards, they
should consult with their EPA Regional
. Office to determine the appropriate -
mobile model because MOBILE4.1 -
would not correctly reflect emissions
from these States in the future.'
However, for the base year inventory.
and until new California cars are
introduced into an area, MOBILE4.1
should be used. The majority of the
enhancements in the revised model are
internal to the model and do not require
the States to make any special
procedural adjustments when running
MOBILE4.1. The EPA's "Emission
Inventory Requirements for Ozone State
Implementation Plans," should be
referred to for more information. The
States will also be required to develop
new 1990 base year inventories for
highway mobile sources to account for
fleet turnover, newly opened-to-traffic
highway sections resulting in changes in
• vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and VMT
. patterns, and changes in speed limits.
States are to follow new guidance for
estimating VMT to be published in the
- Federal Register notice expected to be
issued in (QMS to fill in].
N'ew methodologies have been
. developed to calculate emissions from
- - certain area 'of off-highway mobile
source categories. The categories are
solvent uses, railroads, and aircraft. Tne
emission factors for nonroad engines
,.s. and vehicles have not yet been changed.
•~r .-but may be revised as the result of a
j-study required by the 1990 CAAA. -.
X Therefore, for these categories, new • •
emission estimates must be developed -
by the Slates using the new • ' • .. •• •
methodologies. The new methodologies
for calculating emissions for solvent use '-.
are contained in the May 1991 document
"Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Carbon : • : - •
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. •- •
Volume.!"; and for railroads' and aircraft:
.in the Jiily 1991 .final draft chapters of ; -
the document "Procedures for the •;•-. •' >'-. •
Preparation'of Emission Inventories for^
Carbon Monoxide" arid Precursors of ":" •-
'pzonVVolumyrV.7-.The States will be'. '•-
required to use these methods when -f'-~---
preparing the area and off-highway" •]•-'-
mobile source portions of their emission •
inventories.'- -:~-.-'~ ,-.'•: . . •-. :
Tne EPA document-"Procedures for ..-
'Estimating and Applying Rule ••• •
Effectiveness in Post-1987 Base Year. • - •
Emission Inventories for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation -
Plans." (June 1989) should be consulted "• -
for information on how to consider rule -'.-
effectiveness when calculating • •
emissions from stationary sources. One .
hundred percent rule effectiveness is the
ability of a regulatory program to • -.-'.•
achieve all the emission reductions that
could be achieved by full compliance • -••
with the applicable regulations at all
sources at all times. For the purpose of
base year inventories under the CAA. .
EPA will require the use of an 80-
percent-effectiveness default value - •
except as follows. The States are
encouraged to derive local category-
specific rule effectiveness factors,
consistent with the tests and protocol
prescribed in the March 31.1983
memorandum from John S. Seitz.
Director, Stationary Source Compliance
Division, to Regional Air Division
Directors regarding "Implementation of
Ruie Effectiveness Studies," or complete
the questionnaire procedure for all of
their source categories as prescribed in
"Procedures for Estimating and
Applying Rule Effectiveness in Pcst-1987
Base'Year Emission Inventories for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide State
Implementation Plans." Finally, the
reader should refer to section HLA.9 on
multi-State area requirements for
additional information related to base
- year inventories. •
By meeting the specific inventory
requirements discussed above, the State
will also satisfy the general inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3J.
(3) Other uses. Many other inventories
can be derived from the base year
inventory. For example, areas may use
their base year inventory as part of ' .
statewide inventories for purposes of
regional modeling in transport areas.
•• The base year inventory also plays an •.
important role in modeling - '•• - ••
demonstrations for areas classified as
moderate and abbve'dutside transport
regions. Guidance has been developed
to aid States in preparing emission
inventories for photochemical grid
modeling (for serious and above "areas
and multi-State moderate areas]':- .:.
("Procedures for the Preparation of" •
.Emission Inventories for Carbon," <:•;-••". -'.
Monoxide and Precursors 'of Ozone." Vol.-
••n,"Mayi99i.:MyAM_Applications- -
Guidance".and !fUseYis''Guide For the
Urban Airshed Model:V6Li^ The :;'-
reader should also'refer to' the ? "-'• •'•'•-
discussion of attainment demonstration -
requirements for serious areas (section
IILA.4.(e)). Guidance on emission'
inventory preparation for'EKMA {for
nonmulti-State moderate areas] is ' .
described in "Procedures for Preparation
of Emission Inventories" for'Carbon '
Monoxide and Precursors' of Ozone, •
Volume I" May 1991.S^*=~T '•'.' -
(b] RACT corrections..';Section'-'."_"
182(a](2)(AJ requires ozone '•'''-''.'
. nqnattainment areas to submit within 6 -
months of classification all rules and
corrections to existing VOC RACT rules
that were required under the RACT.
. provision, section 172(b](3) of the old
- law (and related guidancej.The EPA
published a Federal Register (56 FR
• 54554) notice describing this provision •
and the success of States in meeting the
correction deadline, and the readers
should refer to that notice. As explained
in that notice, areas that were
designated nonattainment under section
107 just prior to enactment of the 1990
CAAA are the only areas affected by
this requirement because they are the
only areas that were then subject to the
RACT requirements of section 172(b].
These areas were again designated
attainment on the date of enactment of
the 19SO CAAA. and were then
classified under section I81(a)(lj by
operation of law. Thus, those areas were
required to submit their RACT "flx-ups"
as a SIP revision by May 15,1991.
Newly designated nonattainment
areas are not subject to the RACT "flx-
ups" required by section 182(a)(2](A)
because they were not subject to section
" 172(b] of the old law. This is the case
even if the Slate has already adopted
rules for the area as part of statewide
RACT for purposes other than meeting
pre-1990 Act section 172(b). For
nonatlainment areas that will be
expanded to contain portions that were
not designated nonattainment prior to
enactment, the RACT corrections are
due in 6 months (by May 15,1991] only
for the original nonattainment area.
However, for moderate areas, the newly
• designated portions of a honattairunent
-------
il
Jl
13504
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
d
I
i
area will be subject to the RACT "catch-
ups." As explained below in section
ELA.3., each moderate nonattainment
area (including the newly designated
portion] is subject to the RACT "catch-
' up" requirements of section 182(b}(2),
which provide for SIP submittals by
November 15,1992. The RACT "fix-ups"
refer to corrections States are required
to make to RACT rules that are already
in force and to adoption by States of
rules that were required by pre-1990 Act
section 172(b) to be in force. The RACT
"catch-up" refers to the application of
RACT for all applicable sources listed in
section 182(b](2), regardless of what was
previously required. For purposes of the
RACT "fix-ups" requirement, areas that
were treated as rural nonattainment
areas under EPA policies implementing
the pre-amended Act must submit
corrections only for previously required
rules (Group I and D CTG sources with
maximum theoretical VOC emissions
greater than 100 tons per year). Other
rules (Group in CTG's and non-CTG
rules) will be due by November 15,1992
as part of the catch-up for those
previously designated rural
nonattainment areas that are classified
as moderate or above upon enactment
and are not otherwise designated as
rural transport areas under the new Act.
(1) Definition of corrections. A
' deficiency, is any rule, or in some cases
a portion of a'rule.lhat is less stringent
than RACT as that requirement was •
interpreted in pre-1990 Act EPA
guidance (issued under sections 108 and
172(b) of the-old law). The EPA provided
a list of deficiencies for each area as
part of the ozone SIP call letters to each
State (May-June 1988 and November
1S69, notification published 53 FR 34500,
September 7,1988 and 55 FR 30S73, July
30,1S90). The EPA also provided States
with existing guidance documents and
asked them to raview rules
independently to determine consistency
with this guidance.
(2} Consequences of failure to make
corrections. Sections 179 (a) and (b) and
110(m) provides for the imposition of
sanctions and section 110(c) provides for
promulgation of a FIF if EPA finds that a
State failed to make a required
submittal. Under section 179(a), EPA
must impose at least one of the two
mandatory sanctions listed in section
179(b) 18 months after EPA makes such
a finding, unless EPA finds that the
Slate has made a complete submittal in
the interim to correct the rules. The
second of the two sanctions must be
imposed if the deficiency has not beer.
corrected 6 months after the first
sanction is imposed. Section,110(m) also
includes previsions on sanctions. The
EPA will be discussing those provisions
in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
Refer to section FV.B. for more
discussion on sanctions. Under section :
110(c). EPA also must promulgate a FIP
no later than 2 yean after finding a
failure to submit
On October 22,1991, EPA published a
notice (56 FR 54554) finding that nine
States and the District of Columbia
failed to make a RACT fix-up submittal
required under section 182(a)(2)(A). The '
EPA also plans to publish a set of model
Federal VOC regulations. The EPA will
use these model regulations as a starting
point for Federal promulgation of -
regulations under section 110(c) as
necessary, and will provide an
opportunity for comment at that time. To
the extent practicable. EPA will
formulate any Federal regulations on the
model regulations. Federal regulations
will be promulgated if the States do not
correct the regulations before the end of
the 2-year period commencing from the
finding.
The EPA will also use the model
regulations as the basis for Federal
regulations to apply where EPA
disapproves any regulation that has
been submitted. Finally, EPA expects
States may want to use the model rules '
as a guideline for develo'ping acceptable
Stale'rules.
(c) 1/M Corrections. Section
182(a)(2)(B) requires States that contain
marginal ozone nonattainmer.t areas
with existing I/M programs, or'that were
required to include I/M programs in
their SIP's by the .pre-1990 Act, to submit
to EPA immediately upon (1990 CAAA)
enactment of any revisions necessary to
provide for a'program no less stringent
than that required prior to enactment cr
committed to in the SIP in effect at
enactment, whichever is more stringent.
The section also requires EPA to review,
revise, update, and republish in the
Federal Register within 1 year of
enactment, the guidance for I/M
programs required by the Act, taking
ir.'.o consideration the Administrator's
ir.vsstigationB and audits of such
programs. In short ozone nonattainment
areas must maintain existing 1/M
programs and must make corrections to
these programs to meet existing I/M
policy; when updated policy is
published, these areas must submit
revisions to address any new guidance.
More specifically, section 182(a)(2](B)
requires States to meet the basic 1/M
performance standard that has been in
effect since 1977. Tnis standard is based
on a "model" program design consisting
of a centralized program that annually
tests tailpipe emissions on all light-duty
vehicles, using emission standards for
1981 and later model vehicle;! of 12
percent CO and 220 parts per million
hydrocarbons (HC) and a 20 percent
stringency for pre-1981 vehicles. A
compliance rate of 100 percent and a
waiver rate of 0 percent are assumed.
States must demonstrate an ('.mission
reduction for the I/M program included
in the SIP that is at least as great as that
produced by the "model" basic program
(or the program already included in the
SIP. whichever is greater), uaing the
most current available version of EPA's
mobile source emission model The I/M
programs are required in the urbanized
portions, as defined by the Bureau of the
Census m 1980, of the marginal •
nonattainment area. - - '
The EPA expects to issue the policy
for I/M programs in the near future.
When published, the policy will state
the date when such programs are to be
implemented. The EPA intends that the
policy will allow all areas ample time
after publication of the policy to adopt
and submit basic or enhanced I/M
programs and/or I/M corrections as
referenced in section 182(a)(2)(B). States
. that have both basic and enhanced I/M
programs may opt to implement
enhanced programs in all affected
urbanized areas. Slates which are'only '- ..
'required to implement basic programs '
(under section 182(a)(2)(B) cr the
requirements for moderate crzcne
nonattainment area's and certain CO
nonattainment areas, as discussed later
.in this notice) must submit SIP revisions
for I/M programs addressin.j'any
revised policy. The guidance will
address the elements of the SI? revision.
As mandated by section IU2(r:]. the
Administrator will promulgate
regulations requiring manufacturers to
-install diagnostic systems oa all new
light-duty vehicles and light^ury trucks.
The purpose of these systems is to
identify and track emission-reia'.ed
systems deterioration or malfunction.
According to section 202(m](3), within 2
years of EPA's promulgate,; regulations
requiring States to do so, all Sta'.es with
I/M programs must amend their SIP to
provide for inspection of these cr.boarc
diagnostics systems. The EPA will issue
revised I/M guidance which addresses
onboard diagnostic inspect ons.
(dj Periodic inventory. Section
132(a)(3)(A) requires the States tc
submit periodic inventories starting the
third year after submission of the base
year inventorv required by section
182(a)(l) (i.e/November 15,1995) and
every 3 years thereafter until the area
redesignated to attainment However,
complete actual inventories will be used
lo demonstrate whether ornot the
milestone required in section 182Jg) has
-------
.Federal Register / VoL 57,.No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13505
I
If..
8-
been achieved These inventories must •
be submitted within the prescribed •
period following the milestone date. The
EPA is recommending that States * =::
synchronize their schedules for - ,- ••
developing the periodic inventories so. .
that the second periodic inventory (the . .
third inventory overall), which would be
due in 1998, will actually be submitted.- r
early in 1997 (by February 13,1997) and
will address emissions in. 1996. In this .- •_
way, the' milestone demonstration ':.-..; • •
(required undersection 182(g)) that is —-'
due for serious and above areas in early •
1997-can be based on the periodic.'--: T"-":
inventory developed by the States." ". -.^
Future periodic inventories.then would•'.•-.
also coincide with the subsequent . .- - - ~
milestone demonstrations rather than , .
the later dates associated with the -•••-.._;_
-periodic inventory requirement The ......:'
EPA will be issuing guidance on the -; .
synchronization of the periodic . •
• inventory with the milestone compliance
. deadlines in the hear future. ." ••' '-;".".
The first periodic inventory due no .. .
later than November 15,1995 covers "
actual emissions for the 1993 time
period. The'States will be involved uv..
significant planning activities during this
time. The EPA will, in the future, provide
guidance on how to integrate these
emission inventory and planning
activities. There could be a significant
resource and effort savings effect to
States that elect to accelerate the
second periodic inventory so that it can
also be used to demonstrate milestone
attainment Otherwise at least one
additional emission inventory would be
required by 1998. More information on
these assessments and periodic
inventories will be provided to States in
guidance on emission tracking to be
completed shortly.
The periodic inventory shall meet the
same requirements as the base year
inventory. This periodic inventory shall
be based on actual emissions and shall
cover VOC, NO,, and CO emission
sources. Like the base year inventory,
the periodic inventory shall be based on
peak ozone season temperatures.
industrial activity, etc. Additional
guidance is available in the "Procedures
for the Preparation of Emission
Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and
Precursors of Ozone, Volume L" May
1991.
By meeting the specific periodic
inventory requirements discussed
above. States will also satisfy the
general periodic inventory requirements
of section 172(c)(3), . •
(e) Emissions statements. Section
l&2(a)(3)(B) requires States to submit a
' SIP revision by November 15,1992 that '
•: requires the submission of annual
£_• statements from owners or operators of
each stationary source of NO, and VOC
showing the actual emissions of NO* or
VOC. The first statements are due by
November 15,1993, and should show -'•
emissions during calendar year 1992. ,
Each statement shall contain a •
certification that the information . -
contained in the statement is accurate to
the best knowledge of the Individual; • -
certifying the statement The EPA will -
.issue additional guidance on the form :-- •;.
and content of the statement • ~ V" -~ "•; •
.-States may waive the requirement for v
emissions statements for classes or >.-"'-'.
• categories of sources that emit less than-'
25 tons per "year of NO, or VOC if the: *•=' -
class or category is included in the'base '
year and periodic inventories, and •""•••:
emissions are calculated using emission
factors established by EPA (such as
those found in EPA'publication AP-42)
or other methods acceptable to EPA. :'
"The EPA believes that the emission •
: statement can aid in the development of
the periodic'emissipn inventory, serve -'
• as the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) •'• •
update, and track progress for point
sources greater than 25 tons/year."
(f) NSR. The statutory NSR permit '
requirements for marginal ozone - •
nonattainm'ent area's are generally - • - •
contained in the Act under section
172(c)(5), revised section 173, and in
newly enacted subp'art 2 of part D.
These are the minimum requirements
that States must include in an '
approvable implementation plan. A
discussion of general NSR permit
requirements is contained in section
ELG. of this preamble. Section
182(a](2](C) requires that States adopt
and submit revised NSR regulations for
all ozone nonattainiment areas
classified as marginal or above •which
incorporate the new provisions of the '
1990 CAA, and correct existing
regulations to incorporate all NSR
provisions in effect immediately before
the date of enactment.
(1) Major stationary source. For ozone
nor,attainment areas classified as
marginal areas, the term "major
stationary source" means any stationary
source that emits or has the potential to
emit 100 tons per year or more (see
discussion in section II1.A.9). Lower size
thresholds apply to other area
classifications and the VOC, to ozone
transport areas.
(2) Offset ratios. For the purpose of
satisfying the emissions offset reduction
. requirements of section 173(a)(l)(A), the
emissions offset ratio is the ratio of total
actual emissions reductions to total
allowable emissions increases of such
pollutant from the new source. For •
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
marginal areas, the emissions offset
ratio is at least 1.1 to 1. As per section
173{c)(l). the new or modified source
may obtain offsets from the same source
or other sources in the same
nonattainment area, and In some cases
from another nonattainment area if the
other area has equal or higher - -
nonattainiment classification, and the . •
emissions from the other area contribute
to a violation of the ambient standard in
the area where the new or modified . • -
source is locating. In addition.'prior to
permit issuance under section 173, the
nonattainiment plan provisions must .,
demonstrate reasonable further progress
(RFP) by requiring sufficient emission .
• reductions to offset emissions increases
from new or modified small (nonmajor)
sources in the area. "•'.-•"• ~-'_ ':'•'' •. •
(g) Rural transport area's. If an area
meets the requirements discussed below
and is treated by the Administrator as a
rural transport area (RTA) as". • -".
determined using procedures consistent
with the EPA guidance "Criteria for .. .
Assessing'the Role of Transport of -
Ozone/Precursors in Ozone -"•--'
Nonattainment Areas," the SIP for such
area need only meet those section 182
plan and submission requirements,
including NSR provisions, that apply to
marginal areas. It should be noted that
the NSR requirements applicable in
ozone transport regions (e.g., offsets at a
1:1.15 ratio and major VOC source
threshold of 50 tons per year] supersede
the marginal requirements for RTA's. If.
however, a State's request that an ozone
nonattainment area be treated as an
RTA is denied, the area will be
classified according to its design value
and all section 182 requirements for that
classification will apply.
According to section 182(h). the
Administrator's decision to treat an
ozone nonattainment area as an RTA is
discretionary. This discretion cay be
exercised only if the Administrator fines
that the area neither borders cc rcr
contains any portion of an MSA-cr
CMS A and if VOC (and if EPA ceerr.s
them relevant, NOx] emissions
emanating from the area do not
significantly contribute to ozone
• concentrations measured within cr
outside of the area. This showing
depends upon whether ozone
concentrations within or downwind of
the area results from "overwhelming
transport" of ozone or precursors from
sources external to the area. Guidance
on determination of "overwhelming
transport" is found in "Criteria for
Assessing the Role of Transport of
Ozone/Precursors in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas." A finding of no
significant contribution will be based or.
analysis submitted to EPA by the
concerned State in advance of the
-------
13506
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1S92 / Proposed Rules
required SIP. These results must
reasonably implicate an upwind area as
the source of the measured ozone
concentrations. Also, the area must
demonstrate that its emissions are not
causing a nonattainment problem in its
downwind area.
Any RTA that fails to meet the
marginal area attainment deadlines is
subject to bump-up to the appropriate
higher nonattainment status (discussed
at section HLAJL(i) of this document).
However, if the area still qualifies as an
RTA, although the area will be subject
to the attainment date for the higher
classification, it remains subject only to
the submittal and implementation
requirements for marginal areas. If it is
found that the area no longer qualifies
as an RTA, the area will be treated as
the higher classified area for SIP
requirements as well.
State plans for RTA's located within
the interstate ozone transport regions
established under section 184 must meet
applicable provisions required by
section 184 (b) and (c). In particular,
provisions of section 184(b)(l)(B)
requiring implementation of RACT with
respect to all sources of VOC covered
by a CTG, and the section 184(b}(2)
requirements concerning
implementation of vehicle refueling
controls identified by. the Administrator,
must be implemented in a State plan
covering an RTA. In addition, an RTA
SIP must be revised to include whatever
additional control measures are
recommended under section 183(c) and
•whatever best available air quality
monitoring and modeling techniques are
identified under section 184(d). These
plan revisions must be approved by the
Administrator,
(h) Reformulatedgcsoh'ns "opt-in."
The Governor of any State with a
marginal, moderate, serious, or severe - •
ozone nonattainment area may apply to
the Administrator to opt-in to the
reformulated gasoline program
established under section 211(k). Refer
to section UI.A.4.(o) for nore discussion
of the program requirements. • .
(i) Bump-up provisions. Although the
primary focus of this General Preamble
Is on the criteria EPA will use in
determining the adequacy of the many
SIP submittals that are required under
the 1990 CAAA, it is useful to describe
the amended Act provisions regarding
failures to attain or to make emission
reduction milestones. The EPA believes
• that certain areas (in particular.
marginal ozone areas) face some
important issues related to the
consequences of failures to attain by the
applicable deadlines. The following
discussion describes the basic
requirements and procedures for
determining and responding to failures
to attain to make adequate progress and
the specific implications for marginal
ozone areas.
(1) Failure to attain. Section 181(b)(2)
of the Act requires a marginal
moderate, or serious ozone
nonattainment area to be reclassiSed to
the higher of the next higher
classification, or the classification
associated with the area's design value
at the time EPA determines that the area
failed to meet the standard by the
applicable attainment date. The EPA
uses the term "bump-up" to describe this
^classification process. An area cannot
be bumped up to the extreme
classification under this provision.
The EPA must determine within 6
months after the attainment date
whether an area has attained. In making
this determination, EPA will use the
most recently available, quality-assured
air quality data covering the 3-year
period up to and including the
attainment date. For ozone, the average
number of exceedances per year shall
be used to determine whether the area
has attained. For marginal ozone .
nonattainment areas, this means that
the air quality data for the period 1991 to
1993 will be used to determine whether
the area has attained by November 15.
1993. (Areas that show attainment prior
to this period may be redesignated prior
to November 1993 in accordance with
section 107(d)(3).)
As provided in section 181(a)(5) for
ozone areas, up to two 1-year extensions
of the attainment date can be granted to
the State if the State has met att
applicable requirements, and if no more
than one exceedar.ce of the level of the
NAAQS has occurred at any monitor ir.
the year in which the area was to have
attained. Because EPA will be reviewing
available data to determine the
attainment status, the State should
subrr.it its application for this extension
as soon as the necessary air quality data
are available.
If'EPA determines that an area has
not attained. EPA will publish a notice,
and the area will be redassified by
operation of law. The Administrator
may adjust the submittal dates for the
requirements of the "new" classification
(to "assure consistency among the
required submissions" (section 132(i),
but the attainment date will be the date
originally specified for that
classification in Table 1 of section
181(a]. For example, a marginal area has
an attainment date of November 15,
1993. If the area does not attain by then,
the new attainment date will be
November 15,1996 (the "originial"
attainment date for moderate areas at
enactment) or, if its air quality would
make it a higher classification, the later
date associated with that classifr:ation.
States should be aware that if im area
voluntarily bumps up late in its
attainment period, the discretion
granted by section 182(b)(l) for the
Administrator to adjust schedules for
implementing SIP requirements
associated with the next higher
classification may be seriously limited.
In other words, areas that wait until the
end of their attainment period before
requesting to bump up after already
missing implementation requirements,
falling behind on their 15 percent RFP (if
applicable), and experiencing continuing
deterioration in air quality, are likery to
have insufficient time for implementing
the more stringent requirements of the
next higher classification. The EPA,
therefore, encourages any area that
believes that it will be unable to attain
by its applicable deadline, to voluntarily
bump-up early enough to maximize the
available time for implementing the
requirements of the next higher
nonattainment leveL Early bump-up will
help areas avoid sanctions and/or FTP
implementation that could result torn
failure to meet SIP subniittal or
implementation requirements.
Although section 182(a) specifically
excludes marginal areas from the
contingency requirements of section
172(c)(9), marginal areas should
carefully consider the benefits of
contingent or advanced adoption of
certain measures that could be
implemented quickly should ti.e area not
attain by the 1993 date. If a niJirginal
area fails to attain by November 15,
1993, it will become subject to the
requirements for moderate areas, in
particular the I/M. RACT, and, 15
percent reductions requirements. These
requirements would have to be me', and
the standard achieved by November 15,
1996, an extremely tight timerrarr.e for
these accomplishments if no prior
planning and adoption actions have
occurred. If the RACT rules cannot be
developed and implemented and the 15
percent requirement cannot te met by
November 15,1996, the area could miss
the attainment date for moderate areas
and would face the even more stringent
requirements for serious areets.
(2) Special issues for marginal crecs.
The retention of the moderate area
attainment date for a marginal area tha'.
has been bumped up raises some
important issues for marginal areas that
will have difficulty attaining by tha
November 15,1993 deadline These
issues become even more sijfnificsnt if
the marginal area applies for and
receives one or two of the 1-year
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
13507
3 *•"
attainment date extensions (section
181MPJ). .--:.-. -.•-.....»•
The EPA believes that marginal areas
should carefully consider the ../ -•_ •'•••
consequences of not attaining by • ..'•
November IS, 1993. and should take ' .
certain preliminary steps to irnnimiT.» _-^
the potential of being subject to possibly
unnecessary major control and planning
actions. For.example, according to the
statutory time frames, it could be the . --'
middle of .1994 before a marginal area is .
bumped up to .the moderate "•;.<• ^ ;cn
dassification. If an area had not -. ;•;- ••:
commenced any early planning and rule •
development activities, the area would .-
have only ZVi years to meet all of the,.-;,.
requirements for moderate areas (e.g.. .:.-.
RACT rules. Stage :IL 15 percent' :--::-.
emission reduction requirement, etc.). :;.
While just making the submittals for..-.-'--.
these requirements would be difficult, it:
could be even more difficult for the ••."' :'
State to implement the measures early -,-s
enough to reduce emissions and have a ;•
significant Impact on ozone levels by the
end of 1996. As_a result the area could -
face the possibility of missing the 1996 -•.,
attainment date for moderate areas and -
be bumped up again, this time to the ;-; .--
serious classification. If the marginal.;-;.
area had earlier received one or two
extensions (under section i81(a)(5)). the
difficulty of adopting and implementing
required measures before the attainment
date for moderate areas would be even
greater. .-..--.- - .
Given this potentially difficult
situation for marginal areas, EPA
strongly urges States with marginal • '
areas that may be unable to attain by
the 1S93 deadline, to initiate preliminary
planning and rule development activities
well before that date. Furthermore, EPA
proposes to require that States that
request attainment date extensions for
marginal areas (under section 181(a)(5))
must show in their requests that they
have made a significant effort to initiate
planning activities and rule development
associated with the moderate
classification, and that they have taken
steps to begin any necessary monitoring
acuities to develop required
information (such as ambient VOC and
NO, data) for the modeling analysis that
will be required for the moderate
classification. For certain control
measures which would be required
- under the moderate classification, such •
as I/M. States should show that they
have taken any necessary preliminary
steps to ensure that the controls could .
be adopted and implemented quickly.
For example. States should consider
whether their legislative and regulatory
procedures would enable these controls .
•to be fully implemented and io achieve .
needed emission reductions before the
attainment date for moderate areas.
'. -Finally. EPA is considering requiring . .
States that request attainment date •:, - •
extensions under section 181(a)(S) to - -. :
submit their air quality data on an; •'•. •
accelerated time schedule. This early'•.";
reporting of data could help alert the .• ••.' -
State and EPA to the need to quickly : C
begin developing and adopting the
additional measures for the moderate :
classification.'^theTHata in the : '-:'
. "extension yearTiXeyeal more than one •• •
exceedance of the national standard! -• '
. (3)Basicl/M. In the. event that a >•'-' '.
marginal ozone nbnattainment area'fails .
to attain the ozone standard by the , .
applicable deadline "or extended
deadline, and is redassified to -" - '-
moderate, a basic I/M program must be
implemented, regardless of whether the •
area had an I/M program in place. The
EPA intends to exercise its authority -* -'•
under section 182(i] to req'uire such '• •"- •:•"
areas to submit a SIP meeting the basic'"
I/M requirements within one year of the-
reckssi£cation."-'x-v •:•-'-:. :•- •'-...-
•Z. Moderate Areas \"-"~\ -":"'' " • . I..'
...•Moderate areas are required to meet .
all marginal area requirements, unless ::
otherwise noted, as well as the . -:
following additional requirements.
(a) Requirement for 15 percent
reduction in emissions. Section lB2(b)(l)
requires all ozone nonattainment areas •
classified moderate and above to submit
by November 15.1993. a plan revision
that reflects an actual reduction in
typical ozone season weekday VOC
emissions of at least 15 percent during
the first 6 years after enactment The 15
percent emission reductions must be
calculated from the 1990 baseline of
actual emissions (adjusted per section
182(b)(l)(B]) and must account for any
net growth in emission (i.e., net of
growth). While section 182(b)(l) requires
a reduction in VOC emissions of 15
percent, the 1990 CAAA do not require
any specific numerical percentage of
NO, emission reductions prior to 19S6.
The EPA's focus on typical ozone
season, weekday VOC emissions—an
interpretation of the requirement in
section 182(b)(l)(B) for a 15 percent
reduction of actual emissions during the
"calendar year" of enactment—is
consistent with prior EPA guidance. This
guidance stems from the fact that the
ozone NAAQS is an hourly standard
that is generally violated during ozor.e-'
season weekdays when conditions are
conducive for ozone formation. These
ozone seasons are typically the summer
months- : •
A15 percent reduction is generally
appropriate for moderate areas to attain
the ozone NAAQS within the applicable
timeframe. In some cases, modeling will
show that less than a 15 percent
reduction would be required for
attainment of the standard. However,
• the 15 percent rate of progress
requirement is intended to be the base
program that all moderate and above '
areas must meet This base program is
necessary to ensure actual progress ,
toward attainment in the face of '
• uncertainties inherent with SIP planning.
such as "emission inventories,' modeling '
and projection of expected control
'measures.'Also, this base program
would provide greater assurance of
maintenance of the standard after :~
attainment '*„.-.•.':: -;~~;~;:L-~. > '."'..-•* -
.In those cases where modeling shows
that reductions greater than 15 percent
are necessary to attain the standard, the
area will be required to achieve those
additional emission reductions.'"'
. Section 182(b)(l) (B) and (D) define
*. baseline emissions as "the total amount
of actual VOC or NO, emissions from all
anthropogenic sources in the area during
. the calendar year of enactment"
excluding the emissions that would be
eliminated by FMVCP regulations
promulgated by January 1.1990, and
RVP regulations promulgated by
November 15,1990, or required to be
promulgated under section 211(h), which
requires RVP no greater than 9.0 pounds
per square inch (psi) during the high
ozone season. The base year emission
inventory for calendar year 1990 cust
be adjusted to remove the
aforementioned emissions, as well as
biogenic emissions and any emissions
from sources outside the designated
nonattainment boundary (e.g., within the
25-mile zone around the nonattainnent
boundaries if included in the emissions
inventory). The adjusted base yea:
inventory (i.e., baseline emissions) must
contain only actual emissions occurring
in the base year, 1990, within the
designated nonattainment area
boundaries. Tee baseline emlssicr-s
should not include pre-enactment
banked emission credits since they were
not actual emissions during the calendar
year of enactment
(1) Adjusted base year inventory
calculation. The adjusted base year
- inventory should be calculated in two
steps. The first step consists of
developing a 1990 inventory of non-
mobile anthropogenic VOC emissions.
The second step consists of delerniining
the mobile portion of the inventory after
the FMVCP and RVP reduction program
(promulgated by the data of enactment
or required by section 211(h)) are
• factored out - _•••-.• .
-" -The determination of the baselin£ will
• require the use of MOBILE4.1 to model
-------
13503
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
•
I
•s
•.'•l!
the effects of fleet turnover and RVP
changes. For 1936, the baseline will be
determined by applying the 1990 VMT to
a hypothetical emission factor for 1996.
The hypothetical emission factor for
the 1990 baseline in 1996 is the 1998
emission factor determined by running
MOBILE4.1 using 1996 as the evaluation
year and the same input parameters
used to describe the FMVC? and SIP
requirements in 1990, with the addition
of RVP at 9 psi (or appropriate level for
area). Multiplying this emission factor
by the 1990 VMT results in 1990 motor
vehicle baseline emissions which
exclude the emissions reductions that
would be eliminated in 1S96 as a result
of fleet turnover under the pre-
enactment FMVCP aad the section
211(h) RVP requirements. The 1S90
motor vehicle baseline emissions for
1996 are added to the 1990 inventory of
non-motor vehicle anthropogenic VOC
emissions to calculate the 1990 total
baseline emissions for 1996. Tnis
number is the adjusted base year
inventory needed to calculate the
amount of emissions reductions needed
by 1996, as well as the target level of
emissions in 1996.
(2) Calculation of target level of
emissions. After the adjusted base year
inventory is developed, the 1996 target
level of emissions would be calculated
by multiplying the adjusted base year
inventory by 0.85 and then subtracting
from this product the emission
reductions expected to result by 19SG
from corrections to RACT rules and I/M
programs.
Once the 1996 target level of
emissions is calculated. States must
envelop whatever control strategies are
needed to meet that target. Some air
planning agencies may be used to
thinking in terms of the emissions
reduction required relative to a current
control strategy projection (particularly
for stationary sources], rather than a
target level of emissions. Projections of
1996 emissions would be used to
calculate the required emissions
reduction expressed on such a basis by
simply taking the difference between the
1995 projection inventory (without
controls applied) and the 1996 target
level of emissions. However, States that
choose this approach should be aware
that the 1996 target level is dependent
only on the 1990 emissions inventory,
whereas the calculation of an emission
reduction required relative to the current
control strategy projection depends on
the accuracy of the 1SS6 projection,
which in turn depends on the estimate of
future growth in activities^ The
assessment of whether an*area has met
the RFP requirement in 19y6 will be
based on whether the area is at or
below the 1996 target level of emissions.
and not whether the area has achieved a
certain actual reduction relative to
having maintained the current control
strategy. Tne following formulas
describe how to calculate the 1G96 target
level of emissions.
Formulas:
EE«=19SQ Baseline Emissions
=1990 Nonmotor vehicle emissions
+(1390 VMT X hypothetical 1996
MOBHE4.1 emission factor)
71*4=1996 target level of emissions
Corrections=RACT rules and I/M program
corrections
TLK=BE»« X (0.85) - corrections
(3) Emission factor adjustments.
Emission factors, as well as inventory
calculation methodologies, are
continually being improved. If emission
factors or methodologies change
significantly, EPA may advise the States
to correct the base year emission
inventory to reflect such changes. If
significant changes occur in emission
factors or methodologies between
enactment and November 15,1993 (due
date for 15 percent demonstration), EPA
may require States to make corrections
to the base year emission inventory, as
well as to the adjusted baseline and the
19S5 target level of emissions. If.
however, changes occur after the 15
percent demonstration is submitted but
before November 15,1996, then the
States would not have to make
corrections for purposes of reconciling
attainment of the 15 percent milestone.
Serious areas should also refer to the
discussion on the rate of progress
demonstration (section ni.A.4(f)) for
guidance on changes that might occur
before November 15,1994. and the
impact on the post 6-year 3 percent rate
of progress demonstration.
(4) Creditable emission red^c'icr.s. In
developing the 15 percent reduction
control strategy required to be
submitted as a SIP revision. States must
keep in mind that the 1990 CAAA
explicitly disallowed certain reductions
from counting toward fulfilling the 15
percent reduction in emissions
requirement.
All emission reductions from State or
Federal programs are creditable toward
the 15 percent progress requirement
except for the following:
1. The FMVCP tailpipe or evaporative
standards promulgated prior to 1990.
2. Federal regulations on RVP
promulgated by November 15,19SO. or
required under section 211(h).
3. State regulations required under
section 182(a)(2)(A) submitted to correct
deficiencies in existing VOC RACT
regulations or previously required RACT
rales.
4. Slate regulations required under
section 182(a)(2)(B) submitted to ccrrec
deficiencies in existing I/M prccrcms c.
previously required I/M programs.
However, all real/actual reductions.
regardless of origin, will contribute to
attainment even if they are not
creditable toward the 15 percent
requirement. While emission reductions
resulting from required corrections to
VOC RACT rules or I/M prc grass are
not creditable toward the required 15
percent reduction, any future reductions
resulting from measures not associated
with the required corrections would be
creditable. For example, reductions are
creditable where the State revises the
emission limit or changes the
applicability threshold beyond the level
required previously for the area in EPA
guidance, and these modifications result
in further emissions reductions. Other
examples of creditable reducticns
include applying regulations to the new
portions of a pre-er.actaenl.
nonattainment area not previously
subject to the regulations, aad adopting
TCM's listed in section 1081$ that are
not already in the SIP, Reductions
achieved through rules adopted
pursuant to any new CTG are creditable
only to the extent that the inductions
were not required by a SI? or 71?
developed under the pre-a:r.er.ded Act.
For example, a non-CTG rule Li a SI?, c
required to be included in :;uch z. SI?
prior to enactment, required ar. 51
percent reduction in VOC emissions.
The SIP is then revised to include a post-
enactment CTG which recommends a £0
percent reduction in VOC emissions. To
the extent that a specific source
achieves the 90 percent reduction, cr.iy 9
percent would be crsditable. IT. add;tier..
if a State was required to = ccpt z RACT
rule for a particular sourcs: urtder C-.2
pre-amended Act but failed to do sc.
adoption of a rule for that sc-^cs v.-ou-d
be considered part of the !\ACT iix-ups.
Therefore, ar.y reductions schieved by
such a rule would not be creditable.
Pre-enactment banked emissions
reductions credits are not creditable
toward the 15 percent progress
requirement. However, for purposes of
equity, EPA encourages States to allow
sources to use such banked emissions
credits for offsets and netting. When
States use such banked credits for
. offsets and netting to the extent
otherwise creditable und>;r the part D
NSR regulations, these pre-er.actmer.t^
emissions credits must b« treated as
growth. Consequently, this "growth"
must be accounted for. a:i is the cssa
with all other anticipated growth, in
order to ensure that it does cot interfere
with the 15 percent rate of progress
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 /.Proposed Rules . .. 13509
!K-
rl'-"-"
requirement (which is "net" of growth). -•
In addition.'when such growth ' ••'.--•••
emissions are used as offsets, they must
e applied in accordance with the offset
. atio.prescribed for the area of concern •'
(e.g, 13 to 1 for severe areas.'etc.). All • '
pre-enactment banked credits must be
included in the nonattainment areas -" :
attainment demonstration for ozone to --^
the extent that the State expects that" '=''•
such credits will be used for offsets or --
netting prior to attainment of the :.'.'**'••'•
ambient standards.'Credits used after.
that date will need to be consistent with ;
the area's plan for maintenance of the ••-A.
ambient standard. The EPA expects to -^
provide additional clarification on the > -•
use of banked emissions in its NSR : "\ •• •
regulatory update package.:'.:.-'. ••- '
" States can only count emissions . •:•>:'•-
reductions toward the 15 percent .. -.. •
requirement if such emissions meet the -,
creditabllity.and reduction 'T.:. ':.- ;:•',:,
requirements. All creditable emission -• -.
reductions must be real, permanent and
enforceable. States must keep careful •_•.• "-
records of all emissions reductions to -
ensure that the same reductions are not .
"double-counted"..or, more simply, used •
more than one time (Le., reductions . . -
cannot be used for offsets-and to meet.. ••
the 15 percent rate of progress ••
requirement). ;~v'.-"-•—•-.--• -. .
Many states with pre-existing
onattainment areas have already
adopted rules defining RACT for most of
the larger sources, including non-CTG
categories. In such cases, there is
considerable concern about what
additional-measures are needed to meet
the 15 percent rate of progress
requirement
One method of achieving creditable
reductions from stationary sources in
such areas is to improve implementation
of rules for existing regulations. This is •
referred to as "rule effectiveness"
- improvement These improvements are
subject to the same creditabiliry
constraints as are the other emissions
reductions. For example, rule
effectiveness improvements resulting
from corrections to the existing VOC
RACT rules made pursuant to section
182(a) are not creditable. Rule
effectiveness Improvements must reflect
real emissions reductions resulting from
. specific implementation program
. improvements. Actual emissions
- reductions' must result from improving
- rule'effecti%'eness: simply improving the
.'. methods for calculating rule -
" effectiveness is not creditable. .
I • Rule effectiveness improvements
suiting in emissions reductions must
: adequately documented before being
£ credited toward meeting the rate of
;. Progress requirement Two methods
; exist for adequately documenting rule
effectiveness improvements. First a rule
effectiveness test meeting EPA's ' ''.'.''.
protocol requirements can be performed
before and after the improvement is . •
implemented (for further information •
refer to the March '31.1988 memorandum
from John S, Seitz. Director Stationary
Source Compliance Division, to Regional
Air Division Directors,'regarding ; v '•'•'-
"Implementation of Rule Effectiveness v
Shidies"). For example, if rule >"r .."•'•• '•:•'
effectiveness'increases from 50 to 75 '-' •:-
.percent then the emissions reductions"'''''
associated with this improvement would
be creditable. Second.'If theI default':. • -"'
value of 80 percent Is ass'umed before ''"'
the improvement and an EPA protocol .
test is performed after the improvement •
only the amount greater than 80 percent ;
is creditable. Thus, if the EPA Protocol
test indicates an 85 percent rule ••_. > •:.-•_
effectiveness, then the increase in -"
emissions reductions associated with
the improvement from 80 to 85 percent :
would be creditable toward meeting the
VOC progress requirement If the EPA "
protocol test indicates that the 80 :. • •. .
percent default was incorrect and the ".
rule effectiveness was actually less than :
80 percent then the emissions inventory :
and the 15 percent requirement must be '
recalculated. .--'-.. ' • .." '
The CAAA'require that the 15 percent
emissions reductions come from the
baseline emissions. The baseline
emissions are defined to be all
emissions "in the area," (less required
adjustments) which EPA interprets to
mean emissions emanating from the
designated nonattainment area. All
emissions reductions must therefore
come from within the designated
nonattainment area. Of course,
emissions reduction strategies applied to
sources just outside the nonattamment
area raay have a beneficial effect on the
nonattainment problem within the
designated area.
After the control strategy is
developed, the regulations needed to
implement the control strategy must be
developed and adopted by the State.
The control strategy along with the
associated regulations must be
submitted to EPA by November 15,1993.
The adjusted base year inventory and
the 1996 projection inventory (without
control measure reduction applied)
.should be submitted no later than
November 15.1992.
States should be aware of the
implications of late implementation of
control measures. Section lS2(b)(l)(A)
requires that the control strategy contain
provisions for such specific annual
reductions as necessary to attain the
standard by the applicable attainment
• date: If the control strategy effort for a "
moderate area shows that an amount
greater than 15 percent of creditable
reductions when combined with the .
noncreditable reductions is needed to
attain the ozone NAAQS by November
15,1996, the State should plan on ' .
achieving the emissions reductions as
early as possible. For that matter,'any
moderate area should plan on ..'.-' '. .'
implementing control measures as
expeditiously as practicable, since EPA
: will look at air quality data* for 1994-
1996 to determine if a moderate area has .
attained the ozone NAAQS. Section .' '.
. 182(b)(2) requires EPA to determine
within 6 months'afterian applicable ' -;
attainment date whethe'r the area /.; ~"
attained the standard by that date," .
which will dictate, the use of the most:
recent 3 years of air quality data prior to
that date. By .delaying the^'^.-.'.-i'-. - ~:
implementation of me_asures until 1996,
and thus delaying the resulting _
emissions reductions, moderate areas
may be'reclassified as serious areas .
because emissions reductions will not
.be achieved early enough.to affect the ;
• air quality and to attain the ozone "." "
NAAQS. In fact .any regulations '.'." _;..
required to meet the greater than 15
percent rate of progress requirement to
attain the ozone NAAQS must be
submitted with the control strategy by
November 15,1993, per the requirement
making specific annual VOC and NO,
reductions needed to attain the NAAQS
due by November 15,1993.
A moderate nonattainment area can
achieve less than the 15 percent
required reductions under certain rather
restrictive circumstances. The Slate
must demonstrate that the area has an
NSR program equivalent to the
requirements in extreme areas (section
182(e)), except that "major source" must
include any source that emits, or has the
potential to emit 5 tons/year.
Additionally, all major sources (down to
5 tons per year) in the area must be
required to have RACT-level controls.
,The plan must also include all measures
that can be feasibly implemented in the
area, in light of technological
achievability. The term "technological
achievability" refers to measures that
can be successfully implemented in
actual practice, hot measures that
merely appear feasible in a research
. setting, for example. The EPA will
consider on an area-by-area basis what
these measures may be, with no
presumption beyond that specifically
. given in the last sentence of section
182(b)(l)(A)(ii). which states to qualify
for a less than 15 percent reducn'oa the
State must at least demonstrate that the
SIP for the area includes all measures
achieved in practice by-sources in the
same source category in'nonattaiscent
-------
13510
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
i
:\
;r
areas of the next higher classification.
The terra "achieved in practice" is •
intended to include those measures that
have been successfully implemented in
one or more nonattainment area of the
next higher category. The waiver for the
15 percent progress requirement does
not. under section 182(e). apply to
nonattainment areas classified as
extreme.
• All multi-State ozone nonattainment
areas should refer to section (in_A-9) for
further instructions on coordinating SIP
revisions and on developing the
attainment demonstration.
By meeting the specific 15 percent
reduction requirement discussed above,
the State will also satisfy the general
RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2) for
the time period discussed.
(b) Attainment demonstration. Section
182(b)(l)(A) requires a SEP for a .
moderate ozone nonattainment area to
provide for specific annual reductions in
VOC and NO, emissions "as necessary
to attain the national primary ambient
air quality standard for ozone." This
requirement can be met through
applying EPA-approved modeling
techiniques described in the current
version of EPA's "Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised)." The Urban
Airshed Model, a photochemical grid
model, is recommended for modeling
applications involving entire urban
areas. In addition, for moderate area's
contained solely in one State, the
empirical model, city-specific Empirical
Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA),
may be an acceptable modeling
technique. The State should consult with
EPA prior to selection of a modeling
technique. If EKMA is used, the
attainment demonstration is due by
November 1993.
In other cases, a State might choose to
utilize a photochemical grid model
instead cf EKMA. Grid modeling will
generally provide a better tool for
decision makers and the necessary
additional time may, therefore, be
justified. In such cases, States should
consult with EPA on a csse-by-csse
basis on an acceptable approach to
meeting the section 182(b)(l)(A)
requirement through an interim SIP
submittal by November 1993 and a
completed attainment demonstration by
November 1994. The interim submittal
would include, at a minimum, evidence
that grid modeling is well under way
and a commitment, with schedule, to
complete the modeling and submit it as
a SIP revision by November 1994. The
completed attainment demonstration
would include any additional controls
needed for attainment. Separate
attainment demonstration requirements
apply to multi-State moderate areas, as
described in section IILA9.
When projecting motor vehicle
emissions for the attainment
demonstration, States should use the
same procedures as given in EPA VMT
forecasting and tracking guidance for
moderate CO nonattainment areas. The
'use of this guidance is limited to
projecting motor vehicle emissions, and
the information on the reporting
requirements for moderate CO areas is
not applicable. - •
The EPA realizes that in some cases
certain demonstrations will be
complicated by the impact of ozone and •
precursor transport, and by the RFP
requirements and attainment deadlines
that apply to areas of different
classifications. For example, a moderate
area located within the transport region
is still subject to the 6-year attainment
deadline and to the section 132(b)(2)(A)
requirement to provide anr.ua! emissions
reductions in its plan to attain by the
deadline. However, this area is (at least.
presumptively) being affected by
transport from another area(s) and is, as
well, possibly affecting other areas
itself. If the "other" area that are
affecting air quality levels in this
moderate area are classified as serious
or severe, those areas will be reducing
their emissions over a longer timeframe
in order to attain the standard. That is,
these "other" areas could still be having
significant effects on the moderate area
at the time when the moderate area
must demonstrate attainment. This same
phenomenon can also arise in areas that
may be impacted by transport but are
not yet in a transport region established
under section 176A or section 184.
The EPA believes that these situations
are somewhat analogous to the
situations addressed in section 132(h)
for rural transport areas and ir. section
182(jj for multi-State ozone
nonattainment areas. Section 182(h)
recognizes that the ozone problem in a
rura.1 transport area is almost entirely
attributable to emissions in an upwind
area. Therefore, the only requirements
for the rural area are the minimal
requirements specified for marginal
areas, the assumption being that the
controls in the upwind area will solve
the problem in the rural transport area
as well. In a similar way, section
182(j)(2) for multi-State nonattainment
areas and section 179B for international
areas recognize that an area in one State
may not be able to demonstrate
attainment if other States or area(s) in
another country do not meet similar
requirements under section 182. In such
cases, even though the area would not
be able to demonstrate attainment, the
sanction provisions of section ItTJ shall
not apply.
In the above cases, there is a
recognition in the CAAA that at some
point, an area being affected by - .
emissions from another area(s) may not
be able to achieve sufficient emissions
reductions on its own to demonstrate
attainment In these cases the area is
relieved from certain requirements in
the CAAA which would require
additional controls. There is no explicit
recognition in the CAAA of this
occurring in other situations. The EPA
believes, however, that other similar
situations (as discussed above] are
likely to arise, and that a reasonable
approach is needed to ensure equitable
treatment of the areas and expeditious
attainment of the standard.
In particular, there are two s:.tuations
in which an area might be subject to
additional emissions reductions
requirements related to the
demonstration of attainment In the first
situation, an area might be receiving
such high levels of transport that even if
it reduced its emissions dramatically
(e.g., totally eliminated its own
emissions), the incoming ozone and
precursors would be high enough to
continue to cause violations of the
standard beyond the applicable
attainment date. In the second situation,
the area might be able to achieve
additional reductions (beyond those
already required under section 182).
Even where those additional reductions
could be achieved to demonstrate
attainment, the question arises whether
it is equitable to require those
reductions or to allow more time for the
reductions in the "upwind" area to take
place. As described above, however, the
statute provides no express relief for
these situations. The area does have the
option of requesting to be classified to
the next higher classification. Thus,
where the demonstration cf at'.airjr.ent
is complicated by transport b'tween
two areas of different classifkations, the
State is still responsible for dsveicpir.g
and submitting demonstrations which
show that the standard will be attained
by the applicable date. In other words,
the State must provide for su;Tic:ent
emissions reductions on a schedule that
will ensure attainment in its moderate
area, for example, within 6 years after
enactment. The EPA believes that the
wording in section l82(b)(l)(A)(i)
requires the State to develop a plan
providing such emissions reductions.
(c) Contingency measures. The
general requirements for nonaUainment
plans under section 172(c)(9) specify
that each plan must contain additional
measures that will take effect without
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 '/.Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13511
5..
*•* '
• ".'•« •• -
• nonattainment areas and in section rr' '..
187(a)(3) for CO nonattainment areas y- •"
with design.values above 12J ppm.V.'";-,
These latter provisions are similar to the
section 172(c)(9) requirements except • .
that the focus in section 182 (ozone •;"; •
areas) is on meeting emissions "•';': '. '.
reductions milestones (section 182(g)),
and the focus in section 187 (CO areas) .
is on consistency between previously
projected and actual or subsequently.
projected VMT levels, as well as failure
-to attain by the required deadline. These
contingency measures for SIP's. as . -:
required under the CAAA, supersede
• the contingency requirements contained
in the 1982 ozone and CO SIP guidance,'
•48 FR 7182; (January 21,1981).";; -.- = •'. -.'
Ozone 'areas classified as moderate or
above must include in their submittals,":
•hich are due by November 15,1993 as
;t by EPA under section 172(b).
contingency measures to be -' . •
implemented if RFP is not achieved or if
the standard is not attained by the
applicable date. This contingency
submittal date is appropriate since
States must demonstrate attainment of
the IS percent milestone at this time.
The 1S90 CAAA do not specify how
many contingency measures are needed
or the magnitude of emissions
reductions that must be provided by
these measures. Assuming that all of the
Slate measures may fail to produce their
expected reductions, one interpretation
of the CAAA is that a State would have
to adopt sufficient contingency
measures in this November 15.1993 plan
to make up for this entire shortfall. In
other words, the State would have to
adopt "double" the measures needed to
satisfy the applicable emissions • .
reduction requirements. The EPA
believes that this would be an
•• unreasonable requirement given the
,': difficulty many States will already have
v in identifying and adopting sufficient
'L measures to meet RFP and other
requirements.
The EPA believes that the contingency
easures should, at a minimum, ensure
that an appropriate level of emissions
reduction progress continues to be made
if attainment of RFP is not achieved and
§!/- additional planning by the State is ' . •
needed. Therefore, EPA will interpret
the Act to require States with moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas
to include sufficient contingency "
measures in the November 1993
submittal so that, upon implementation
of such measures, additional3 emissions
reductions of up to 3 percent of the
emissions in the adjusted base year -
.inventory * (or such lesser percentage . ••
that will cure the identified failure]......
.would be achieved in the year following
•the year in which the failure has been •'•
identified. This "additional"! reduction .
would ensure that progress toward . ".'
.attainment occurs at a'rate similar to '-" •
that specified under the RFP • V "'•--.
requirements for moderate 'areas (i.e., 3 ,
percent per year), and that the State will
achieve these reductions while : - ;
'conducting additional control measure
development and implementation as -.. -
necessary to correct the shortfall in
emissions reductions.or to adopt newly
required measures resulting from the - •
bump-up to a higher classification. •••; •-
Under this approach,'the State would -
have 1 year to modify its SIP and take •,
other corrective action needed to ensure
that milestones^are achieved and that • .
RFP toward attainment continues. - j.
However, if a" State can show that its .
SIP can be revised to correct any
'possible failure in less than 1 year, then
proportionally less than 3 percent may
be considered. In the case of moderate
areas, contingency measures would be
needed when the area fails to attain the
standard by the attainment date (or, for
serious and above areas, if the area fails
to meet the rate-of-progress
requirements for any milestone other
than one falling on an attainment year.
e.g., the 15 percent required by the end
of 1SS6). If the area fails to attain, it
would be bumped up to the serious
classification * and become subject to
the requirements that apply to that
classification. Therefore, the
contingency measures would be
implemented while the State developed
snd adopted the new measures
associated with the serious
classification.
One way that contingency measures
could meet this requirement is by
requiring the early implementation of
measures scheduled for implementation
1 These emission reductions would b« in addition
to those that were already scheduled to occu: in
accordance with the plan for the area.
.' The adjusted ba»e year inventory is that
inventory specified by the provisions under section
18C(b)(l]!BJ.
* The moderate area would actually be bunped
.up to either of the next higher classifications (i.e.
terious or severe; areas cannot be bumped up to
. extreme for failure to attain), if justified by the air
quality levels (the design value) at the time.
at a later date in the SIP. For example,' a
State could include as a contingency :
measure the requirements that measures
which would take place in later years if
the area met its RFP target or attainment
deadline, would take effect earlier if the
area did not meet its RFP target or
attainment deadline. Within 1 year of
the triggering "of a contingency requiring
. the early implementation of control ' ~-
measures, the State' must submit a ':
revision'to the SIP containing whatever
additional measures" will'be needed to ;
backfill the SIP with'replace'ment'; '-*•
measures to cure any eventual shortfall
.that would occur as'the result of the .*
early use of the contingency measure.
If EPA notifies an area'that'a shortfall
exists, .and that the shortfall is less than
3 percent, the State ma'y'chobse'which -
contingency mea'sures'in its'ihtital (3 ...
percent) contingency plan to implement
to meet the shortfall ". '.. .*.". .,.;.. .
, .The EPA believes.that a" 3-percent .
contingency will be adequate for most
areas; however, there is the possibility
.that in some cases 3 percent may be
" inadequate especially if corrective •;;-
action is not instituted in a timely ••••. ^
manner prior to a milestone date.V
To address this possible shortfall (i.e..
more than a 3-percent shortfall). EPA • •
will require moderate and above areas
to submit both contingency measures
providing for a 3-percent reduction and
an enforceable commitment to submit
an annual tracking program describing
the degree to which it had achieved its
projected annual emissions reduction
(see 'Tracking Plan Implementation."
section rfl.A.3(d}). In that annual report.
the State must describe what actions it
will take to make up for any shortfall
before the next milestone, e.g.. adopt
and implement additional measures
(aside from the contingency measures)
so as to prevent failure to meet the
milestone and therefore not triggerir.g
the 3-percent contingency measures.
Alternatively, the States must provide
for additional contingency measures
sufficient to cover the additional
shortfall expected due to the milestone
failure. Within 1 year from the submittal
of such report, the State must submit
whatever additional measures will be
'needed to cure this shortfall. Therefore.
more than the "3 percenf of
contingency measures could be
available as a reserve, even though EPA
would only require sufficient
contingency measures to be ••
implemented to compensate for the
degree of failure. In other words, a "
shortfall of 2 percent would require
implementation of sufficient measures to
: make up for the 2 percent, not the entire
-------
13512 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
I'i
'.':•
.11.
3 percent (or possibly more, due to the
above procedure).
Sections 172(c)(9). 182(c](9). and
187(a](3) specify that the contingency
measures shall "take effect without
further action by the State or the
Administrator." The EPA interprets this
requirement to be that no further
rulemaking activities by the State or
EPA would be needed to implement the
contingency measures. The EPA .
recognizes that certain actions, such as -
notification of sources, modification of
permits, eta, would probably be needed
before a measure could be implemented
effectively. States must show that their
contingency measures can be
• implemented with minimal further
action on their part and with no
additional rulemaking actions such as
public hearings or legislative review. In
general, EPA will expect all actions
needed to affect full implementation of
the measures to occur within 60 days
after EPA notifies the State of its failure.
(d) Tracking plan implementation.
Section 182(b)(lKA) of the Act requires
States with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or higher to
submit plans that contain certain • •
"specific annual reductions in emissions
of volatile organic compounds and
oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain
the national primary ambient air quality
standard for. ozone by the attainment •
date-applicable under this Act."
Even though the 1990 CAAA contain
more specifications for evaluating
whether the required emissions
reductions have been achieved than the
Act previously did, EPA believes that
additional actions are needed to assess
"interim" State progress in achieving the
milestones, which occur (for serious and
above areas) 6 years after enactment
and every 3 years thereafter (as
discussed in section flLA.4.(fi).
Furthermore, sections 171(1) and
172(c;(2) provide that all SIP's must
require annual increments! emissions
reductions as needed to attain by the
applicable date.
To meet the section 132(b)(l)(A)
requirements, the State plans for
moderate and above ozone areas must
project the annual progress (i.e., the
implementation of measures with the
appropriate schedules and the expected
emissions reductions) that will result
from their control'strategies. (See '
discussion under section II!-A.3.(s),
requirement for 15 percent reduction in
emissions.) These projections must be
contained in the State submittal due by
November 15,1993, and must
demonstrate that the area will achieve a
15 percent net reduction in VOC
emissions (plus whatever additional
reductions are needed to attain) by
November 15,19S6.
The primary means of demonstrating •
rate of progress will be through the
periodic inventories (i.e., complete, - •
actual inventories) submitted every 3
years. At this time, EPA intends to rely
on existing reporting requirements such
as emissions statements, compliance
certifications, periodic inventories, and
the annual AIRS update, rather than
imposing additional reporting
requirements on the States.
(e) Major stationary source definition.
For ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate areas, the term
"major stationary source," for purposes
of the NSR program and (as discussed
below) the RACT requirements for
major non-CTG sources, means any
stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tons per year or
more.
(f) RACT "cctch-ups"—{l}
Applicability. The 1990 CAAA require
moderate areas to adopt RACT
. standards for three types of sources or '
. source categories. This requirement is in
addition to the RACT "fix-up"
requirement of section 182(a)(2)(A),
discussed in section IE.A.2.(b) above.
The RACT catch-up requirement is
meant to ensure that all moderate and •
above nonattainment areas, regardless
of time of designation, have in place all
RACT for source categories covered by
the CTG's and for major sources that are
- not subject to a CTG. Stated differently,
it requires moderate and above
ncnattainment areas that previously
were exempt from certain (cr all) RACT
requirements, to-"catch up" to those
nonattainment areaa that were subject
to those-requirements during that earlier
pence.
AH States should submit negative
declarations for those source categories
for which they are not adopting CTG-
b-a = ed regulations (because they have no
sources above the CTG recommended
threshold) regardless of whether such
negative declarations were rr.ada for an
earlier State implementation plan. This
is necessary since there may now be
sources in the nonattainment area that
previously did not exist, or in areas
where the boundaries of the
ncnattainment area have expanded,
there may be sources in the new portion
of the nonattainment area which should
not be overlooked.
Under the first category 01
requirements in section 132(b)(2)
(subparagraph [A]), nonattainment
areas are required to adopt RACT for all
VCC sources covered by any CTG
document issued by the Administrator
after enactment and before the area is
required to attain the standard. The EPA
is required to adopt 11 CTG's before
November 15,1993 (section 383).
Although EPA has not yet issued these
11 CTG's, EPA has issued a CTG
document in which it lists the 11 CTG's
that the Agency plans to issue in
accordance with section 183, ar.d
establishes the time tables for subsiittal
of RACT rules applicable to the sources
covered by those CTG's. This document
is located in appendix E.
Under the second set of RACT
requirements (subparagraph fl3]). the
State must adopt provisions applying
RACT requirements to all VOC) sources
covered by any CTG issued before the
date of enactment of the new law, even
if the CTG was not previously
applicable in the area under the
previous law. Under the requirements
established for implementing the Act
prior to the 1990 CAAA, some '
nonattainment areas were not required
to apply RACT to all sources for which
there were CTG's. These include areas
that originally projected attainment by
. 1982 and that were not subject to a later
EPA call letter for SIP revisions. These
areas had to apply RACT for the source
categories covered by the Group I and II
CTG's that had been issued before the
. 1982 attainment date; howeve::, they
- were not required to apply RACT to the
categories covered by the Group HI
CTG's, which were issued after the 19S2
attainment date. Thus, for example, the
new law requires any nonartainrnent
areas not previously subject to all the
CTG's to "catch up" and apply RACT to
all sources covered by all the CTG
documents. Nonattainment areas not
previously required to apply RACT to
. sources covered by Group III CTG's will
have to do so in the SI? revisions. In
addition, areas previously consider rural
nonattainment areas, which had to
apply PxACT or.ly to certain major
sources in certain CTG categories under
prior policy, will have to revise their
SIP's to apply RACT to all sources.
including nonrr.ajor sources that are
covered by er.y CTG. This requirement
does not apply, however, to RTA's that
satisfy section I82(h) as discussed in
section ffl.A.2.(g).
In the third case (subparcgraph [C]).
Slates are to adopt plans that apply
RACT to all other major stationary
sources of VOC's in the area. ever, if r.z
CTG has been issued by EPA with
respect to that source. The b'.irder. falls
en the State to determine individual
RACT rules for each of the sources cr a
"catch-all" RACT rule that would cover
major non-CTG sources. In the past,
only certain nonattainment areas were
required to adept such "non-CTG"
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules 13513
f:.v
'•f\
RACT rules. Under subparagraph (C). all
other moderate to extreme . '•;•...
nonattainment areas must "catch up" by
adopting RACT rule requirements for ' -
major non-CTG sources. •:;:•"•. - -
(2} Schedule. For sources subject to a
post-enactment CTG document. States -"
must adopt RACT.rules in accordance
with the schedule set forth in a post- ".
-enactment CTG.document The EPA has
issued its first post-enactment CTG /.r. .• ••'
"document attached as Appendix £.:*>•--•"
.wfaich.establishes the list of.the 11 ^ ./-;>
CTG's EPA'plans to issue and the -T.-N-W.-'
applicable dates.for submittal of RACT -*i
rules for sources subject to a post-";-- -" -:-
enactment CTG. In the CTG document -
EPA has provided that States must v-' •-
comply with the RACT submittal time • •
tables established in an applicable CTG.
These time tables will establish RACT
submittal dates'and implementation
dates. However, if no CTG has been
issued and, therefore.'no time table has •
. been established by November 15,1993, ::
for one'or more source categories, the . .-
State must submit RACT rules
applicable to that source or source
category by November 15,1994. In such .
a case, those'rules must provide that the .
source must implement those . =:- •..'..: /
requirements by May 15,1995. : - '- -'.'.- •
Areas must submit RACT "catch up"•
rules for sources covered by a pre-
enactment CTG and for major sources -'
not subject to a pre-enactaent CTG or
covered by the CTG document in
Appendix E in the form of a SIP revision
request within 2 years of enactment
(i.e.. by November 15,1992). This
submittal should also identify sources
that are major but which are subject to a
post-enactment CTG document. The SIP
revisions must provide for the
implementation of the RACT measures
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than May 31,1995.
(3) Interface with early reductions.
The EPA is required to promulgate
maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards under section 112 for
sources which emit hazardous air
pollutants (at a minimum, the 189
pollutants listed in section 112(b)(l)).
These standards will be promulgated by
November 15, 2000 (section H2(e)). The
EPA must promulgate the first set of
MACT standards by November 15,1992.
Section 112 also provides a mechanism
whereby sources may elect to defer
compliance with an applicable standard
by achieving an early 90 percent (95
percent for participate matter) reduction
in emissions of hazardous air pollutants
at specified units (section 112(i)(5)). For •
sources subject to the first round of
MACT standards, a source can obtain
•• the 6-year extension if it commits to • • •
make the 90 percent reduction prior to
proposal of the MACT standard and • •
actually achieves the 90 percent •
reduction prior to January 1,1994. For " '•
later standards, the applicant must - '.."'
demonstrate that the 90 percent -.'"•'-
reduction has been achieved prior to " • •'
proposal of the applicable MACT - -.- •
standard. Therefore, within the next few •;
months; the sources that are'affected by -
the first phase'of MACT standards may;;'
begin to submit "enforceable'-•' =-• - -- •-"'*'
In some instances, a.source that ele'cts ;
to'partitipateln the early reductions';; •
program'will'also be'subjectto a future ..,
RACT requirement under section 182.
Sources may be hesitant to participate
in the'early reductions program because
of the'uncertainty'regarding future, as •
yet unspecified, RACT requirements. To ,;
alleviate concern about certain RACT '..
requirements, where a source is not -. -. -'
subject to a RACT requirement (State is : 7
not yet obligated to adopt under the -. •
CAAA) at the time it submits an. early .
reductions plan but subsequently ;
becomes subject to such a requirement, -.
•EPAbelieves that it is reasonable to - '•'•
consider the early reductions program in
its analysis of what RACT is for that '
source. In other words.'when the State . •
does submit a SIP revision with new .- - -
RACT requirements that would be •
applicable to a source that elected to
participate in the early reductions
program, EPA will consider the
reductions made through the program as
a factor in determining if the source has
implemented a RACT level of control.
The EPA anticipates that the fact that a
source has made a 90 percent reduction
in overall VOC emissions from specified
emissions points will be a major
consideration in establishing RACT for
those emissions points.5 This issue will'
be discussed in more detail in the
rulenaking on the early reductions
program.
As' a general rule, EPA will not revisit
the RACT issue once the deferment of
compliance with a MACT standard has
ended. In most cases, the MACT
controls should be more stringent than
the reductions achieved through the
early reductions program. Therefore,
once MACT is in place, VOC emissions
should not increase.
• These principles are bated on the assumption
thai i source is not reducing Its hazardous air
pollutants by replacing them with noohanrdouj
VOCt While EPA recognize* this as a legjtuate
approach for reducing hazardous air pollutants. EPA
would not be able lo consider thii type of program
as a factor in establishing RACT for the source if It
'does not achieve any real reductions of VOC
•emissions. • • • " •••' •' •'• -•• - " - "- •
(4) Guidance. Under section 183, EPA
is to issue several forms of guidance that
should help the States meet the ••
requirements of section 182(b)(2). The , .
EPA is required to issue CTG's for VOC -
emissions from 11 categories of - -
stationary sources for which CTG's have
not previously been issued In addition.
EPA must issue CTG's to control VOC
emissions from aerospace coatings and
solvents and to control emissions from
paints, coatings, and solvents used in ;
shipbuilding operations'and ship repair.
All of these documents''are'due within 3
years of enactment The'EPA must also
conduct a s'tudy'of VOC emissions from "
consumer pr.comme'rcial products and
submit a report to Congress not later
than 3 years after enactment. Based on
the study and report. EPA is required to .
regulate categories of consumer and .'.
commercial .products within the time . ,T .
frame set forth in'section 183(e)(3)(A).
;.'. -In addition," the CAA.require EPA to
recommend alternative control'~'. •' ."
techniques (ACTs) for all categories of
stationary sources of VOC'and NOx
: that emit or have the potential to emit 25
tons per year or more, of such pollutant •
.. These documents are also"due within 3
. years of enactment While these" ".-
'documents will not contain presumptive
RACT. they will contain much of the
background information on control
. technologies, costs, etc., which can be
used by the States in supporting RACT
determinations for major non-CTG
sources,
Finally, within 1 year of enactment,
EPA is to issue guidance on evaluating
the relative cost effectiveness of various
control options for controlling eziissions
from existing stationary sources that
contribute to nonattainment In addition.
under section I08(h). EPA is to establish
a central data base to make information
available concerning emissions control
technology, including infonnaticz frcxm
SIP's requiring penrJts.
(g) Gasoline vapor recovery. (Stage H
Vapor Recovery Systems). Section
182(b)(3) mandates that States submit a
revised SEP by November 15,1992 that
requires owners or operators of gasoline
dispensing systems to install and
operate gasoline vehicle refueling vapor
recovery ("Stage H") systems in ozone
nonattainment areas designated as
moderate and above. Private fueling
facilities (such as government and
company fleet fueling facilities) as well
as retailers, are subject to the Stage II
requirements. Stage U is required at
gasoline dispensing facilities that
dispense more than 10.000 gallons cf
' • gasoline per month (or 50,000 gallons per
month for the "independent small
• •business marketers" defined under -
£o
-------
13514
Federal Register / Vol' 57. No. 74 / -Thursday." April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
section 324). States must require Stage II '
. to be effective under a specified phase-
in schedule of 0 months after the State
adopts the required regulation for .-.I. •
stations constructed after November 15, j
1990; 1 year after the adoption date for •
stations dispensing at least 100,000 . • ; :
gallons per month, based on the 2-year •
period before'the adoption date: and 2 • -•-;
years after the adoption date for all '. Br-
other facilities required to install..---;..; :
controls. Also, as appropriate, EPA shall..
issue'guidance concerning the ..-.;.••.,..;.-..>..
' effectiveness of Stage II systems. '•".•• >:-•;' t .•
• Stage n systems have been installed
and operated in California for over 10 :; .".-
years and in some other portion of the
country for a shorter period. Areas" with .
- "existing Stage n programs have been "J." T
implementing their programs using the ~_ .
same approach used In California. The .
California Air Resourced Board (GARB] .
has been testing and certifying systems ~,
for at least 95 percent vapor recovery "
using established test procedures and ~,..
- methods. Once a system has been .~''
certifiedVa station.cahInstall the same
Stage n system design without needing
to test for 95 percent control ". / -".
; effectiveness. To" ensure that they are -"
properly installed and maintained. •
systems are tested with low-cost vapor -
leakage and blockage tests at ...
installation and then subjected to
periodic enforcement inspections. •""
The EPA intends to require all States
to adopt a similar Stage n program
approach^ That is, States would be
. required to prescribe the use of Stage 13
systems that achieve at least 95 percent
control of VOCTs and that are properly
installed and operated
As an alternative to testing each
station for 95 percent control
effectiveness. States may require
installed Stage n systems to be certified
to achieve at least 95 percent either by
CARB, or by using CARE test
procedures and methods or equivalent
test procedures and methods developed
by the Slate and submitted as a SIP
revision. In addition. States must require
the installed systems to be tested for
proper installation and must perform all
necessary enforcement.'
Supporting and background material
for developing, implementing, and
enforcing this type of program is
provided in technical ("Technical
Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery
Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling
Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities—Volume 1," November 1991)
and enforcement ("Enforcement
Guidance for State n Vehicle Refueling
Control Programs," December 1991)
. guidance that the Agency has issued.
The Agency now notifies the public that
this is guidance issued by the
Administrator pursuant to section -
i82(b)(3KA).. -.'•-:•- - -
Additional Stage.II provisions .• .
contained in section 2Q2(a)(6) concern . •
onboard(on-the-vehicle)vehicle ..-. . •
refueling control standards, •which are to
be developed after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation regarding
.the safety of onboard systems. Under
this section. States are not required to .- -
apply the Stage n requirements of ' ..'.'.
-section I82(b)(3). gasoline vapor r,.-. ..
recovery, to facilities located in" *. .""".
moderate ozone areas if EPA ."•'. ."J..!.' ~.
promulgates onboard refueling control - '
standards. These p'rpyisions will be .,
addressed in a separate Federal Register
notice.'' .--•;-•'•' v-'v •;•.•.'.'• ~..V .
(h) Basic I/M. Section 182(b)(4) -; - .
requires moderate ozone honattainment
areas to implement basic I/M programs '
at least as stringent as those required in
section 182(a)(2)(B) immediately upon
enactment, regardless of whether an I/M
program was previously required.". •
Therefore, all moderate areas must -
either continue existing 1/M programs'
and make corrections to programs
required by existing policy or to .
programs committed to in the SIP in •
effect at enactment,.whichever Is more
stringent; or develop basic I/M '- "
. programs consistent with EPA guidance.
•These areas must also submit revisions
addressing revised basic I/M program
policy for new and existing programs
once revised policy is published. The I/
M programs are required in the
urbanized area portions of the
nonattainment area. •
. The statute requires these plans
"immediately" after enactment even
though in a few cases such areas may be
subject to this requirement for the first
time- The EPA would normally provide
at least 1 year for an area newly subject
to such requirements to adopt and
implement an I/M program. The EPA
will use its authority under the new
section 110(k)(4) to conditionally
approve basic I/M programs in the case
of moderate ozone areas that \ve:e
newly subject to this requirement at the
time of enactment, based upon the
State's commitment to develop such a
program within 1 year from conditional
plan approval, or by the'date
established EPA'a guidance, whichever
is sooner.
The EPA will, under section I82(i),
require SEP revisions to provide for a
' basic I/M program within 1 year in
areas newly subject to basic I/M
requirements hi the future as a result of
redesignation or reclassifkation to
moderate ozone nonattainment. Where
-the boundaries of a nonattainment area
are changed any time after enactment
- pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A). EPA
will again conditionally approve SIP ' -
revisions based upon commitments
submitted promptly after designation to
adopt I/M programs within 1 year of
conditional plan approval or consistent
with EPA guidance, whichever is sooner
in any areas newly subject to I/M "
requirements by virtue of the boundary
change... • - - - . .-. .--.-. .
The EPA expects to issue the policy ;
for I/M areas hi the near future. When
published, the policy for I/M programs
will state the date when such programs
•are to be implemented. States that have
both basic and enhanced I/M areas may "
, opt to Implement enhanced programs in
• all affected urbanized areas. States ' "
- which are only required to implement
.-basic programs must submit SIP :.
revisions for 1/M programs addressing •
any revised policy. The guidance will
.. cover the elements of the SIPjevision.
- In the event that a moderate owme
nonattainment area fails to attain the •
. ozone standard by the applicable
deadline or extended deadline, and is
reclassified to serious or worse, an •• -.
.inhanced I/M program must be •
. implemented, if the population criteria
(an urbanized area, as defined by the
Bureau of the Census in'1980, with a
population greater than 200,000) are met
The EPA will, under section 182l.i), .
require a SIP revision to provide for an
enhanced I/M program within 2 years of
the reclassification. As mandated by
section 202(m), the Administrator will
promulgate regulations requirin;;
manufacturers to install diagnostic
systems on all new light-duty vehicles
and light duty trucks. The purpose of
these systems is to identify and track
emission-related systems deterioration
or malfunction. According to section
202(m)(3), within 2 years of EPA's
promulgating regulations requiting
States to do so, all States with l/M
programs must amend their SIP to
provide for inspection of these onboard
diagnostics systems. The EPA will issue
revised I/M guidance which addresses
onboard diagnostic inspections.
- (i) NSR—<1) NSR offset ratio. For the
purpose of satisfying the emissions
• offset reduction requirements of section
' 173(a)(l)(A), the emissions offsiet ratio is
the ratio of total actual emissions
reductions to the total allowable
emissions increases of such pollutant
from the new source. For ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
moderate, the emissions offsel ratio is at
least 1.15 to 1.
• (j) Bump-up requirements. As -
.discussed in section Ul.A£(i) marginal,
moderate, and serious areas will be
• bumped up if they fail to attain. When a
moderate area is bumped up !;o serious.
-------
^
n-i -
':-#
boundaries reflect the MSA/CMSA'-:;-:-"••
unless within 45 days the State notifies ••-.-
BA of Jts-IntenHostudy the-?r ••>'&.•#: *:-
ppropriate boundaries for that area. If •': •
i State'does make such notification.-* •+'':•
•^final determination of boundaries must «*-
".be made by EPA within 8 months of •-'•>•?
..reclassificatipn to serious.r.'-r^i>'=7c^'i:t:'i
' . _--.-.*<:.-2>v::>«»f»-T.v! i«wi°:-V;Kf'5«ak»'''-
4. Senoua Areas .-,*-" . ,"., •;_ . • ; .
.- -r.ijf«.Ti»i>'-37.nrjw?-- ^ .-.•"'-—.«:••••«' .
.-.'•' Serious-areas.are required to meet 'all"1-'''
-.moderate area requirements, unless ^•'<'
othen&e Jwteoves w'efl^'the "«!f-stei^r'
."-•following additional reo^riremehts,'Vf'-^ r.
'-.(a) Major stationary source definition. •"
' .For ozone n'bnattarnmeht areas -y&iis'r.r" .-.
'classified as serious .areas, the'tenn -^'-'v
- -"major stationary source,''-for purposes'•'••.
of the NSR program and the RACT : -.v. <'--'
marginal and moderate areas. However, _".'
. the major source 'cutoff is reduced to 50 c
•: tons per year-sources. This lesser cutoff "-
'• would result in the need for additional j •;
• RACT rules in cases where no existing •' -
TTG.applies to a source located in a ' . .
erious area and emitting above 50 tons -.
per year, or an existing CTG for the -;
source category subject to a 50 ton per .
year cutoff only applies to sources ...
above a higher cutoff. Rules for these
sources would be subject to the.same
schedule and requirements of non-CTG .
RACT specified by section 182(b)(2)(C) .
(i.e., rules are due by November 15,
1992).
(c) NSR—(1) Offset ratio. For the
purpose of satisfying the emissions
offset reduction requirements of section
173(a)(l)(A), the emissions offset ratio is
the ratio of total actual emissions
reductions to total allowable increased -
emissions of such pollutant. For ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
serious, the emissions offset ratio is at
least 1.2 to 1.
(2) Special rules for modification.
State NSR permit requirements for
major modifications must be revised in
accordance with new rules for -
modifications under section 182(c) (6),
(7), and (8) of the Act..Thesenew rules
apply to proposed emissions increases
..^ resulting from modifications of major
stationary sources in serious and severe
areas for ozone. As explained below, • --
W these new rules change the way in
^ which proposed modifications must be
^; evaluated to.deiennine whether a major
•modification will occur, and establish - -
requirements for sources wnich are^-.- modification which Is noYde minimis -..
determined to be major modifications, ",'j>- would occur at a major jila'tionary..';.."." .
••-~(i) De Minimis role. New section -\'-{- .v? .source emitting or having the potential; •
182fc)(8) revisesjthV'de minimi«jteat •>'•*• ^--to emltlpO tons-peryear.o'r"mor«i then
.which must be applied to any proposed :•'.; rules consistent with section 182(c)(8).of •
emissions In a serious (or severe) area.v) . the CAAA'must apply/Sectio'nia2(c)(8) .
•Thenew de minimi's rule estabUAes.an.-'.,provider'that nch modiflcatibri'is a '. •.-.
.emissions threshold of 2S-tou-'-{^:V.-.:V'-:inajcTmb^ati6n*ud'iasbbfed'lp'ihe .
aggregated oy'er.M 5-year period- to.^i'.-i: -*r part D permit reiqulrementiVHowever,'-
VAn1a««A tU^ M«WMif'VDA*tkMMV«iklf) 'lit Afl ^i. ^1_ -."_"• 1__^TJ ^^! ll_'«_»'»'-»' tr'-i'i**-^'**-- '. ' -
replace the current'SAlhreshbld of^^40 .?•. -the source may elect to" offset its"
_.tons ^.yw.^fJ*M*qpto'jtt>»^'5^:prop^ emissions WcreastwithV,"^":
A*raTndt4/m **f ^a*l vi^t^ 4*t4W4M**«M« ^MVIBM ^Ji* * * T~_ 3 ' **A»_^_ » **•"»'"• »» """i* J* *• •*•••_•
..eniissions mcrease-^vttica is to.be ----• ^ apply with resp'ed.tb .the inajof :^..:'
..-calculatedby aggregating the proposed : "-.modification. In any caat,^ other part'- "
< Increase with all otherJcreditable ^ /= --> ,n ntrmft mmr«ni>h(s. inHiiaimf > ,.' -'
, . . • ,, — •• "~:;-:--Dpe>initjequirementst, mclu3ing :1^-V. - .
- faoeues vid deceases fa enussions '<.-•:- emissions' offsets'at the presaibed ratio
-yfrom tte source from Ihe^S pnor:-:^-:r--;-.: _1-2 f01§ mus't be satisfiedby the ioajor '"
..calendar years (induduig the calendar :;: mo'dificatioiLTL:;:^^':";^^^,,-...
-yearof me.proposed.change)-.* 25 tons •-.;,(d)Enh^da^to&ig.fSt<*i£s.-. '•
policy, "this provision Tcquires thi8_5-y
serious ozone nonattainment areas ,-.. .
.-contain a program of .measures designed .
; to enhance and improveibothi_ambient. -•'
<-,; air .quality monitoring' and emissions,''
not be de minimis and could cause the '1r_
proposed change'to be treated as a • ••"--••'
major modification" subject to the special
modification provisions described in the'"
following two sections." -'•-' "-' '•'- -'••" _••'-.-
(ii) Modificationa'of sources emitting • ~
less than 100 tons per year. For a -"
proposed modification that is not de "
minimis (according to the special de
minimis rule under section 182(c)(6)), a "•
major stationary source "emitting or '
having the potential to emit less than - '
100 tons per year must satisfy special
rules, delineated under new section '
182(c)(7) for such modifications. Under
these rules, the proposed modification is
subject to the'part D NSR permit
requirements as-a major modification
unless it can offset the proposed
emissions increase with greater
emissions reductions at the source at an
internal offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1.
Section 182(c)(7) provides that in the
absence of sufficient internal offsets, the
part D permit requirements of section
713 must be met, except that when
• applying the requirement of section • •
173(a)(2) to such modification, the .
source shall apply best available control
technology (BACT), as defined in - '
section 169 of the Act as a substitute for
the lowest achievable emissions rate
(LAER). All other permit requirements of
section 173(a) must be satisfied • - ' •
• including the requirement for an - '.-'•'- -1- •
emissions offset ratio of at least 1.2 to 1.
(iii) Modifications of sources emitting -•
. 100 tons per year or inore.if a proposed
monitoring should.-. -
r ozqne,"Npp and ' .
VOC pollutants. The program for- _-,- ..'-•'
enhanced emissions monitoring should .
contain measures for NO, and VOCs.
States are required to take immediate -
action to adopt and implement an • •
. enhanced monitoring program upon the -
issuance of rules to be promulgated by
. EPA. Upon promulgation of these rules,
EPA will provide further direction as to
the required actions and schedules for
States. • • '•
. (e) Attainment demonstration. Section
182(c)(2)(A) requires a SIP for a serious
ozone nonattainment area to provide an
attainment demonstration by November
15,1994. The "attainment demonstration
must be based on photochemical grid
modeling or any other analytical method
determined by the Administrator, Li the
.Administrator's discretion, to be at least
as effective" (section 182(c)(2)(A)). This
,. requirement can be met through
applying EPA-approved modeling
techniques for SIP revisions (see EPA's
."Guideline on Air Quality Models •
(Revised)," 1986). The Urban Airshed
::Model is recommended for modeling
applications involving entire urban
areas. •-•' .-,-'•'•
• '• Serious areas generally must meet all
- requirements of moderate ozone '• •
nonattainment areas. As discussed •
-. above, moderate ares are required to
- provide for reductions in VOC and NO,'
"emissions "as necessary to attain the
^national primary ambient air quality-"-
-------
.13516 ...... ......FejerdRegMery/yVol..57.=Ng.\74./-.Thursday.rApril 16; 1992V/:Proposed Rules
i;
I
standard for ozone" (section.,--. . •„-, -•,. - - developing a 1990 inventory of non- v •
'182f^)(l)(A))iT6'determine"the 7T--'-^- ".: - mobile anthropogenic VOC emissions.
"necessary", emissions reductiorisT'an ".. "The second step consists of .determining
' attainment demonstration is_generaHy".' the mobile portion of the inventory after
reguiredby Noyemberl993,if a"'\.' .. V ".the" FMVCP and RVP reduction...-- -
photochemical grid model is ijqt usei"" ." programs (promulgated by the date of .; .
Serious'(and higher) areasChbwever,".'.,- . enactment or required by section 211(h)) '
must complete photochemical grid ..'.: \'',: v are factored but Since the effect of the. -
modeling analyseVan'd have longer .' -I... .'"pre-enactmeht or current FMVCP as a. . '
attainment deadlines/jfn consideration'.". cumulative-reduction from 1990 levels -.
of the additional tiineliiecessary to -V.^'' increases .elach yearbecause of fleet
' •gather"data:'tb supp'pH andjto perform a /:'; turnover, there will actually be a ....."
"grid mbdeling'analysis'.'.Congress ^..'.'.X',.' '.separate 1990 baseline applicable to • ."
provided ah additional ye'ar for serious" :\ .-each evaluation year specified (e.g. 1999.
(aidhigher)'areas to'submit-theirr^'..•,"•".!•'.• 2002,etc.}/.;,.,:--.;v.;\«:.;"'w-.!.-r_~ model the effects'of Deet.turnover and"- ;..
section 182(c) requirement for" serious. ':~V RVP changes. .Fora given evaluation . : .
and higher'ozone honattaininent areas'. •'' year, the baseline will be determined byv-
to submit photochemical grid modeling ''. applying the 1990 VMT to a hypothetical'
by'November 1994 supersedes the ""' "-:'' "emissions factor for the evaluation year..
•• • * j-:--•--••—^ * -,;---. - - The hypothetical emissions factor for."
the 1990 baseline in 1999 (or 2002.2005,
.'etc.) is the 1999 (or 2002, 2005. etc.) ••'." -
emissions factor determined byjunning
;- :MOBILE4.1 using 1999 (or 2002,2005. ' .• -
etc.) as the evaluation year and the
• same input parameters used to describe
- .the FMVCP and SIP.requirements in . -.
1990. with the addition of RVP at 9 psi
. (or less where approporiate). •• . -
' Multiplying this emissions factor by the
1990 VMT results in 1990 motor vehicle
-baseline emissions which exclude the
emissions reductions that would be
eliminated in 1999 (or 2002, 2005, etc) as
attainment demonstration otherwise '• '."
applicable under section 182(b).'_.' " " ."-''
•• - When projecting motor vehicle
emissions for the attainment arid rate of
progress'demonstration after 1998, -"-. '-
States should use the same'procedures
as giveriin the EPA VMT forecasting "'
and tracking guidance for serious CO'
nonattainment'areas'. For VMT •;'•-• \ •
projections up'through 19J96, States may .-•
• follow the procedures' for.VMT •
forecasting and tracking for moderate -
. CO nonattainment areas. The use of this
guidance is limited to projecting motor
vehicle emissions; the information in the:
reporting requirements for moderate or -
serious CO areas is not applicable. ' •
(f) Rate of progress demonstration.
Sectio'n 182(c)(2)(B) requires that serious
ozone nonattainment areas must submit
by November 15,1994 (4 years after
enactment), a rate of progress
demonstration. The plan must provide
for reductions in ozone season, weekday
VOC emissions of at least 3 percent per
year net of growth averaged over each
consecutive 3-year period beginning in
1996 until the attainment date. This is in
addition to the 15 percent reduction over
the first 6-year period required in areas .
classified as moderate and above. The
baseline for the 3 percent per year rate
of progress reductions and creditability.
requirements are the same as for the 15
percent progress requirement under
section 182(b)(l). See section HLA.3.(a)
above for a discussion of EPA's focus on
ozone season weekday VOC emissions.
Similar to the calculations for the 15
percent requirement (see section . .
HLA.3.(a) of this document), the State
must first calculate the 1990 adjusted . •
base year inventory. • • ..
. . (1) Adjusted base, year inventory
calculation.^^ adjusted base year ..-. .-
, -inventory should be calculated in two
steps. The first step consists o! .;-' -
a result of fleet turnover under the pre-
enactment FMVCP and the section
211(h) RVP requirements. The 1990
motor vehicle baseline emissions for
1999 (or 2002. 2005. etc.) are added to the
1990 inventory of non-motor vehicle .
anthropogenic VOC emissions to
calculate the 1990 total baseline
emissions for 1999 (or 2002, 2005, etc.).
"This number is the adjusted base year
inventory needed to calculate the target
level of emissions in 1999 (or 2C02, 2005,
etc.).
Any emissions reductions expected to
result by the evaluation year (e.g.. 1S99,
2002, etc.) from corrections to RACT
rules or I/M programs should be
subtracted after the baseline has been
used to calculate (according to the
procedure discussed below) the target •
'level of emissions. ".-'.'
: The target level of emissions for a
milestone year is the total amount cf
emissions allowed in the area in order to
meet the rate of progress requirement
for the year in question. The 1999 target
level of emissions can be calculated •
from 1990 total baseline emissions for .
. 19S9 and the 1996 target level of ' ' ••
' emissions. However, an additional
correction factor is needed to account
for the.mobile source emissions :
reductions that would ha've occurred'' '
under the pre-ehactmerit FMVGP and -
section 211(h) RVP requirements -
between 1996 and 1999 as a result of'
fleet turnover (assuming that all I/M
deficiencies have been fixed). This -
correction factor is simply the difference
between the 1990 total baseline ' ~ -
emissions for 1996 and the 1990 total
baseline emissions for .1999. The: 1999 •
target.level of emissions is therefore
calculated by subtracting this fleet
turnover correction factor, and tt percent
of the 1990 total baseline emissions for '
1999.'from'the 1996 target leveVof •' > : •
emissions'. ;••;-' .-^'-f.--^?-;-^•'.'" •
In subsequent milestone years, the '
fleet turnover correction factor is the
; difference between the 1990 baseline
emissions for the previous milestone
year and the 1990 baseline" emijisions for
the current milestone year. The target - -
level is calculated by subtracting this" •
•fleet turnover correction factor and 9
;. percent of the 1990 total baseline •.'-;
emissions for the current milestone year.
from the target level of emissions in the
previous milestone year. •».- ;•
-------
Federal Register / .Vol. 57. No. 74 J .Thursday. April 16. -1992 /..Proposed.Rules -13517
1
-- l^k
x=milestoneyear . •
X= 1999. 2002, 2005. 2008 • '
Bd=9 percent emissionsr«duction
requirement •.. ••
TLi» target level of emissions permitted for
yearx •'•'•• ' ." •
BG.=BE,X(0.09) '•••"• ' .. ' !
FTt=Fleet turnover correction factor '.
FT.-BE.-S-BE, : - - • ' .
'
Example: ,=1999 .•
For areas with attainment dates ." •
occuring in 2007 and 2010 (Le., Severe 2
and Extreme areas, respectively}, the .-
following formulas should be used for '
calculating the target level of emissions
for the attainment year. The final ' .
emissions reductions requirement prior
to attainment for these areas is 6 .
percent over a 2-year period (i.e., the
time between the last milestone and the
attainment date is 2 years).
x=milestone year • • • -
x=2007.2010 ....
BE,=1990 baseline emissions calculated
relative to year x . _ - '
Bd=8% emissions reduction requirement
before growth' -- '
TL,= target level of emissions permitted for
year x • ., ' • •
BG.=BEIX(0.06) . ' • ' • .
TL'=TU-»-BG,
FT^BEx-2-BEV
Example: ,=2007 ' -
TLoi =TLos - BG« -FT7
( Note: The correction factor for RACT role
and 1/M program correction is not included in
these calculations because the associated
emissions reductions should have been
realized prior to the end of 1996. If this is not
the case, an adjustment should be made as in
the calculation of the target level of
emissions for the first 6 years.)
As discussed in section in.A.3.(a) of
this preamble, if changes in emissions
factors or in methodologies for
developing emissions inventories occur
after the 15 percent demonstration is
submitted, but before November 15,
1996, then Slates need not correct the
base year inventory—the adjusted
baseline on the projection inventory for
purposes of reconciling the 15 percent
demonstration. However, if such
changes occur after November 15,1991,
but prior to November 15,1994. a serious
or above area may be required to make
corrections to the base year inventory
and attainment year projection
inventory for the purposes of developing
the 3 percent rate of progress
demonstration. If such changes occur
after November 15,1994. EPA will
advise on when it would be appropriate
for the States to make corrections in
future supplements to this General
Preamble.
The statute explicitly states that after
1996, emissions reductions from NOx
sources can be substituted for VOC
'emissions reductions if the resulting
reduction in ozone concentrations is at.
least equivalent to that which would
result from VOC emissions reductions.
Emissions reductions of NOxare subject
to the creditabiiityprovisions under .' :
section 182(bXi}(C) and (D). '; .'.,.'
Additionally, any actual NOx
emmissions reductions in excess of
growth in NOx emissions during the
1990-1996 period may be used to meet .
post-1996 emissions reductions .."'. ..
requirements for ozone nonattainment"
areas classified as serious. Like VOC
reductions, these NOx reductions must
be real enforceable, permanent, net of
growth, and meet the creditabiliry
requirements. In addition, the NOx
reductions'must meet the guidance
under which NOx reductions can be .
substituted for VOC reductions. If an .
area substitutes NOx reductions for .
VOC reductions, then a rate of progress
curve (similar to the one required for
VOC) must also be developed for NOx
.Certain.NOx emission reduction .
requirements may also be averaged
consistent with EPA guidance. The
CAAA encourage the use of market-
based approaches in both titles I and IV.
The use of economic incentives is
explicitly allowed in sections 110(a)(2)
and 172(c)(6) of title L Provisions for
averaging emissions of NOx over two or
more units are contained in section .
407(e). However, compliance with
relevant titles would have to be
maintained.
If the State elects to allow any pre-
enactment banked emissions reductions
credits to be used for purposes of new
source offsets during the period between
19S6 and attainment, then these
emissions must be treated as growth
(i.e., banked credits become emissions
upon use). As such, the increase in
emissions must be accounted for in
order to ensure the rate of progress
requirement is achieved.
States can only count emissions
reductions toward the 3 percent per year
requirement if such emissions meet the
creditabOity and reduction
requirements. All creditable emissions
reductions must be real, permanent, and
enforceable. States must keep careful
records of all emissions reductions to
ensure that the same reductions are not
used more than one time (i.e., reductions
cannot be used for offsets-and to meet
the rate of progress requirement). Any
creditable VOC emissions reductions
achieved beyond the required 15 percent
during the first 6 years after enactment
of the 1990 CAAA (November 15,1990-
November 15,1996) can be counted
toward meeting the 3 percent rate of
progress requirement For example, if an
area achieves 20 percent creditable
VOC emissions reductions during the
first 6 years, .then the area can'apply the
5 percent surplus reductions toward the
9 percent requirement for years 1S9&-
1999. . ." . . ,'-.. ...".;.
Actual NOx emissions reductions
exceeding growth in NOx emissions
since the 1990 base year may be used to
meet post-1996 emissions' reductions
requirements for ozone nonattainment • •
areas classified as serious and above.
Section 182(c)(2)(C) grants EPA broad ,
discretion in determining the conditions
under which NOx control may be '
substituted for, or combined with, VOC
control to maximize reduction in ozone
air pollution..The EPA believes that
since VOC reductions in 1990-1996 (in
excess of the required progress amount
of 15 percent, which in turn is net of
growth) can be carried over to the post-
1996 period, NOx reductions in excess of
growth since 1990 (there is no progress
requirement for NOx) may be carried
over as well. Note that these NOx
emissions reductions are subject to the
substitution requirements of section
182(c)(2)(C) and to the same creditabiliry
constraints dictated by section "• •'
182(b)(l)(C) and (D) as apply to VOC
emissions reductions. -' • '
Rule-effectiveness improvements are
creditable during the post-1996 period.
The same requirements apply as in the
15 percent reduction requirement (see
section ULAJ-ta)).
AH emissions reductions that are to be
credited against the percent reduction
requirements must come from within the
designated nonattainment area. Of
course, emissions reductions strategies
applied to sources just outside the
nonattainment area may have'benfidal
effects on the nonattainment problem
within the designated area. The CAAA
require that the rate of progress
emissions reductions be calculated from
the baseline emissions. The baselir.e
emissions are defined to be all
emissions "Li the area," which E?A
interprets to mean in the designated
nonattainment area.
After the control strategy is
developed, regulations needed to
implement the control strategy must be
developed and adopted by the State.
The control strategy along with the
associated regulations must be
submitted to EPA by November 15,1994.
The adjusted base year inventor/ and
the attainment year projection inventory
must be submitted no later than
November 15.1994; however. EPA may
require an earlier draft submission of
these documents to allow early review.
" If the attainment demonstration for a
serious nonattainme'nt area shows that
an amount greater than 3 percent per
*;.
-------
13518 Federal .Register / Vol 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
year averaged over the 3-year period of
creditable reductions, when combined
with the noncreditable reductions, is
needed to attain the ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, areas
should plan on achieving the emissions
reductions as early as possible. In any
case, it will be to an area's advantage to
implement control measures early since
EPA will look at air quality data for the
3 years leading up to the attainment
date (i.e- for serious areas, air quality
data from years 1997-1999 will be
evaluated) to determine if an area has
attained the ozone NAAQS. Delaying
the implementation of measures until
near the attainment date may result in
redassification to the next higher
category because emissions reductions
would not have come in time to produce
timely attainment of the ozone standard.
Any regulations required to achieve the
annual reductions necessary to attain
the standard must be submitted with the
control strategy by November 15.1994.
A nonattainment area can achieve
less than the 3 percent per year required
reductions if the State can demonstrate
that the plan includes all measures that
can be feasibly implemented in the area.
in light of technological achievability.
The EPA will consider on an area-by-
area basis what these measures may be,
with no presumption beyond that
specifically given in section
lE2(c)(2HB)(ii), which states that to
qualify for a less than 3 percent
reduction the State must at least
demonstrate that the SIP for the area
includes all measures achieved in
practice by sources in the same source
category in nonattainment areas of the
next higher classification. The 3 percent
per year requirement cannot be waived
for areas classified as extreme. A
determination of the waiver from the 3
percent per year requirement will be
reviewed at each milestone under
section 182(g] and revised to reflect the
availability of any new technologies or
other control measures for sources in the
same category.
By meeting the specific 3 percent
redaction requirements discussed
above, the State will also satisfy the
general RFP requirements of section
172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.
All multi-State ozone nonattainment
areas should refer to the multi-State
section (III.A.9) for further instructions
on coordination of SIP revisions and on
the development of the attainment
demonstration.
(g) Milestone compliance. Serious and
above ozone areas must show that they
did achieve their rate of progress
emissions reductions (called milestones)
in the ."compliance demonstrations" •
required by section 182(g)(2). These
demonstrations are due SO days after
each milestone was to have been
achieved and shall be submitted as an
areawide inventory of actual emissions.
The EPA is suggesting that the States
synchronize their periodic emissions
inventories with their milestone
compliance demonstrations (see section
ELA2. of this preamble). The EPA will
provide further guidance* on acceptable
approaches to allow for synchronizing
periodic emissions inventories and
milestone demonstrations so as to meet
the 90-day requirement Consistent with
the tracking provisions discussed in
section III.A.3.(c), the submittals for
serious and above areas due by
November 15,1994. must contain annual
projections of control measure
implementation and emissions
reductions to occur from November 15.
1996 until the attainment date.
(h) Bump-up requirements. As
discussed in section HI.A.2.(i), marginal,
moderate, and serious areas can be
bumped up if they fail to attain. Section
182(g) adds additional bump-up
provisions for serious and severe areas
that miss a milestone. Under those
provisions, such areas may elect to
bump up to the next higher classification
as their means of satisfying the
milestone requirements (see discussion
in section llLA.4.(iJ). The States with
serious or above ozone areas must
submit compliance demonstrations
within 90 days after a milestone was to
have occurred, and EPA must determine
within 90 days of submittal whether the
States' demonstrations are adequate
(section 182(g)). The milestones ars
essentially the emissions reductions
required by section 182(b)(l) and
(c)'v2)(B). For example, serious o:cne
areas must demonstrate that they have
achieved the 15 percent emissions
reductions requirement of section
182(b)(l) within 90 days after such
milestone should have occurred (e.g.. 90
days after November 15,1996, or
February 13,1997).
Any area newly classified as a severe
ozcr.e ncnattainment area due to bump-
up previsions or reclassificatior. under
section 181(b) is subject to the
reformulated gasoline program under
section 211(k). The effective date of such
program is 1 year after redassification.
(i) Failure to meet a milestone
(Economic Incentive Program/. Under
section I82(g)(3). if a State fails to .
submit a milestone compliance
demonstration for any serious or severe
area as required by section 182(g)(2), the
State shall choose from three options:
To be bumped up to the next higher -
classification, to implement additional
measures (beyond those in the • -. •
contingency plan which will already be
triggered and implemented) to achieve
the next milestone, or to adopt an
economic incentive program (a$~-
described in section 182(g)(4)). Based on
the schedule in section 182(g)(3) for
State election. EPA review of election.
and the associated SIP revision (section
182(g){3)). the time available to develop
and implement required additional
measures or an economic incentive
program will be extemely limited if the
State waits until a failure occurs to
Initiate the program of choice. Thus,
EPA urges States to initiate program
development as soon as they determine
that a failure is likely. States are
encouraged to consider inclusion of
economic incentive programs where
appropriate in the SIP submission cue 3
or 4 years after enactment to be of use
in meeting the first milestone. Submittal
at that time would be more likely to
allow for sufficient time to develop.
implement, and evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. Economic
incentive programs are discussed in
more detail in section UI.G.3.
(j) Enhanced I/M. Section 182(c)(3j
requires "enhanced" I/M programs in
each urbanized area of serious and
above ozone nonattainment areas ss
defined by the Bureau of Census, with
1980 populations of 200,000 or more. The
section calls for EPA to establish a
performance standard for I/M thai
programs must achieve, and also seta
some minimum design require.Tients.
The Act specifies that the State program
must include, at a minimum.
computerized emissionsanalyzi>rs. en-
road testing, denial of waivers for
warranted vehicles or repairs related to
tampering, a S450 cost waiver
requirement (adjusted annually based
on the Consumer Price Index) for
emissions-related repain not covered by
warranty, enforcement through
registration denial unless an existir.g
program with a different mechanism car.
prove greater effectiveness, annual
inspection unless a State car.
demonstrate that less frequent testing is
equally effective, centralized testir.2
unless the State can prove
decentralization is equally effective, and
inspection of the emissions control
diagnostic system (when required by the
Administrator). In addition, each State
must report biennially to EPA on
emissions reductions achieved by the
program
In some cases, areas may have
become newly subject to both basic and
enhanced 1/M requirements at the time
of enactment, with the bas:.c 1/M
requirements due shortly prior to the
deadline for submission of the SFP
revision providing for the enhanced I/M
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57..No. 74 /.Thursday. April 16. .1992./-Proposed Rules '. . 13519
program. In such cases, EPA regards . .
enhanced I/M requirements as" •
superseding the basic I/M requirements,
and therefore will not require the . . •
submission of the basic I/M . . ^
requirements discussed previously. The
EPA will under section 182(1), require .
SIP revisions to provide for an enhanced
I/M program'within 2 years in areas ....
newly subject to this requirement in the'
future as a result of redesignation or .
redassification to serious or worse : :
ozone'nonattainmenL" ' .' '.••*• ''-.' "•//
ThejSIFs.'for; enhanced I/M programs '-.
are due no later than November 15,1992.
In the event that EPA's enhanced I/M '*']
performance standard is not finalized
soon enough to provide sufficient time
for full SIP development EPA will use
its authority"under section 110(k)(4) to
conditionally'approve SIP submittals' "\- .
committing to'adopt enforceable • • - • •
. enhanced I/M programs consistent with
EPA's guidance. The guidance will cover
the elements'of a full SIP, The SEP must .
demonstrate that the I/M program will
be operated until the area is •
redesignated to attainment based on
EPA's approval of a section 175A
maintenance plan without an enhanced-
J/M program.'-.-:'••:-•-.-;" :J~' - ' ": • """'
As mandated by section 202(m], the
Administrator will promulgate
regulations requiring manufacturers to
install diagnostic systems on all hew •
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
The purpose of these systems is to
identify and track emission-related
systems deterioration or malfunction.
According to section 202(m)(3), within 2
years of EPA's promulgating regulations
requiring them to do so, all States with
I/M programs must amend their SIP to
provide for inspection of these onboard
diagnostics systems. The EPA will issue
revised guidance which addresses
onboard diagnostic inspections.
(k) Clean-fuel vehicle program—(1)
Schedule. The statute contains in
sections 182(c)(4) and 246 certain SIP
requirements for areas classified as
serious or above ozone nonattainment
(based on 1987.1988, and 1989 calendar
year data) and with a 1980 population of
250,000 or more. According to these
requirements, SIP provisions for •
implementing the clean-fuel vehicle
program for centrally fueled fleet.
vehicles prescribed in title n." part C, •
must be submitted to EPA by May 15. -
1994. Areas with a 1980 population of
250,000 or more that are redassified at
some future date as serious or above
ozone nonattainment areas must also
submit such revisions within 1 year of
classification. The Administrator may
, adjust the compliance deadlin.es. for
- newly classified areas 'where ?'-~ > '• : r
compliance with the deadlines would be .
infeasible. -. • v V. :"•"'•'.- ••-
(2) Clean-fuel fleet program. The -. --,_..
programs must require a specified
percentage'of certain fleet vehicles ; ;
purchased in model year 1998 and
. thereafter to be dean-fuel vehicles and ,
use clean alternative fuels when' -"
operating in the 'area.' For .light-duty »-. . -
.vehicles and lightAiuty trucks, the - . ~>"
required percentage must be 30 percent -• •
in 1998,50 percent in 1999, and 70..- -x . •
percent in 2000 and thereafter. For....-•• •;.
heavy-duty .trucks, the percentage must,r.
be 50 percent in each such year. Light- "_•'
duty vehicles and light^duty trucks in >',..
fleets participating in this program for ..
the above model years must meet the "
low emissions vehicle (LEV] standards ;
for model year 2001. Fleet phase-in
requirements for light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks (6,000 pounds Gross .
Vehicle Weight Raring [GVWR] or less)
• depend on the availability of qualifying
vehicles in California by 1998 to 2000. If
such vehicles are not available in ' '••:'.'_••:,
California in advance'of model year - • : -
2001. the phase-in schedules for these •
vehicles will be delayed accordingly. .
Some of the major program -.•-•.« '-'.'
requirements include: Requirements for
fuel providers to make clean alternative
fuel available to fleet operators; -
coverage of Federal fleets (except for
certain vehicles certified by the
Secretary of Defense as needing an
exemption based on national security
grounds); provisions for issuing credits,
consistent with EPA regulations due 1'
year from enactment, for purchasing
more vehicles-than required or vehicles
that meet more stringent standards or
for purchasing vehicles prior to the
effective date of the program. Such
credits may be banked and traded
within the same nonattainir.ent area;
credits may not be traded between light-
duty and heavy-duty vehicle classes.
The Administrator will promulgate
rules under section 246(h) to ensure that
certain TCM's that restrict vehicle usage
based on time-of-day or day-of-week
consideration will not apply to any
vehicles that comply with the fleet
program requirements, notwithstanding
the relevant provisions of title I.
Additional information on the
requirements for clean-fuel vehicle fleet
programs for serious CO nonattainment
areas is found in clean-fuel vehicle fleet
program, section IILB.3.(c).
(3) Substitutes for the dean-fuel '
program. Each State subject to.the fleet
program may submit a SIP revision by .
November 15,1992, consisting of fully '
adopted control measures'as a .'-
substitute for all .or a portion of the' " |" 't
- 'dean-fuel vehicle program required by '
section 246. The substitute measures
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the long-term
reductions in air emissions of ozone
precursors and toxic substances are, at
a mini'mniTi, equal to those that would be
achieved under the clean-fuel vehide
program, or a percentage thereof which
would be attributed to the portion of the
program for which the revision is to
substitute. Substitute measures may not
.include any measures otherwise
required by the Act; however, they
'would count toward the rate of -.• ./
reduction'requirements (Lei, 15 percent).
0) California Pilot Test Program. By
.November 15,1992, California must".
submit a SIP revision requiring~that
sufficient dean alternative fuel be •.
produced and distributed in California
"to support the title n, part C, section
249(c) mandatory dean-fuel vehide pilot
program, which begins in model year
1996. Suffident fuel to allow all vehides
required under the program to operate
exclusively, to the maximum extent
• practicable, on dean alternative fuel
while operating in California (section
249(cJ) must be available. The revision
must require an adequate number of
supply locations that are sufficiently
distributed to ensure convenient -'
• refueling of such vehides. The revision
must apply to all classifications of
nonattainment areas as well as to
attainment areas within California.
Although EPA, in its April 1951 report
on "Getting Started on title L" indicated
that California could opt out of the
California pilot program, EPA now
believes that such a procedure is not
contemplated under section 182{c)(4)(B).
which provides for opt out of dean fuel
vehicle programs in certain
circumstances. That is because the part
of the California pilot program iir.der
which vehicle manufacturers will be
required to produce and sell clean-fuel
vehicles is a mandatory Federal
program administered by EPA; unlike
the clean-fuel fleet program, it is not a
SIP-based program that depends on the
existence of SIP revisions for its
implementation. Moreover, while
California is to implement the fuel
availability aspects of the program
through SE? revisions, it would deprive
the Federal program of its effectiveness
if California could opt out of the fuel
availability aspects of the program. The
clean-fuel vehides required under the
program would not be assured of having
the necessary fuels on which to operate.
The conclusion that California should
not be able to opt out of the fuel
availability aspects of the pilot program
, is buttressed by section 249(c)(2)(F). " '
.' .wnicb requires EPA to establish Federal
-------
13520
Federal Register 7;Vol. 57, No. 74 / cThunday.'April 16, 1992 / Proposed-Rifles
fuel availability requirements for ''
California under its section 110(c) FTP
authority, if California fails to submit a
SIP revision that satifies the fuel
availability requirements of section
249(c)(2). • •..-••?•.;--;--•. -;" " v'
. Section 249(f) provides that any. ; •
serious, severe, or extreme ozone •.' - "
nonattainment area outside of California
may opt in to the pilot program by • '"-
submitting a SIP revision to EPA that •
provides incentives for selling or using "-".
the clean-fuel vehicles'and clean •''••'•' ""
. alternative fuels as mandated in the "• ••'•
Califomia~program. Such revisions must
comply with EPA regulations lobe-. \--~ .
promulgated within 2 years "of ••" ••'•"-'• "• ''•'•
enactment and may not take effect until
1 year after a State has notified vehicle ••
manufacturers and fuel suppliers of such
requirements. •.:•-'• ''•-'• ' : " ••
The incentives may include a - ;...
registration fee on non-clean fuel... - .• •
vehicles, provisions to exempt dean fuel
. vehicles from certain TOM'S, or. .•..
preferential parking provisions for
clean-fuel vehicles. The revisions may .
not include any production or sales
mandates for dean-fuel vehides or
dean alternative fuels and may not
provide sanctions or penalties for failure
to produce or sell such vehides or fuels.
The incentives may not apply to fleet .-.
vehicles covered by the dean-fuel
vehicle fleet program. . .
(m) Gasoline vapor recovery. The
Administrator may by rule revise or
•waive the section 182(b)(3) requirements
for stationary source gasoline vapor
recovery for serious, severe, or extreme .
areas, if the Administrator determines
that onboard emissions control systems
are in widespread use throughout the
motor vehide fleet. The EPA will •
address this provision in a separate
Federal Register notice concerning
section 202(a)(6).
(n) Transportation controls. Section
182(c)(5) requires that beginning 8 years
after enactment and at 3-year intervals
thereafter, serious areas must submit a
demonstration of whether current
aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate
vehicle emissions, congestion levels,
and other relevant parameters are
consistent with those used for the area's
demonstration of attainment If the'
levels projected in the attainment ' ••
demonstration are in fact exceeded, the
State has 18 months to develop and
submit a revision of the applicable
implementation plan. This plan must .
include a TCM program consisting of
measures from, but not limited to. . -
section 108{f) that, in combination with
'other mobile source measures, will .'
reduce emissions to levels that are . .
consistent with emissions levels " '.'."- "
projected in the attainment ' "•*'• "•' :
demonstration. Areas could • -:. - -
alternatively submit a new attainment'
demonstration accounting for the
increased vehide emissions projections..
The EPA will release an update of ••'••' •
'Transportation1—Air Quality Planning •; •
Guidelines" in June 1992 and several '•• '- •
TCM information documents which will
address the section 108(0 measures. - '
It is important to note that : •
nonattainment areas are not locked into
the estimates of future emissions given •
in the initial SIP submittaL At any time •
before an area reaches attainment, the' •••
State can amend the area's SIP to get a:': .
greater reduction from nonvehide '•"•'•'
source^ This change would have the -
effect of increasing the motor vehicle
. emissions allowed at the next milestone -
date. •••-.- - •'-:'""•• - ' ' "
[6] Reformulated gasoline for :-
conventional vehicles. The EPA expects
to promulgate regulations this year -
prohibiting the sale of gasoline that has
not been reformulated to be less -
polluting ("conventional gasoline"). •":•••
Under section 211(k)(10)(TD), the. .. • .
prohibition is to apply in the nine areas
having the highest ozone design value '
during the 1987-1989 period and with •
1980 populations over 250.000,'and -.•
within 1 year, to any area redassified as
a severe ozone nonattainment area. The
effective date for the prohibition against
the sale of conventional gasoline in
- these nonattainment areas in January 1,
1995.
The prohibition may be extended to
any marginal, moderate,'serious, or
severe ozone nonattainment area at the
request of the Governor of the State in
which the area is located. Upon
receiving a Governor's application, the
Administrator will apply the
prohibitions set forth in section 211[k)(5)
against the sale or dispensing of
conventional gasoline in the "opt-in"
area effective no later than January 1,
1995, or 1 year after the application is
received, whichever is later. The
effective date of the prohibition in the
opt-in, area may be extended by 1 year
up to three times by the Administrator if
he finds that there is insufficient
domestic capacity to produce enough
reformulated gasoline for all areas in
which conventional gasoline is to be
prohibited. The Administrator must
make such extensions for areas with
lower dassifications before making
them'for areas with higher . .
classifications.
(p) Contingency provisions. For
. serious areas as required by sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). the contingency .
measures could be additional measures
not already adopted to meet the" RFP or "
other requirements, or the accelerated . ,
: 'implementation of mea'sures'already • "
planned to meet a future milestone (see
section nLAJ.(c) for additional
discussion of contingency measures). In
the second case, the State would have to
adopt additional measures to backfill
the SIP with replacement measures to' ••
replace those that were previously used
as early-implementation contingency '
measures, and to assure the continuing
adequacy of the contingency program.
The'contingency measures for iterious
and above ozone nonattainment'iireas
are required by section 182(c)(9) I o be
adequate to correct any shortfall in
meeting an emissions reductions .....
milestone (e.g.; the 3 percent reduction ..
required by late igM^.Thia ,1.'_/ ,
requirement presents the problem .
mentioned above as to the moderate .
area contingency requirement (it is ...
difficult to predict how much shortfall
an area will face at a milestone £Jid
hence how much extra reduction its
contingency measures should provide
for. and it would be unreasonable to
require the State to submit contingency
measures adequate to address a • .
hypothetical 100 percent shortfall—5^..
submit contingency measures th,it
essentially double what the basic
progress demonstration proyideji). The
solution to the problem of setting the '
appropriate level of contingency
measures described in section ELAJ.(c)
(as to contingency measures for areas
subject to the 15 percent reduction
requirement) would also apply to
serious and above areas preparing
contingency measures as to pos :-1996
emissions-reductions milestoneii.
(q) Long-term measures. The EPA
recognizes that some serious ozone
nonattainment areas (and perhaps areas
with long-term attainment dates; for
other pollutants) will have such large
emissions reduction requiremer ts that
identifying, developing, and adopting In
final form the control measures that
represent the areas preferred strategy
for their demonstrations of attainment
may present an unreasonable burden.
The EPA believes that these an:as nay
need additional time to fully develop
and adopt certain "long-term" measures
that would be the preferred means to
reach attainment These measures
would include those that require
complex analyses and dedsionmaking
•and coordination among a number of
government agendes. . •
,. The EPA intends to allow these areas
reasonable additional time to complete
• If the ttralegy for an are* r*liei onis'O, '-'.'
»ub»tihition ID lieu of or In addition to VOC - -
reduction*. th« Stale »hould «J»o tubmil NO, .- -
contingency me**ure* k* necewaiy to meef tie 3 -
percent requirement. • " .••-'" " ''
-------
.Federal .Jtegster >/Tyol.. 57, •
/'. Thursday.- April ,16, 1992 :•/; Proposed -Rtilea '
13521
Jull development and adoption .under the -.date, despite expeditious -.~ ? ra.-.**-^- :.-:: v-r
-following conditions: .-Vr~; -I:,~ «. m>r. ii^ implementation efforts. The 1994 SnV-y.-
' (1) The plan containing the '.;. -U* y-: ;"-, .j must include with each long-term. '->•';• .
demons tratipn.of-atiaininent must ;4*y=? ~ -^measure.an- enforceable «chedule-.»^iH;>r •
identify.each measure for.whlch Vr'H.-X-" . binding respdnaible.agencies to achieve ,
- additional time wo^ldbe'needed for ^ full .-'.identified e^saio^wuctions from..; •;.- :
- development and adopn'pn.-y^/, .iX-r;.,.-: • «a&.measiire.~:;'£;,%j?/.u.%^;-Jr -.^-.j}.- ~.*-
' . (2)Theplan~must.inow:ttatj^elpngV..-."'iAlong with "these provisions, the. 7 -:;-.'
term mei|sms/cahpot.bejfully^*^j;.>^ ^-State's '1394 .SR snbmJttalmust include ^
.developed'andadbpteH.b'ythesubmittal ''-
•• •' -""' '• - ~ * • ' "* •"•'
f ^ entio'those'Bssigned i-
icy that developmenta^ a*dopjron,'^°.'-each yeM^y:.thelo^-tem mjaiures. -irf1
--~-^"-f-~-^O^g^eauIe'to;.^W^
c. --
•
• '• from ea^ch 16ng^te7^mejasiure~for eachijw.
..year througVme^attainm'ent yea?; .'ICvV:?
'_•..-{4} Thfpl^n must 'contain "backstop^ '.-
"••measufeithat wpuldjje -implemented to J-
- achieve eq'uivlalent'ermssip^nVreductions •
unless the long-lerih measure is adopted
-on schedule^^^^^^xr.-'.
.:...(5) The long-term measures^mustaot -..;.
-; be needed to meefany emissions'"'IW/'-" ?:- -;.
- .reduction requirement during the"first"8 •''.-
: years'after'enactm^'L^^^^'^•-;-'•-;
' '.The""badcstbp''.measures'feqTured _ vr'•'-..
. .undertpridition #4 must be "submitted; -;'
with the'1994 attainment demonstration""•'
.. in fully adopted formTThe "backstop" ^
• measures must be designed to go into »•'/[.
effect automatically on a'schedule --y-'-'v^-
sufficient to achieve all of the reductions'
identified with each long-term measure -
for each year through 'the attainment '• •
year. The "backstop" measures may '-.;"
represent broad, across-the-board -•".''
reductions in emissions, rather than ' .-
thoroughly analyzed and developed
control measures. For this reason, EPA '
does not anticipate the actual . -=• '.
implementation of "backstop" measures
in most cases as States will have ample
"opportunity to submit SIP revisions
incorporating the fully developed long- -'
term measures and deleting the
"backstop" measures from the SIP.
Additionally, if a long-term measure
cannot be developed, then that State has
the option to submit a SIP revision
identifying a fully developed and
adopted alternative measure to replace
the original long-term measure prior to
any necessary implementation of
"backstop" measures. • - ;
. Thus, a State may find that progress
can be achieved with measures that are
fully developed by the 1994 SIP . - •
submittal date. However, the State may .
determine that expeditious attainment
of the NAAQS is impossible unless the
SIP also includes measures which ....
cannot be fully developed until after the
1994 SIP is due.. In its 1994 SIP submittal,
the State must clearly describe each of -
these long-term measures and show.that
each measure cannot be fully developed
ISf.- and adopted until a specified future - •. •-,
-source. For severe ozone nonattainment
. areaSvthe emissions offset ratio, is at :••-'•
least U to 1 unless ihe SIP. requires all..
.existing major sources in-the. ;Vr. ->-A ..
nonattainment area to use BACT. as ••>.
defined in section 169(3). In this case, -.- .
the ratio shall be at least 1.2 to !.-.-:<::-::.:..
; .- (d) TOM'S to offset growth in^-s--;-..
--emissions from growth in 'VMT. Section
:--182(dJ(l)(AJ,; VMT.-applies to severe .;,--
:ozone nonattainment areas: This section.
.'requires'that States submit revisions to .
•;their SIFs by-November l£ 1992 that -,-.--
"-identify .and adopt "specific-and.r •?!• br.
enforceable^transportation control ;i..:. •_-.
; would..also^prppose"ideletion of the_";C'_^,;;
I associated -"backstops."?The EPA's .•J"J:.y
: approval of tHe long-term measufes";".: ."ij
would also rescind from the SIP the'.''!-:.
. ~.^ ^- ; - »"• „«.»»•!••» I.-/^.— j - _ •- - • !•-_>'.
Severe areas are requiredjo meet all v;
'nnn'» arpri fpniiirpTni>Tit« T Virile<;'« "'*' •'• "".
serous arearequ_z_. ___^ ^..~..-,j
'Otherwsejri'ote'dYas well as'th_e7vr."ri'!:!-'
. following additional reqmrementsT.'T.
- (a) Major stationary source 'definition,'
-For ozone njbna'Uainment •areas'. '• '.''*'y"f
"classified as sCTere?thy terms ^"major''5-^1
•rs'ource'\and "major stationary, source," /
• for purposes'of the NSR program arid the"'
RACT requiremeht'for major rioh-CTG '..
sources, include any stationary source, *
or group "of sources, located within a " .
contiguous area and under common .'
control that emits or has the potential to
emit at least 25 tons per year. . ' '
[b] RACT. Section 182(d) requires That
the same RACT requirements apply to •
severe areas as apply to serious areas".
Moreover, as in serious areas, the lower
applicability cutoff for major non-CTG
sources would result in the need for . . -
additional non-CTG RACT rules in
cases where no existing CTG applies to
a source in the area emitting 25 tons per
year, or an existing CTG for the source
category subject to a 25-tons-per-year
cutoff applies only to sources above a
higher cutoff. Rules for these sources
would be subject to the sane schedule
and requirements of nori-CTG RACT .
specified by section 182(b](2)(C] (i.e.,
• rules are due by November 15,1992 for
major sources not covered by an '
existing or expected CTG). - "
(c) NSR—(!) Offset ratio. For the
purpose of satisfying the emissions •
offset reduction requirements of section
173(a)(l)(A), the emissions offset ratio is
• the ratio of total actual emissions ••
-• reductions to total allowable increased
- emissions from the new or modified •' •'
• .' See di»cuj»ion utide'r tectlon IILAJJ ("KFP
- Demonstration," S
-------
13522 .. •;-.;: Federal Register /^Vol 57/No. 74 /•Thuxsaay.-April-16.-'1992'/ Proposed Rulea
. VOC emissions will never be higher
during the ozone season in one year that
• during the ozone season in the year •
before. When growth in VMT-and
vehicle trips would otherwise cause a
motor vehicle emissions upturn, this
upturn must be prevented. The"; • •
emissions level at the point of upturn
becomes a ceiling on motor vehicle ~ ~
emissions. This requirement applies to •
' projected emissions in the years "' • •
between the submission of the SIP
revision'and the attainment deadHne
and is above and beyond the separate ' •
requirements for the RFP and thei ' "• •'. •
attainment demonstrations. Which "• • •'
' requirements will be more constraining
•in an area" may vary with time,' with the
areas's mix of sources, and with control
measures adopted for other sources.
Reductions from" any discretionary
measures adopted to satisfy this
provision are creditable to the RFP . .
requirements. . '•"."•
While the above requirement is simple
. in'concept, its application could '. . •
encourage areas to delay VMT or .
emissions reduction measures suitable
for use'as offsets until the trend in motor
vehicle emissions reaches its minimum
point and is about to turn upwards. This
incentive for delay would exist because
earlier implementation would bring the
trend to a lower minimum, but would
.not change the date when the trend line
began to increase. Later implementation
would, however, delay the date when
the trend line would increase. To
implement the VMT offset provision
while avoiding this counterproductive
incentive for delay. EPA has developed
the approach described below.
If projected total motor vehicle
emissions during the ozone season in
one year are not higher than during the
ozone season the year before, given the
control measures in the SIP. the VMT
offset requirement is satisfied. However,
if the State plans to implement control
ir.easures over and above those
specifically required by the Act and
those required to demonstrate RFP and
attainment earlier than would be
necessary and sufficient to prevent an
emissions upturn, a projected
subsequent growth-related increase to
the level of emissions that would occur
if these measures were scheduled later
will not be considered to violate the
requirement to offset emissions
increases due to growth in VMT or
vehicle trips. The latter situation should
be viewed as a temporary reduction in
emissions to a level below that required
by the provision rather than an increase
above the required level, with no effect
on emissions at or after the point at
which offsetting measures become
essential to compliance'. " \"- -~ '•-
The EPA will approve a SIP revision
as meeting this provision despite a •" •
forecasted upturn in vehicle emissions,
as long as motor vehicle VOC emissions
in the ozone season of a given year dp '
not exceed a ceiling level which reflects
a hypothetical strategy'of implementing '
otherwise specifically required • . •
measures on schedule and saving offset
measures until the point at which VMT "
growth would otherwise cause "an ;•'."'. •
emission.upturn. The ceiling level is ; ""
therefore defined (up to the point of • - *'
upturn) as motor vehicle emissions that"
would occur in the ozone season of that
year, with VMT growth, if all measures ._
. for that area in that year were •"-'--' : '
implemented as required by the Act. .
When this curve begins to turn up due to
growth in VMT or vehicle trips, the
ceiling becomes a fixed value. The -.
ceiling line would include the effects of
Federal measures such as new motor
vehicle standards. Phase IIRVP ..: . _: -
controls, and reformulated gasoline, as
well as Clean Air Act-mandated SIP
requirements such as enhanced I/M, the .
- fleet clean-fuel vehicle program, and the
employer trip .reduction program. The
ceiling line would also include the effect
of forecasted growth in VMT and . .
vehicle trips in the absence of new "
discretionary measures to reduce them.
The ceiling line must, in combination
with projected emissions from
nonvehicle sources, satisfy the RF?
requirements for the area. Any VMT
reduction measures or other actions to
reduce motor vehicle emissions adopted
since November 15,1990 and net
specifically required for the area by
another provision of the Act would not
be included in the calculation of the
ceiling line.
Forecasted motor vehicle emissions
must be held at or below the rrJninurri
level of the ceiling line after the ceiling
line reaches its minimum level, if an
area Implements offset measures early,
the forecasted emissions will be less
than the ceiling line, and forecasted
motor vehicle emissions could Increase
from one year to the next, as long as
forecasted emissions never exceed the
ceiling line. " . • "
The EPA has received comment
indicating that section 182(d](l)(A)
should be interpreted to require areas to
offset any growth in VMT above 1S90
levels, rather than offsetting VMT
growth only when such growth leads to
actual emissions increases. Under this
approach, areas would have to offset
VMT growth even while vehicle
. emissions are declining. Proponents of
.this interpretation cite language in the
House Committee Report Which "appears
to support the Interpretation. This: report
states that "(t)he baseline for -
determining whether there has b«en
growth in emissions due to increased
VMT is the level of vehicle emissions
that would occur if VMT held constant
in the area." (RR. No. 101-490, part 1.
101st Cong. 2d Sess., at 242.)
' Although the statutory language could
be read to require offsetting of any VMT
. growth, EPA believes that .the language
can also be read so'that only actual
emissions increas'es resulting from VMT.'
growth need to be bffseLThe statute by
its "own terms requires offsetting of "any
growlh in emissions from growth in "
VMT." It'is rea'sonableTto interpret this
language" as requiring that VMT growth
must be offset.bnly where such growth
results in emissions increases from the
motor vehicle fleet in the "area.. •
While it is true that the language of
the H.R. 101^490 appears to support the
alternative interpretation of the .-.
• statutory language, such an alteiTiative
interpretation would have drastc - :
implications for many of the areas .
subject to this provision. Since VMT is
growing at rates as high as 4 percent per
year in some cities such as Los Angeles.
these cities would have to impose
draconian TCM's such as mandatory no-
. drive restrictions, to fully offset the
effects of increasing VMT if the areas
where forced to ignore the beneficial
impacts of all vehicle tailpipe and
alternative fuel controls.
Although the original authors of the
provision and H.R. 101-J90 may in fact
have intended this result, EPA does not
believe the Congress as a wholf!, or even
the full House of Representatives,
believed at the time it voted to ;3ass the
CAAA that tie words of this provision
would impose such severe restrictions.
There is no further legislative history on
this aspect of the provision: it v;as r.ct
discussed at all by any member of the
Congress during subsequent legislative
debate and adoption.
Given the susceptibility of th»
statutory language to these two
alternative interpretations. EPA believes
that it is the Agency's role in
administering the statute to take the
interpretation most reasonable in light
of the practical implications of such
interpretation, taking into consideration
• the purposes and intent of the sitarutory
scheme as a whole. In the context of the
intricate planning requirements
• Congress established in title I to bring
areas towards attainment of the ozone •
standard, and in light of the absence of
any discussion of this aspect q: the VMT
• offset provision by the Congress as a . '
whole (either in floor debate or in the
-------
; Federal Register / Vol 57. Ho. 74 /Thursday. April 16. =1992 / Proposed Roles - .;.-..- -13523
Conference ReportJrEPA concludes that
the appropriate interpretation.of section
tt82(d)f,lKA) requires offseting VMT
growth only when such growth would
result in actual emissions increases.
Section 182(dj(l}(A] requires that
specific, enforceable measures selected
by the State be,submitted by November
15,1992. along with a demonstration .
that they are adequate to hold vehicle
emissions within'the ceiling described
above. It also states that these
measures, beyond offsetting growth in .
emissions, shall be sufficient to allow
total area emissions to comply with the
RFP and attainment requirements. These
requirements create a timing problem of
which Congress was perhaps not fully
aware. Ozone nonattainment areas
affected by this provision are not
otherwise required to submit a SD?
demonstration which predicts
attainment of the 1996 RFP milestone
until November 15,1993, and likewise
are not required to demonstrate post-
1996 RFP and attainment until
November 15,1994. The EPA does not
believe that Congress intended the
offset growth provision .to advance the .
dates for these broader submissions.
Even without the requirement that the
offset growth measures be sufficient to
allow overall RFP and attainment in
conjunction with other measures, EPA
believes that the November 15.1992
date would not allow sufficient time to
develop a set of measures that would
comply with the offset growth provision
over the long term.
To deal with this timing problem so as
to allow a more coordinated and
comprehensive planning process, EPA
will accept committal SIP revisions for
the offset growth requirement under the
authority of section 110(k}(4). This will
allow States 1 year from EPA
conditional approval of the committal
revision to submit the full revision
containing sufficient measures in
specific and enforceable form. This may
not stretch the effective deadline for the
full revision dealing with the post-1996
period all the way to November 15,1994.
The affected States may need to submit
their post-1996 RFP and attainment
demonstrations somewhat earlier than
nominally required by the provisions
establishing the requirements for those
demonstrations, so that EPA can assess
the adequacy of the growth-offsetting
measures against all three criteria
specified by the 1990 CAAA. With the -
extra time allowed through the use of a
committal SIP revision. States should be
able to use procedures for projecting
VMT as given in EPA forecasting and
tracking guidance for serious CO areas.
(e) Employer trip reduction program. _
Section 182(d)(l)(B) requires that States
with severe and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas shall submit a SIP
revision requiring employers with 100 or
more employees in such areas to
implement programs to reduce work-
related vehicle trips and miles traveled
by employees. Guidance on the
implementation of the employee trip
reduction program will be provided in a -
supplement to this general preamble.
6. Extreme Areas . . . . •
Extreme areas are required to meet all
severe area requirements, unless
otherwise'noted, as well as the
following additional requirements. •
(a) Major stationary source definition.
For ozone nonattainment areas - -
classified as extreme, the terms major
source and major stationary source, for
purposes of the NSR program and the
RACT requirement for major non-CTG
sources, include any stationary source, •
or group of sources, located within a
contiguous area and under common
control that emits or has the potential to
emit at least 10 tons per year.
(b) RACT. Section I82(e) governs
extreme areas. In these areas, the same
RACT requirements apply as for the
severe ozone nonattainment areas.
However, the major source cutoff for
non-CTG sources is reduced to 10 tons
per year. As in the other areas, this
lesser cutoff could result in the need for
additional non-CTG RACT rules in •
cases where no existing CTG applies to
a source in the area emitting above 10
tons per year, or an existing CTG for the
source category subject to a 10-ton-per-
year cutoff applies only to sources
above a higher cutoff. Rules for these
sources would be subject to the same
schedule and requirements of r.on-CTG
RACT specified by section 182(b)(2)(c)
(i.e., rules are due by November 15.1992
for major sources not covered by a new
or expected CTG].
(c) NSR— (1) Offset ratio. Fcr the
purpose of satisfying the emissions
offset reduction requirements of section
173(1)(A), the emissions offset ratio is
the ratio of total actual emissions
reductions to total increased allowable
emissions of such pollutants] from the
new or modified source. For an extreme
ozone nonattainment area, the
emissions offset ratio is at least 1.5 to 1,
unless the State requires all existing
major sources in the nonattainment area
to use BACT as defined in section
169(3), in which case the emissions
offset ratio shall be at least 1.2 to 1.
(2] Special NSR rules. For the
purposes of determining the
applicability of the NSR permit
requirements under section 173(a). the
de minimis rule in section 182(c](6] and
the special rules in section 182(cj [7] and
(8). as discussed above for serious and
severe areas, do not apply in extreme
ozone nonattainment areas.
(3) Modifications in extreme cress.
For modifications of major stationary
sources located in extreme areas, the
1990 CAAA eliminate the concept of de
minimis altogether for the purposes of
determining a major modification. New
section 182(e)(2] provides that any
physical change of, or change in the
method of operation, at the source that
results in any increase in emissions from
any discrete operation, unit, or other
pollutant-emitting activity at the source
generally must be considered a
modification subject to the part D NSR
permit requirements.
Section 182(e)(2) does, however,
provide for an exemption from section
173(a)(l] offset requirements if the
owner or operator of the major
stationary source agrees to offset any
proposed increase by a greater amount
of onsite reduction in emissions from
other discrete operations, units, cr
activities at an internal offset ratio of 1.3
to 1. In addition, .this new section
stipulates that the offset requirements
do not apply in extreme areas if the
modification consists of installing
equipment required to comply with the
applicable implementation plan, permit,
or the Act itself.
(d] Clean fuels for boilers. Section
182(e](3), "Use of Clean Fuels cr
Advanced Control Technology," applies
to certain boilers in extreme ozor.e
nonattainment areas. The State is
required to submit a SIP revisior. by
November 15,1S93 that requires affected
boilers to use either clean fuels c:
advanced control technology by
November 15,1993. Affected boiiers are
individual new, modified, or exisur.g
electric utility, industrial, or
commercial/institutional boilers that
emit more than 25 tons per yea: c:" No,
The Act specifies, for purposes c: this
section, that clean fuels are "natural gas.
methanol, or elhanol (or a comparably
low polluting fuel]," advanced control
technology generally means "catalytic
control technology or other comparably
effective control methods," and the clear
fuel must be "used 90 percent cr rr.ore of
the operating time."
A boiler should generally be
considered ss any combustion
equipment used to produce steam. This
would generally not include a prccsss
heater that transfers heat from
, combustion gases to process streams, a
waste heat recovery boiler that is used
to recover sensible heat from the
• exhaust of process equipment such as a
-------
13524 Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 74./ Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
I
I
combustion turbine; or a.recovery
furnace that is used to recover process
chemicals. Boilers used primarily for
residential space and/or water heating
are not affected by this section. . .
Only boilers that actually emit more
than 25 tons per year of NO, are
affected Emissions vary from year to
year, however, making applicability '. .
difficult to determine. Boilers with rated
heat inputs of greater than 10-20 million
Btu generally have the potential to
exceed the 25-tons-per-year limit
depending on the fuel type A source
with these high rated heat inputs should
therefore be considered affected unless
its federally enforceable permit . ,.
specifically restricts NO, emissions
below 25 tons per year from each boiler.
Boilers with rated heat inputs less than
10 million Btu which are coal-fired and
less than 15 million Btu which are oil-or
gas-fired, may be considered de minimis
and exempt from these requirements
since it is unlikely that they will exceed
the emissions limit, and those few that
do will emit very little in the aggregate. .
The State is free to impose more
stringent requirements. .
(e) TCM's during heavy traffic hours.
Section 182(e)(4) (in Title I] authorizes
the SIFs for extreme areas to contain
provisions establishing TCM's
applicable during periods of heavy
traffic that reduce the use of high
polluting or heavy-duty vehicles. The
section states that this authority is
granted notwithstanding any other
provision of law.
In contrast section 246(h] requires the
Administrator to promulgate regulations
to ensure that certain TCM's including
time-of-day or day-of-week restrictions
and similar measures that restrict
vehicle usage, do not apply to any clean-
fuel vehicles that meet the requirements
of the title II clean-fuel vehicle fleet
program. That section states that it
applies notwithstanding title L
The EPA believes that these two
provisions can be harmonized by
interpreting section 246(h) as allowing
only regulations that impose traffic
controls on vehicles other than heavy-
duty, clean-fuel fleet vehicles. The EPA
believes that controlling the nonclean-
fuel. heavy-duty fleet vehicles along
with all nonfleet heavy-duty vehicles
will effectively reduce congestion and
emissions during peak traffic conditions.
Sections 182(e)(4] and 246(h) can thus be
harmonized by allowing SEP's for
extreme areas to include traffic controls
on high polluting and most heavy-duty
vehicles, but not on heavy-duty, clean-
fuel fleet vehicles that have been •
exempted under EPA regulations
promulgated pursuant to section 246(h).
The EPA intends to promulgate its
regulations on the fleet program
transportation control exemptions
shortly. These regulations will address
the eligibility of fleets for the TCM ..
exemptions. States may at any time •
submit TCM's that apply to high •..
polluting or heavy-duty vehicles not
subject to the clean-fuel fleet program in
extreme areas during periods of heavy
traffic. . .; • ' -.-- • ;
(f) New technologies. The Act
recognizes that extreme areas may have
to rely to a certain extent on new or
evolving technologies to meet certain of
the emissions reduction requirements. '•
The relatively long time between. ' "
developing the initial SIP and attaining
the NAAQS. and the degree of ' .
emissions reductions needed to attain
the standard, guarantees that some .
control technologies will not be fully
demonstrated by the time of SEP
development. These measures would -
include those that may anticipate future
technological developments as well as
those that may require complex
analyses and decision making and
coordination among a number of •
government agencies. Section 182(e)(5)
allows the Administrator to approve an
extreme area SEP and attainment
demonstration that anticipate
development of new control
technologies, or improvement cf existing
control technologies if the SI? satisfies
the following criteria:
(1) The plan containing the
demonstration of attainment must
identify all measures, including the long-
term measure(s) for which additional ^_
time would be needed for development
and adoption.
(2) The plan must show that the long-
terra measure(s] cannot be fully
developed and adopted by the submittal
date for the attainment demonstration
and must contain a schedule outlining
the steps leading to final development
and adoption of the meaure(s).
(3) The plan must contain
commitments from those agencies lhat
would be involved in developing and
implementing the schedule for the
measure.
(4) The plan must contain z
commitment to develop and submit
contingency measures (in addition to
those otherwise required for the area)
that could be implemented if the
measure is not developed or if it fails to
achieve the anticipated reductions.
(5) The long-term measure(s] must not
be needed to meet any emissions ;
reductions requirements within the first
10 years after enactment The State must
submit its contingency measures no - - •
. later than 3 years before the original -. .
long-term measure was to have been
impleniented,'-The measures must be
adequate to produce emissions
reductions sufficient in conjunction
with other approved plan provisions, to
achieve the periodic emissions
reductions and to attain the ozone
NAAQS by the applicable dates. If the
Administrator determines that the
extreme area has failed to achieve an
emissions reductions requirement set
forth in section 182 (b)(l) or [c)(2] and
that such failure is due in whole or part
to an inability to fully implement .
provisions (related to new technologies}
described in section 182(e) (1 through 4)
and approved pursuant to section '
182(e}(5). the Administrator will require
the State to implement the contingency
measures'to the extent necessary to
ensure compliance with the emissions
reduction requirements of section 182
(b)(l) and (c)(2). The EPA will set a
schedule for implementing contingency
measures upon making a finding of
failure to meet a milestone. .
(g] Milestone failures (economic
incentive programs). Under section
182(g)(5), if the State fails to submit a
compliance demonstration for any
extreme area as required by section
182(g)(2), or if the area has not met an
applicable milestone as required by
section 182(g)(l). the State shall submit
a plan revision to implement an
economic incentive program (as
described in section 182(g)(4)] within 9
months of such failure. The EPA urges
the State in this instance to initiate the
development of an economic incentive
program as soon as it can reasonably
define the objectives and scope cf an
appropriate program, without waiting
until such a failure occurs. The EPA
belives that early initiation is important
so as to allow for sufficient time to
develop, implement, and evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. Economic
incentive programs are discussed ir.
more detail in section III.H.3.
7. Nonclassifiable Nonattaininer.t Areas
(a) General. Nonclassified ozcr.e
areas consist of transitional.
submarginal. incomplete/no data areas.
An area is considered transitional under
section 185 if it was designated
nonattainment both prior to enactment
and (pursuant to section 107(d)(l](C]) at
the time of enactment and d.d not
violate the primary NAAQS For ozone
over the 3-year period 1S87-1989 (i.e.,
measured equal to or less than 1.0
exceedances per year base\i on a full sef
of quality-assured data from a properly
sited monitor(s]). Submarginal areas fall
.into one of two categories that arise
under the provisions of the 1990 CAAA.
-------
Twteral Register :/\VoL!57, No. 74'/ limraday/'April 16. 1992 /'Proposed Rules'
•13525
This situation exists due to the
adjustment for missing or incomplete . •
data when calculating expected •":
exceedahces. The first category. :
(Category I) consists of areas presently
designated nonattainment that are
violating the ozone standard. The
second category (Category II) consists of
areas designated attainment at .-,
enactment that are violating the ozone .
standard. Finally, if an area retained its ..
nonattainment designation at enactment
(under section 107(d)(l)(C)) but .'.';.... -
adequate''data are not available to . •
indicate whether one or more violations
of the standards have occurred, the area
is considered an incomplete data or no
data area.".;"'. '•".,/ -•••••
.Section 185A specifically exempts
transitional areas from subpart 2 ... -•
- requirements until December 31.1991.
However, the CAAA are silent on -.
whether such 'areas should be exempt
from subpart 1 requirements as well. "-
The CAA provide no specific guidance
' for submarginal and incomplete/no data
areas concerning applicable
requirements for these categories. __
Subpart 1 contains general SIP planning
-requirements, and EPA believes that '.
subpart 2 is not applicable to .
submarginal and incomplete/no data .
areas. Nevertheless, because these
areas are designated nonattainment,
some aspects of subpart 1 necessarily .
apply. The EPA's interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements for these
areas is given below. Under section
172(b), applicable revisions to the SIP
are due 3 years from designation under
section 107(d).
(1) RACT/Reasonably available
control measures (RACM)—(i)
Transitional areas. To satisfy section
172(c)(l), transitional areas (section
185A) that continued to show no
violations as of December 31.1991 must
ensure, at a minimum, that any
deficiencies regarding enforceability of
an existing rule are corrected. While
section 185A exempts transitional areas
from all Subpart 2 requirements until
December 31.1991, and that exemption
continues until the area is redesignated
to attainment (assuming the area
satisfactorily demonstrated attainment
by December 31," 1991), States should be .
aware that in order to be redesignated
to attainment such areas must correct
any RACT deficiencies regarding
enforceability. •
(ii) Incomplete/no data areas. Since it
is not known whether these areas are
violating the standard or not, it is EPA's
position that requiring RACT corrections
is unreasonable. However, like
transitional areas,.5ncomplete7no data .
areas must correct any RACT ' *';~~,
deficiencies' regarding enforceability of
existing rules in order to be . . .
redesignated to attainment.
(iii) Sub-marginal areas. Since it is •
known that sub-marginal areas are . •
violating the standard (only their design
value is lower than the threshold for .
which an area can be classified), it is
EPA's position'that such areas must • f
make the same RACT corrections (if.- "•
previously required) as marginal areas.;.
Like marginal areas, sub-marginal areas •
are exceeding the ozone standard and :
therefore should apply the same level of
RACT as was required before . . .
enactment Under sec'tion'l72(b), these
RACT corrections' must be included in
the SIP revision due November 15,1993.
However, to the extent an area is .
subsequently reclassified to one of the
nonattainment classifications hi Table 1
of section 181. it will be subject to the
time schedule of subpart 2. ...
(2) Attainment demonstration. Section
182(a)(4) specifically exempts marginal''
.areas from any attainment .;
demonstration requirement Since
marginal areas are exempt from this -
requirement, it would be unreasonable ..
to apply this requirement to an area that
was either not violating the standard or
recorded a design value so low as to be
undassifiable. Therefore, EPA will
presume that the existing SIP.
• requirements and any existing and -
future Federal requirements (e.g.. the
tide n rules) wil be sufficient to provide
for attainment in these areas.
(3) RFP. A reasonable further progress
requirement assumes a long
nocattainment period or a large amount
of reductions required to attain. Because
a transitional, submarginal, or
incomplete data area is or is likely to be
already in or near attainment EPA will
treat a SIP that includes NSR and RACT
corrections (if needed) coupled with
Federal measures, as meeting the RFP
requirement.
(4] Emissions inventory. An emissions
inventory is specifically required under
section 172(c)(3), and is not tied to an
area's proximity to attainment
Moreover, even if these areas are
already attaining or near attainment
they will need such an inventory to
develop an approvable maintenance •
plan under section 175A.
(5) NSR, Like the emissions inventory.
requirement the NSR requirement is not
tied to an area's proximity to attainment
and therefore exempting a •
nonattainment area from NSR ' '
requirements would clearly violate the
.Statute. Furthermore, the new NSR .
. program is one of the CAAA's major • " •
; bulwarks against further deterioration of
the Nation's air quality. Therefore, all
nonattainment areas, including
submarginal. transitional and
incomplete/no data areas, are required
to adopt NSR programs meeting the
requirements of section 173, as
amended. •"-••"•••'•'••.•_
(6) Monitoring. Section 172 (b) and (c)
explicitly states that nonattainment_.
.areas must meet the "applicable" .
monitoring requirements of section . .
"
(7) Contingency measures. Since
submarginal and incomplete/no data
areas generally present less serious •
ozone problems than marginal areas, •
which are expressly exempted from the
requirement for contingency measures
under section 182(a), contingency -.-.••
measures are not likely to be necessary -
to assure attainment for these areas,
EPA believes it appropriate not to apply
the requirement for contingency '••
measures for these areas under a de '
minimis approach. The approach is
authorized by •Alabama- Power v. Castle.
836 F.2d 323, 360-6V4C4-05 (DC Circuit
1980), which held that EPA may exempt
. de minimis actions from a'statutory •
requirement when the burdens of • •
regulation would yield little or no value.
(8) Attainment dates for
nonclassifiable areas. Section 172(a)(2)
requires an attainment date of no later
than 5 years from an area's designation
as nonattainment For areas designated
nonattainment under section
107(d)(l)(C)(i) (pre-enactment
nonattainment areas), the attainment
date is November 15,1995. For newly
designated areas, the attainment date
will be 5 years from the effective date of
the nonattainment designation. For
submarginal and incomplete/no data
areas that fail to attain in 5 years, EPA
is considering one or more of the
following options in enforcing a 5-year
attainment date for nonclassifiable
areas:
(i) If an area fails to attain 5 years
from designation, the area would be
bumped up to marginal or a .
classification commensurate with the
area's design value if the design value is
at least 0.121 ppm.
(ii) If an area fails to attain 5 years .
from designation either due to ' .
incomplete/no data or a submarginal
design value, the area retains its status
but EPA will tighten subpart 1
requirements. This could include further
RACT measures, or possibly a basic I/Si
program. . ......
- .. The following sections further discuss
the applicability of the Act's ..;' - .
, requirements to each of the three types
:' of nonclassifiable areas. •'-'•_ -" ~ •
-------
13526 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
(b) Transitional. A transitional area
will have to meet the requirements
described below.
(1) Section 185A requirements. The
Administrator announced in the
November 6,1991 Federal Register
which ozone nonattainment areas did
not violate the NAAQS during the 36-
month period from January 1.1987 to
December 31.1989. For such areas, the
requirements under subpart 2 (of title I
part D], including any RACT fix-up
obligations, were suspended until
December 31.1991. By June 30,1992. the
Administrator will determine on the
basis of the area's average number of
exceedances whether the area had in
fact attained the NAAQS for ozone by
December 31.1991. Where the
Administrator determines that the area
attained the NAAQS, the State must
submit a maintenance plan for the area
within 12 months of such determination.
In addition, the other four redesignation
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)
must be met, including RACT fix-ups
regarding enforceability.
(2) Redesignation of transitional
areas. The State must submit complete
monitoring data for the transitional area
that supports redesignation to
attainment (i.e.. showing no measured
violations during the 36-month period
from January 1,1989. to December 31,
1991) in sufficient time for the
Administrator to make a finding of
attainment and to promulgate such
finding by June 30.1S92. If the
Administrator finds the area has
attained, the State must submit a
maintenance plan within 1 year of the
finding along with documentation to
support the conclusion that the
redesignation requirements under
section 107(d)(3)(E) have been met. For &
discussion of the specific State actions
required in order to satisfy the five
redesignation requirements, see
"Redesignations" under section I1I.H.B
of this document.
(3) NSR. By November 15,1992. all
nonattainment areas, including
transitional areas that have failed to
attain, must submit rules to implement
the new part D NSR requirements under
section 173.* In the meantime, the
existing part D NSR requirements will
remain in effect until the area is
redesignated to attainment, at which
time the PSD requirements of part C will
apply. If the area does not have an
approved part D plan for NSR permitting
and it issues a permit for a major
stationary source or major modification
in the transitional ana during the
interim period before redesignation. the
State permit should comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR part 51.
appendix S.
(4) Failure to attain. If a transitional
area violates the NAAQS during the 3-
year period from January 1,1989 to
December 31.1991. then it shall be
classified in accordance with Table 1,
section 181(a). Upon classification, the
area shall continue to be subject to the
general requirements under subpart 1
not addressed in subpart Z and those
specific provisions under subpart 2
appropriate to the area's classification
that would have applied had the area
been so classified at the time of the
notice of other nonattainment areas'
initial classifications under section
181(a)(3). For example, such an area
would need to submit RACT fix-up
requirements of section 182(a)(2)(A)
within 6 months of classification. The
Administrator may, however, adjust any
applicable deadlines (other than
attainment dates) to the extent that such
adjustment is necessary or appropriate
to ensure consistency among the
required submissions.
If complete monitoring data reveal
. that a transitional area is violating the
standard but its design value is less than
0.121 ppm '—below the design value
ranges in Table 1 (section 181(a])—then
the area will be considered submarginal.
Refer to the category below entitled
"Subrzarginal."
(c) SubmcrglnaJ— (1) Category I—
(Previously designated nonct'.ainme.ii).
If the area's average expected
exceedance rate was more than 1.0
during the 3-year period 1987-1S89, it is
violating the standard. However, if the
area's design value was less than 0.121
ppm, below the threshold for which it
• If a transitional area haa not recorded any
violations by December 31.1931. aad it in the
process of developing a maintenance plan per
aection 1£5A. then EPA may not require
cor.attairjT.ent NSR rule*. However, these areas
Rust continue to apply their existing NSR program
or comply with th« NSR permitting requirements of
40 CFR part 51. appendix S. Prior to redesignation.
these areas also must adopt and be prepared to
Implement a permitting program that satisfies the
requirements of part C and EPA's regulations
implementing the PSD program. Areas should
consider the need for offsets under tha part C
prograra to insure that new sources do not "cause or
contribute" to an Increase In pollutant levels that
would lake the area out of compliance. If the area is
found to be out of compliance and the statutory
deadlines for adopting amended part D permitting
rules for th« pollutant In question have passed. EPA
may impose a construction ban pursuad to section
113(a)(5] until such time as th« area adopts a part D
program satisfying the NSR requirecer.u of the
CAAA.
• Readers are reminded that for purposes of
determining exceedances, an «xcee
-------
Federal Register /-VoL 57, No.'74 /Thursday, -April 16. 1992 ^-Proposed'Rules „:_.... 13527
"appendix S,.until the State adopts the
necessary part D NSR provisions, -
(6) Redesignation to attainment In
order to be redesignated to attainment
the State must demonstrate that the five
redesignation requirements (i-v) under
section 107(d)(3)(E) have been met See
section nLH-5, which describes the
specific actions that will determine
compliance with each of these ." • .
requirements.'.";---?;".. - • . •
. (d) Incomplete data or no data—{\} •'.;-.
Requirements.. As discussed above in ' •
the Introduction, all nonattainment ".' :,i
areas, including incomplete data or.no .
data areas, are subject to the.-. "•.'.'..
• requirements in subpart 1. Specifically, ,:
section 172(b) requires a SIP revision
within 3 years of designation. - '-'.-•
If a State submits a request for
redesignation to attainment then a
proper and adequate maintenance plan. -.
as defined in section 107(d)(l)(E), must
be' submitted. The discussbn under
"Redesignation" in sectioh'ULrLS of this
preamble describes"the specific actions r
that will determine compliance with
each of these requirements. . • ..
(2) NSR. By November 15,1992, all •• "
ozone nonattainment areas, including .
incomplete or no'data areas, must "•
submit rules to implement the new NSR .
requirements of sections 172(c)(5) and
173. In the meantime, the existing part D
NSR requirements remain in effect If
the area does not have an approved part
D NSR permitting program, and the
State issues a permit for a major
stationary source or major modification
in the area, the State permitting program
should comply with the requirements in
40 CFR part 51, appendix S, until the
new part D NSR requirements become
effective.
8. Transport Areas
Section 176A allows' the
Administrator to establish a transport
region covering multiple States
whenever interstate transport of
pollutants contributes significantly to
violations of the NAAQS. Section 184(a)
specifically created at enactment by
operation of law, an ozone transport
region comprising the States of
Connecticut Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts. New
Hampshire. New Jersey, New.York,
Pennsylvania. Rhode Island.' and
Vermont and the CMSA that includes
the District of Columbia. Section 164(b) "
contains the specific requirements for
. States in the ozone transport region(s).
(a) Specific requirements. States
within ozone transport regions must
revise their SIFs to include specific.
measures by November 15,1992 in the
case of the region established by section
! lB4(a), or within 9 months of inclusion in
a transport region in the case of a State
subsequently included in a transport
region under section 176A, The - •
discussion here will focus on the region
established under section l&4(a), and. .
for convenience;' that region will be ' •••
referred to as'the Northeast transport .'
region or just the transport region. If
other ozone transporfregions are •"•-'.'•'-
established under section 176A. States
in these regions must also adopt and •'
implement the specific controls. /v?-"'- '".
discussed below."-!--V-'i -rhrV•"«"..";-.'.:.S,'.-_
(1) EnhancedI/M.'A State within the"-:"
transport region must adopt a program -•'
pursuant to section 184(b)(l)(A) meeting *.
the requirements of section 182(c)(3)." •"' '-;
"Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and •"•'—-'
Maintenance Program," for any MSA (or
portion of an MSA) within the Slate that
has a population of 100,000 or more. The '
Act does not address the census year for
this population: EPA believes the year of
enactment (1990) is the correct year to' /
use in this case. ••-.-'-"•'•-. •.'.:•• -.-: ;•- .
(2) RACT on VOC sources. Each State -."
in a transport region must adopt VOC - •:.
RACT regulations for sources located - -
within that portion of the State included
in a transport region.1?. Under section . ••
-184{b)(l)(B), the RACT rules that apply -~
to sources for which a CTG was issued -~
before or after enactment must be - r" ••••
submitted by November 15,1992. •- ••••
Section 184(b)(l)(BJ specifies that the -:
State must submit by November 15,
1992, a plan containing RACT rules for •
sources covered by a CTG issued after
enactment However, many past-
enactment CTG's will not be issued by
November 15,1992; indeed. Congress did
not contemplate that all would be issued
until November 15,1993 (see section
183(a)). For that reason it would be
impossible for a State to submit actual
RACT rules reflecting consideration of
the post-enactment CTG's by November
15,1992. Therefore, in order to meet the
submittal requirement the State must
submit an enforceable commitment to
adopt and implement RACT rules for
sources covered by CTG's issued after
" Section 17BA(a)(2) provides a process for
mocifying the boundaries of a transport region.
However. EPA will not allow a delay In the
adoption of meaiuret under section 184(b) due to a
Stale request to exdude a portion of the Slate from
the transport region. Tha EPA expects the States
within a transport region and the transport • . -
commission to consider requests for deletion ol
ami quickly 10 as to minimize the uncertainty
State* may have regarding plan lubmittali due 2 '
yeara from enactment (for, the Northeast transport
region) or 9 months after subsequent Inclusion of an
area and trantport region.'Although section lM{b)
" doe> no< specifically discuss bow much less than
the entire Slate can b« subject to the requirements.
EPA Interprets section 178A as establishing a ;
.process whereby a protion of a State can be ."' -'-.'
"rerpoved from the region and exempted from the".'"_
requirements. - '•' _ •' .- .-'- •- •- . -• •
enactment in accordance with the
schedules contained in each of the
CTG's. The CTG document in Appendix
E lists,the 11 CTG's EPA plans to issue
under section 183/The States should
refer to that document'. •"•'.- .
Furthermore, section 184(b)(2)
provides that VOC sources with the
potential to emit at least 50 tons per
year are effectively subject to the .
moderate area requirements. Therefore.
EPA believes that the schedule for - •
submitting and implementing these
RACT rules'should be consistent with
the requirements of section 182(b)(2)
which requires submittal by November
.15,1992 and implementation no later
than May 31.1995. : .';T /.;...' .•-.; :
• (3) NSR for,VOC sources.! Since ."
section 184{b)(2) requires that stationary
sources of VOC having the potential to
emit at least 50 tons per year'shall be
considered major sources and subject to
the same requirements that apply to
major sources in ozone area's classified
as moderate (section 162(b]), the State
must also adopt rules to apply the part D
. NSR permitting provisions n for ozone
statewide, unless a portion'of the State
. has been excluded from the transport
' region under section 176A(2). These ...
rules, which are due by November 15,
1992. include requirements that a new or
modified major stationary source will
apply controls representing LAER. and
that the source will obtain an emissions
offset prior to operation. The emissions
offset is based on the ratio of actual
emissions reductions of VOC to total
allowable increases in emissions that
would result from construction and
operation of the source. In this case, the
required ratio is at least 1.15 to 1 (the
ratio applicable to moderate ozone
' areas). It should be noted that in these
areas classified as serious or higher, a
higher offset ratio would apply. SLale
rules must ensure that the offsets
obtained for a new or modified
stationary source will be consistent with
any State or regional attainir.ent
strategies. All NSR requirements c; part
D must be met for permit issuance.
In nonattainment areas within the
transport region, offsets must gece.-ally
be obtained from the nonattainment -
. area where the source wishes to locate
except as allowed by section 173(c) of
. the amended Act Section 173(c) allows
offsets from other nonattainment areas
• if the area has equal or higher'
" nonattainment classification than the
. area where the source is located, and .
• emissions from such other area - . .'
- contribute to a violation of the standard
- '' Sec section nLC for a complete discussioc of
the NSR provisions. ". -" '"'-.-.
-------
13528
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. .April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
in the nonattainment area in which the
new source is located. For attainment
areas within the transport region,
guidance for location of offsetting
emissions at 40 CFR part 51. appendix S,
should be followed. Appendix S
specifies that emissions offsets for VOC
may be obtained from sources located
anywhere within the broad vicinity of
the proposed new source. Generally.
VOC offsets may be obtained if within
the same Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR) as the new source or from other
areas that may be contributing to the
ozone problem at the proposed new
source location. It is desirable to obtain
offsets from sources located as close to
the proposed new source site as
possible. If the proposed offsets would
be from sources located at greater
distances from the new source, the
reviewing authority should increase the
ratio of the required offsets and require
a showing that nearby offsets were
investigated and reasonable alternatives
were not available.
The PSD provisions of part C (as well
as the nonattainment provisions
discussed above) continue to apply to
stationary sources in the areas
designated attainment or unclassifiable
that are within the ozone transport
region. Title I dees not exempt these
sources from the PSD requirements.
Likewise, the major stationary source
thresholds defined in the PSD rules
continue to apply when determining PSD
applicability.
(4) Gasoline vapor recovery. Section
184(b](2] requires the Administrator to
complete a study identifying control
measures capable of achieving
emissions reductions comparable to
those achievable through vehicle
refueling controls contained in section
132?b)(3) by November 15,1993. All
areas within a transport region are then
required, within 1 year of completion of
this study, to adopt and submit as an
SIP revision the comparable measures or
the section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
recovery measures. However, pursuant
to section 182(b)(3), ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above must adopt and
submit Stage II rules by November 15,
1S92. Although moderate nonattainment
areas that are located within an ozone
transport region may become exempt
from the section 182(b)(3) requirement
due to the adoption of onboard
regulations (see section 202(a][6]) such
areas will remain subject to the
transport requirement of section
184(b}(2). The exemption and waiver
provision of section 202(a](6) applies
only to the section 182(b](3) Stage II.
requirement, not to he the requirement
of section 184(b](2) to adopt Stage II or
measures identified as achieving
equivalent reductions. The transport
provision is a separate requirement that
focuses not on Stage n, but on means to
get reductions equivalent to what would
be achieved under section 182(b](3).
(b) Other requirements. The transport
region or portions thereof may also be
subject to additional control
requirements resulting from
recommendations from the transport
commission under section 184(c). If EPA
approves a recommendation from the
commission submitted under section
184(c). EPA will issue a finding that the
SIP for the appropriate State(s) is
inadequate and must be revised within 1
year to incorporate the •
recommendations of the transport
commission.
Each ozone nonattainment area
located within the transport region is
still subject to the applicable
requirements for a demonstration of
attainment under section 182 (b](l)(A)
and (c)(2). The EPA realizes that in seme
cases certain demonstrations will be
. complicated by the RFP requirements
and attainment deadlines that apply to
areas of different classifications.11 For
example, a moderate area located
within the transport region is still
subject to the 6-year attainment
deadline and the section 182(b)(2)(A)
requirement to provide annual emissions
reductions in its plan to attain by the
deadline. However, this area is (at least,
presumptively) being affected by
transport from another area(s] and is. as
well, possibly affecting other areas,
itself. If the "other" areas that are
affecting air quality levels in this
moderate area are classified as serious
or severe, those areas will be reducing
their emissions over a longer time frame
in order to attain the standard. That is,
these "other" areas could still be having
significant effects on the moderate area
at the time when the moderate area
must demonstrate attainment.
As discussed within the context of
demonstrations for moderate areas. EPA
believes that this situation is somewhat
analogous to the situations addressed in
section 132(h) for RTA's and in section
182(j) for multi-State ozone
nonattainment areas. In these cases, the
19SO CAAA recognize that at some
point, an area being affected by
emissions from another area(s) may not
be able to achieve sufficient emissions
11 The discussion here regarding aress within an
exislir.j transport region alto applies to areas that
are impacted by ozone and precursor transport but
•re not yet in transport regions. Therefore, much of
thi» discussion also occur* under lection Ul-AJ.(b)
for moderate areas.
reductions on its own to demonstrate"
attainment In these cases, the area is
relieved from certain requirements in
the CAAA that would require additional
controls. There is no explicit recognition
in the CAAA of this occurring in other
situations.
In general two situations exist in
which an area might be subject to
additional emissions reductions
requirements related to the
demonstration of attainment. In lie first.
an area might be receiving such high
levels of transport that even if it reduced
its emissions dramatically (e.g., totally
eliminated its own emissions), the
incoming ozone and precursors would
be high enough to continue to cause
violations of the standard beyond the
applicable attainment date. In the
second situation, the area might be able
to achieve additional reductions
(beyond those required under section
132), but even where those additional
reductions could be achieved to
demonstrate attainment, the question
arises whether it is equitable to requir-?
those reductions or to allow more tirsc
for the reductions in the "upwind" are.i
to take place. As described above.
however, the statute provides no
express relief for these situations. Thus.
where the demonstration of attainment
is complicated by transport behveen
two areas of different classifications, the
State is still responsible for developing
and submitting demonstrations which
show that the standard will be attained
by the applicable date. In other words.
the State must provide for sufficier.i
emissions red-actions on a schedule that
will ensure attainment in its moderate
area, for example, within 6 yean; after
enactment. The EPA believes that the
wording in section 132(b)(l](A](i)
requires the Slate to develop a pie-
providing such emissions reductions.
The area does not have the option cf
requesting to be reclassified to the r.e.xt
higher classification.
At this time, EPA is not sure to what
degree the situation described above is
likely to occur or know of any n:ai cases
where this will be a problem. If such a
situation were to occur, EPA intends to
look at the facts specific to that area.
Considerations would include the
.results of the area's attainment .analyses
along with any region-wide moc.elir.g
results in evaluating available SIP
approval options. When such areas
develop the demonstration of attainment
due in November 1994. they should
provide a comprehensive assessment of
the impacts of all control measures
being implemented in both the local and
upwind areas. States should clearly
• show the extent to which the downwind
-------
- ..... .Federal "Register •/ --Vol. 57. LN6;' 7^-j .Thursday. April .16. '.1992 ./-Proposed- Rules ;-—.--13529
area is dependent on upwind strategies
while fully meeting its own requirements
associated with its classification. ;: •''• •
9. Multi-State Ozone Nonattainment .• •
Areas •;''.'^s'.r"•'•':'/-•'*"'''• ••••..-
- Section 1820) defines a "multi-State .
ozone nonattainment area", as a single ;
ozone nonattainment area that covers: •••
more than one State.' Section 182(j)(l):.:
(A] and (B) set certain requirements for :
such areas. First'each State in a multi- .
State ozone nonattainment area must ---.'
take all reasonable.steps to coordinate : '
the implementation of the required. ;.-.::•'
revisions to SIFs for the given r; ci1- •'. -
nonattainment area (section «-jr*?-;•:'••'
182(j)(l)(A))i Next section 182(j)(l)(B)
requires the States to use photochemical -
grid modeling or any. other equally'.<-.-:*.;
effective'analytical method approved by
EPA for demonstrating attainment The, j
EPA is prevented by'section 182(j) from -
approving any SIP revision submitted v -.1
under that sectio£ if a State has failed to:
meet'the*above requirements,, -.j.-_t-.>-;> ,'
A State within a multi-State ozone „•• .
nonattainment area that fails to provide
a demonstratipn'of attainment for that . •
State's portion of the"area is allowed by .
section 182(j)(2).to petition EPA_to ,^- .-.
determine whether such State, could v; ,..
have demonstrated attainment but for -
the failure of one or more'States in the .
area to'adequately implement the '..
required measures under section 182 for
the given area.'If EPA so finds, then the
sanctions provisions under section 179
shall not apply to the State whose
failure to make an adequate attainment
demonstration was due to failure by
other States to implement section 182
measures.
Pursuant to section 182(j)(l)(A).-EPA
is calling on each multi-State ozcne
nonattainment area to develop a joint
work plan as evidence of early
cooperation and integration. The work
plan must include a schedule for
developing the emissions inventories,
the 15 percent progress requirement SIP
revision (if applicable), the 3 percent per
year progress requirement SIP revision
(if applicable), and the attainment
demonstration for the entire multi-State
area. Each State within a multi-State
ozone nonattainment area is responsible
for meeting all the requirements relevant
to the given area.
Marginal multi-State ozone
nonattainment areas are excluded from
undertaking photochemical grid
modeling for submittal in attainment
demonstrations by section I82(a)(4), . •
which excludes any marginal area from
the requirement to submit attainment
demonstrations. (The EPA believes that
the section 182(a)(4) exemptiort . - "_..'. .•
supersedes the applicability of the multi-
State area modeling requirement for. '.-'
marginal areas.)'-X ."••'• •• ". '. .
Moderate and above multi-State ..' "
ozone nonattainment areas must submit
attainment demonstrations which use •';
photochemical grid modeling (or
equivalent)^ This section 182(j)(l)(B) v;
requirement can be met through • '';'".,""
applicatioirof.EPA approved modeling .!
techniques'for SIP revisions as :-;'. .
recommended in the current version of'.
EPA's "Guideline oh'Air Quality Models'
(Revised)." The Urban "Airshed Model is '
recommended for modeling applications
involving entire urban "areas. Care " ';•;:•'
should be taken to'coordinate strategies'
and assumptions"in a'modeled area with
those in other; nearby modeled areas in "
order to ensure that consistent plausible
strategies are developed "-'• :. -:; - ;."--••
.. Section 182(j) requires States in which
a moderate multi-State nonattainment -:''
area occurs to use photoche'mical grid -
model to demonstrate that prescribed "• \
controls are sufficient to attain the :•-!.-••-
NAAQS. The'section is silent -'; :•": ••'-*
concerning the timing for such an •.' •
analysis. However, one'of the ~—.'-," ••''-.
distinctions between section 182(b) and •'•
section 182(c) is that serious areas (for . •
which grid models are required) are ---' •'
given an extra year (until November .".'
1994 instead of November 1993] to
submit a SIP reflecting an attainment
demonstration. This is in recognition of
the time required to gather data to
support to perform a grid modeling
analysis. Thus, a reading of section 182
(b). (c), and (j) implies that the
requirement that multi-State moderate
nonattainment areas perform grid
modeling effectively extends for 1 year
(from November 1993 to November
1994), the deadline for moderate multi-
State areas to submit a SEP containing
an attainment demonstration. Stated
differently, the requirement for grid
modeling imposed on multi-State
moderate areas by section 182(j)
supersedes the requirement to have the
November 1993 SIP transmitta] contain
an attainment demonstration. Instead.
for practical reasons, the requirement
imposed by section 182(j] implies a need
for a November 1994 SEP revision
reflecting provisions needed to attain .
the NAAQS as determined through a
grid modeling analysis.
The effect of this interpretation of
section 182 (b) (c) and (j) is that the
timing for SIP submittals in moderate
inter-State nonattainment areas is
identical to that in serious
nonattainment areas. That is. a SIP
revision providing for 15 percent ." .' '
reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 ..
through 1996 is due by November 1993.
. 'A second SIP revision containing •, •" - •
necessary provisions to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS is due in
November 1994.. " :'; , ""- "
B. Carbon Monoxide .;••.-. ... .
The 1990 CAAA create a new .. .
classification structure'fpr CO ".'..''
nonattainment areas based on the "•
severity of the nonattainment problem.
For each area classified under this
section,'the attainment date shall be as .
expeditious as practicable, but no later
than the date in the following table. The
classification scheme is as'follows:'....
.-.'. Area'
Moderate
Serious _
Design value, -
• " PP™ " • ".
-- -* ---
9.1-16.4 ppm-
«bov«.
;: Primary • .
-. .lUlldftfd
~ea*vnert
"-"•-'cat* -
December 31.
Dec*nber31.
'-2000.
As provided in part Diubpart3i:!i'-•• ~.
Emission Inventories, rules for'I/M, NSR
rules for areas with a design value ' •
greater than 12.7 ppni. and certain other
planning or control measures are '; "
required within 2 years after enactment
(November 15,1992) for both previously
and newly designated riocattainsent
areas. If an area's boundaries are
subject to adjustment under section
107(d)(4](A)(iv) (for serious CO areas],
final designation may be promulgated as
late as 14 months after enactment or
March 1992—just 8 months before major
rules (e.g., I/M. NSR) and the emission
inventory must be submitted. These
nonattainment areas should not delay
their adoption of rules or preparation of
inventories while the boundary
determinations are proceeding. Rather,
EPA believes these areas should be
prepared to readily adopt rules aid
complete their emission inventories for
the entire MSA/CMSA, should it be
concluded that the nonattainmer.t
boundaries will be the MSA/CMSA. The
EPA will require those submittais, which
are due by November 15,1992. to
address the entire nonaUainment area-
In addition to the two classifications,
some nonattainment areas do not fit into
the classification scheme and are
nonclassified areas. The CO section will
describe the requirements for all areas
(moderate and serious and the special
classifications) in much the sane way
as the 1990 CAAA describes the
requirements. The requirements are
additive (i.e., a serious area has to meet
all moderate requirements and all
, serious requirements; etc.). ....
• Requirements discussed for moderate
'•'areas will be repeated for'serious areas
' only if the requirements are different.
-------
13530
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 /-Thursday.-April 16, 1992 /.Proposed Rules
1. Moderate Areas 12.7 ppm and Below
(a) Emission inventory. Section
187(a)(l] requires moderate CO areas to
submit by November 15,1992, "a"
comprehensive, accurate, current •' •
inventory of actual' emissions' from all • i
sources, as described in section. .. '
172(c)(3).n_Draft base year inventories
must be submitted between January 1, •.
and May 1.1992. The inventory is , :...
denned as the base year inventory and ^
is a "current inventory." The EPA .• '."
interprets th'e requirement that the'.'"''
inventory be "current" to mean that it be
an inventory for 1990 (year of
enactment}. The inventory is to address
. actual CO emissions during the peak CO
season for the area (generally the winter
months). All stationary point, area. 'r'
highway/nonhighway mobile, and OCS
sources (if any) are to be included in the^
compilation. " •'".'*.''.: .'. ,' ' "' '
As one of the first steps in developing ;
the base year inventory, the States are
to prepare an IPP, which is due in final '•
form to EPA by October!. 1991. The IPP .
should include a brief statement of how
the State intends to develop, document, •
and submit its'iriveritory. Another'early
step in the inventory development -. • . •
process is preparing the point source
portion of the base year inventory.
Updated guidance for preparing
emission inventories was issued in May ..
1991; however, the point source portion
is essentially the same as it was for the -
post-1987 SIP's. Thus. States should
have already begun gathering data on
point source emissions. States are
encouraged to submit the point source
portion of the inventory to EPA as early
•as possible.
States that have fully completed
portions of their base year inventories
for 1987.1988. or 1989 may request EPA
approval to update these portions.
Otherwise, States will have to prepare a
completely new 1990 base-year
inventory. Guidance on the procedure to
request an update was provided in May
19S1 ("Procedures for te Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone,
Volume I [Revised]"). However, for
purposes of accuracy and compliance
with the goals of the 1990 CAAA. EPA
encourages all areas to prepare new .
1990 base-year inventories even if they •
already assembled base-year
inventories for 1987/1988/1989.
The EPA issued an updated version of
MOBILE4, its mobile source emissions
estimation model, in" July 1991. The
updated version is MOBILE4.1. and it -
replaces and supersedes its predecessor.
States, except for California, are/
required to use MOBILE4.1 in
determining highway'mobile-source ."
emissions for all of their base-year . ;
emissions inventories under the Act.
California should consult with'EPA
Region IX in determining which mobile
model to use."The majority of the -"• •
enhancements in the revised model are
internal to the model and do not directly
affect the use for base-year inventory "
emission factor generation purposes.
The reader should refer to. EPA's". •
"Emission Inventory Requirements for
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
Plans? for more information. •"•;,--
..The July"l991 guidance also contains - •
information related to some area and .
off-highway mobile source categories '•'•-
that may significantly affect how .-;-"-
emissions are to be determined. For
these categories (railroads and aircraft).
.'States must use the new methodology. • ;
and develop new emission estimates."
The States will also be required to .:
develop new 1990 base^year inventories
for highway mobile sources that account
for fleet turnover, road construction • . •
resulting in changes in VMT patterns,
and changes in speed limits. The new
1991 guidance on MOBILE4.1 and off- '.
highway mobile sources guidance on
.VMT should be consulted for additional .
detail ''•-.••••..-
The EPA guidance should also be
consulted for information on how to •
account for rule effectiveness when
calculating emissions from stationary
sources of CO. Rule effectiveness is a
measure of the ability of a regulatory
program to achieve all the emission
reductions that could be achieved by full
compliance with the program by all
sources at all times. For the purpose of
base-year inventories under the 19SO
CAAA. EPA will allow the use of an 80
percent default value but will also give
States the option to derive local
category-specific rule effectiveness
factors within some tightly prescribed
guidelines discussed in the guidance.
Finally, the reader should refer to
section III.B.6 for additional information
' related to base year inventories for
multi-State nonattainment areas.
- By meeting the specific inventory
requirements discussed above, the State
will also satisfy the general inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3).
(b]I/AT corrsctions. Section 187(a)(4)
requires States with moderate CO
nonattainment areas that already
include I/M programs or that were
required by the pre-1990 Act to include
I/M programs in their SIP's, to submit to
EPA immediately upon enactment any
revisions necessary to provide for a
program no less stringent than that
' required prior to enactment or
committed to in the SIP in effect at the
• time of enactment, whichever is more
stringent Requirements Jor these,I/M .
programs are contained in section .
182(a)(2)(B). This section requires EPA
to review, revise, update, and republish
in the Federal Register within 1 year of [
enactment the guidance for I/M
programs required by the Act taking
into consideration the Administrator's
investigations and audits of such
programs. In short the moderate areas
must maintain existing I/M programs •
and make corrections to those programs
to meet existing I/M policy; when '•'
updated policy is published, these areas
must submit revisions to address any ~'
revised guidance. - •'/- - '•' •' •"•"•'.: -
More specifically, section 182(a)(2)(B)
requires States to meet the basic I/M
: performance standard that has been in
effect since 1977., That performance" .
standard is based on a "model" program.
design consisting "of a! centralized '. .
progam that annually tests'tailpipc :
emissions'on all light-duty vehicles
using'emission standards for 1981 and
later model vehicles of 1.2 percent CO
and 220 ppm HC and 20 percent " '
stringency for pre-1981 vehicles. A •. •
compliance rate of 100 percent and a
waiver rate of zero percent are assumed.
States must demonstrate an emission
reduction for the I/M program included
in the SIP that is at least as great as that
produced by the "model" basic program
(or the program already included in the
SIP, whichever is greater), using tie."
most current available version of EPA's
mobile source emission model The I/M
programs are required in the urbanized
area portions, as defined by the Eurea-j
of the Census, of the nonattainment
area.
The EPA expects to issue the policy
for I/M areas in the near future. When
published, the policy will state the data
when such programs are to be
implemented. The EPA intends to allow
all areas ample time to adopt and
submit required I/M programs, iriclucLog
I/M corrections under section I87(a)(4).
States that have both basic and
enhanced I/M areas may opt to
implement enhanced programs in all
affected urbanized areas. States which
are only required to implement basic
programs must submit SIP revisions for
I/M program addressing any revised
policy. The guidance will cover the
elements of the SIP revision.
As mandated by section 202(ni), the
Administrator will promulgate
regulations requiring manufacturers to
install diagnostic systems on all new
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
The purpose of these systems is to
'.' identify and track emissions-rel ated .
systems deterioration or malfunction.
According to section 202(m)(3), within 2
-------
, .;•>•>• Federal .Register V:yoi"57.
>Thra
-. years of EPA's promulgating regulations--.
• requiring States to"do so. all States with .-
I/M programs must amend their SIP to •.";..
provide for inspection of-these onboard .
diagnostics"systems. The EPA will issue..
revised I/M guidance'which addresses '.:"
• onboard diagnostic inspections. - .. .- \ ,
. (c) Periodic inventory. According to - - -
section 187{a)(5],moderateiCO .*,-V.'-..':."L •
" nonattainment areas are required to "'-/".'..
. submit periodic inventories starting by _.
September 30,!l995.'and 'then every 3.. -j, .-
.years thereafter until the area'is '.: ~
'_ redesignated to attainment The perio'dic"
/.ihv'eritory.shall meet the same ..^...!..-.-'.;'.-t
requirements as'the base'year inventory."-
Additional guidance is available on ' . ."*
"inventory'procedures [see section,!" :'.""
•By meeting" the specific periodic'/.".. ,.
inventory requirements discussed .' • ~ "'.
' aboveTthe' State will also satisfy the .'...
general periodic invento'ry requirements V
of .section 172(c)(3). •-•:'•-- -•'' •' -' -
.-- (^Attain^nent'de'aions'tratiotilio '.';."J
• attainment demonstration is required'for'.
'moderate CO areas when the CO design J
value is 12.7 ppnf or below:" -•'-"— :'•• - -; • •'
•: (e) Oxygenated fuels-^tf Schedule: '
Section 211(m} requires that SIP ' - ' .' ' ••''
•revisions containing oxygenated fuel . .-•
• requirements be submitted to EPA in
'adopted-form by any State'containing ' •
all or part of a nonattainment area for
CO with a design value of 9i5 ppm or - -
above based on 1988 and 1989 data. -•' '.
Section 187(b) of the Act calls for SIP' '
'. revisions to implement oxygenated
gasoline requirements in certain CO
nonattainment areas within 2 years of
enactment Because section 211(m) is
more detailed than section 187(b) and
applies to a greater number of CO - -
nonattainment areas, the substantive
•requirements of section 211(m) should
be followed in preparing SIP revisions.
The design value is to be calculated
according to the most recent
interpretation methodology issued by
the Administrator prior to November 15.
1990, which is contained in June 18,1990
memorandum from William Laxton,
Director. Technical Support Division, to
the Regional Division Directors. The
statute provides that States with areas
having design values of 9.5 ppm or
above for any 2-year period after 1989.
e.g.. 1990 and 1991. have 18 months after
' such 2%ear period or designation as -
nonattainment. whichever is later, to
submit a SIP revision meeting the •
requirements of this section. •• - .
The revision must require that any
gasoline sold or dispensed by retailers
and wholesale purchasers/consumers in
the rioriattainment area must contain not
less than 2.7.percent oxygen by weight.
This oxygen'content requirement will . •
- also apply to gasoline sold or dispensed
by refiners or marketers'within the '-."''
larger of the MSA/CMSA containing the -
nonattainment area. These gasoline •*-.-
content requirements apply during the '-.
time of the year determined by the '••
Administrator, to be'when the area is ••.
prone to high ambient CO .•;-- -.
concentrations. This yearly period can /•
be expected to be no less than 4 months. ;
The EPA issued proposed guidance on' ->'••
, the length of the control periods on July •
9,1991 (SB FR 31151).".. -": ^ \:. - --".;•: '• ..".
States may; at their option, include." •
provisions for marketable"oxygen. .>.-' .;'•
credits in"their.SIP.reyisi6ns/Under such
a program.gasoline' with a higher .:': '•. '•'-.:
bxygen.cpnteht.than required could :" ...-"
offset gasoline with a'lower oxygen "r.
content than required. The EPA issued .';
proposed guidelines for such marketable
oxygen credit programs'on July 9,1991 •- -
(56FR31154).! • •'--.:--' •'.. ... : ••. ..;..-
.-At the request of a State, EPA will ; •; -.
consider reducing the time period - • • ..:
required for an oxygenated gasoline," • ;
program. The State must demonstrate. •"• '••
that because, of meteorological • -. ~- •-." :
conditions, a reduced period will ensure
that there will be no exceedances of the "~-
[ CO air quality standard outside of such .'•
• reduced period. The demonstration .' • .•
should include consideration of" •" • •
meteorological conditions, peak periods
of CO emissions, and historical ambient
air quality data, including peak periods
of CO concentrations. The
demonstration'should use EPA- .
' approved dispersion modeling . '
techniques. • ' . ' •
"• For areas with a design value of 9.5
ppm or more as of November 15,1990
based on 1988 and 1989 data, the
' oxygenated gasoline requirements must
generally take effect no later than .
November 1.1992. For areas which have
a design value of 9.5 ppm or greater for
any 2-year period after 1S89, the
oxygenated gasoline requirements must
generally take effect no later than
November 1 of the third year after the
second year of the applicable 2-year
period. In both cases, the November 1
date may change based either on EPA's
determination of when the area is prone
to high ambient concentrations of CO, or
•on an EPA determination to reduce the
control period based on meteorological
conditions. . . ;
Requirements for oxygenated gasoline
.need not apply to the attainment area
outside of the CMSA or MSA. However.
• oxygenated gasoline requirements shall
continue to apply'for nonattainment
• areas that EPA'redesignated as
•. attainment, to the extent needed to
•maintain the CO standard. The revision
shall cover gasoline offered for sale or .
• supply., dispensed." transported, or.
introduced into commerce.' •-' • -
•(2) Wc/mi'The statute provides for
a waiver from oxygenated gasoline
requirements under certain conditions
described below. A waiver from the
oxygenated gasoline requirements may
be granted to a State which " : '
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that
using oxygenated gasoline would ;
prevent or interfere with the attainment
by the area of a NAAQS or a State or
local ambient air quality standard for
any air pollutant other than CO. A'
Waiver from the"oxygenated gasoline
requirement may "similarly be'granted
upon demonstration by the State to" the
satisfaction of EPA that mobile sources
.of CO do not contribute significantly to
-CO levels in 'the -area. Finally. EPA may
-waive for 1 year the effective date of the
-requirement for oxygenated gasoline in
•. a nonattainment area upon petition from
any person asserting that there is an
inadequate domestic supply of. or
distribution capacity for, such ]
oxygenated gasoline or oxygenate
additives necessary to meet the .;.
requirements, if EPA finds, this assertion
. to be true. To facilitate EPA review, all
claims asserted should be demonstrated
' and documented in the petition. Upon
another petition, EPA may again delay
. the effective date of the requirement in a
nonattainment area for 1'additional.
; ye'ar. The EPA issued proposed
• guidelines for waivers based on
inadequate domestic supply of. or.
distribution capacity for, oxygenated
gasoline or oxygen additives on
September 3,1991 (56 FR 43593). These
guidelines discuss the contents of such
petitions, guidelines for, and decisions
on such petitions, as well as other
relevant factors.
(f) NSR. The part D NSR penrit
requirements of section 173 apply in CO
nonattainment areas. All moderate CO
nonattainment areas with a design value
of 12.7 ppm or less must submit
proposed part D NSR programs no later
than November 15,1993. The provisions
of these plans must be developed in
accordance with the requirements of
sections 172(c)(5) and 173. The rr.ajor
stationary source threshold for all
moderate areas remains unchanged at
100 tons per year of CO. If the area does
not have an approved part D NSR
permitting program and a State wishes
to issue a permit for a major stationary
• source or major modification in such
area during the interim period, the State
permit should comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR part 51. .
. appendix S, until new NSR provisions
are in effect. ' " : '
(g) Bump-up requirements. According
to section 186(b](2). moderate CO '
nonattainment areas that fail to attain
-------
"13532 .: Federal Register.'/.-Vol/57. No/74 /-'.ThurVday.April.16..1992 '/.ProposedRules
• • - .-.the standard must be reclassified to-
• ..-serious and are I
- serious area requirements. This -t-- :,.;-,< accompanied by updated forecasts of :•>--»•:• event that an "area faflsto'attaiii by 1
-•... Vr-reclassification process is referred to as :?--1994 and alt subsequent-years up to-the0*.- applicable attainment date.'All •'.-~. - -•
• "buinp-.up."«Thfl.EPA must determine- j -j • attainment year, r'-rr-'-^.-^~y^f^"y-''~\'-'. .'•-•"• •.•.• 'contingency measures'for GO areas -with
• -•-. within 6 months after the attainment =.;'--.} ..'• .Annual reports must contain annual r-^i- design values above 12J.ppmTriust be'"'"'
.. : •- date Whether an area has attained the.-.-:-. updates of the VMT forecasts and must.%: -adopted and enforceable and submitted '
>' .7 • NAAQS for CO. The determination of ;.r,.5-discuss the extent to which'snch-.:j'w.-.v:-: toEPAbyNovemb«r'l5.i992, assetby
• •"» .;*":. TTAU.U4C •**!«•»**«** J^^b^UU/ «*«kuaw««| J.-* 1*V*-* rf *••** **** >*M««MA
/:'-.;•>: •; qu8Jity:Vssured.air;quality "data covering ?; ? .Recognizing
,.'..-ili.the appropriate'iyearperiodup to and.v':*8tatisticy.variability4s*-p.resen'Lin4hi
""" ••'-"[including" theiattainmentdate^ If EPAii^ VMTestimation'prbcess.'EPA beL'r-
;.;::;*^^arelh7w^^ -">
-,.:'.::\ As provide* inVectidnlseCaX^^ V
. • -*..._,. i-^.«-_-_-;^_--rrt.../A:^-;.» " or^T* ^wo^»\««-~w^ r ;—v»-.'— ;.:-nonattaument areas, a logical ;.,...•. .--....
. >;..', -"two 1-year extensions p
. i"/.c<3ate can be granted.for
: '"'-:Statehas^meJ.allapplicable
requifements'cpntained in its
have reached! attainment Because EPA'.'.';" increase without bound, without'ever
" .will be reviewing "available data to",' .'".'.' ."triggering contingencies. To "a void this
'determine the attainment status,.the
State should submit its application for /'.
this extension as soon as the necessary
air quality data are available.' . ' ": '.
2. Moderate Areas Above 12.7 ppm • • •
. Unless otherwise noted, all moderate
areas above 12.7 ppm shall meet those
requirements applicable to moderate •"
areas below 12.7 ppm, as well as the '
following requirements. .
(a] VMT forecasts. Section
187(a)(2)(A) requires that States include
a forecast of VMT for each year before
the attainment year in the SIP revision -
for CO submitted to EPA by November
1992 under section 187(a)(7). The SIP
revision must provide for annual
updates of the forecasts and annual
reports on the extent to which the
forecasts were accurate, as well as •
estimates of actual VMT in each year '
for which a forecast was required. The
forecast and reporting requirement •-. '
applies to each CO nonattainment area
having a design value above 12.7 ppm at
the time of its classification. States • ,.- •
should follow EPA guidance on VMT
forecasting to be issued shortly.
. The first set of forecasts is due with .
the SIP revision. Subsequent forecasts
are to be submitted to EPA together with
annual reports. The first forecast year
should begin with 1993 (the first . •
. foreceast year) and should include all -
subsequent years up to the year of •.- : .
the requirementunder section211(m)(7)
for serious areas which fail to attain the
CO NAAQS to adopt and implement an
oxygenated fuels program of at least 3.1
percent. For serious areas that fail to '
meet rate of progress requirements, for
moderate areas that fail to attain by the
attainment date, and for all areas that
occurrence, EPA believes it is
appropriate to limit cumulative VMT .•'
; growth to no more than 5 percent above
the VMT forecast used as the basis for '•'•
' the area's attainment demonstration.' -•
. If estimated actual VMT or an ' ' ' .-
updated forecast exceeds the most ,
recent prior forecast by more than the •': ex,ceed a ™* forecast. States may
• margin of error allowed for a particular '. :• 8elect contingency measures for the
year, and/or if estimated actual VMT or
• forecasted VMT exceeds the cumulative
• 5 percent cap above the attainment . '
demonstration forecast, contingency ' •"
measures will be triggered in the
'nonattainment area. These contingency •
"measures are to be adopted and
enforceable in the SIP.
(b) Contingency measures. Section
187(a)(3) requires areas with design
values above 12.7 ppm to implement
contingency measures if any estimate of
actual VMT in the nonattainment area,
or any updated forecast of VMT
" contained in an annual report for any '
• year prior to attainment, exceeds the -"
- number predicted in the most recent
• VMT forecast Contingency measures
must also be implemented if the area '
- fails to attain the NAAQS for CO by the - earlier, the contingency measures should
attainment date, unless it'is granted an be capable of reducing VMT or resultant
extension. For CO area with design -. ... • emissions by an amount equal to the '•
values at or below 12.7 ppm, - .- • •-•• •' projected annual growth rate for VMT. ~
•contingency measures are needed to ' In other words, if VMT is expected to
satisfy the provisions under section -•"- . •' increase at a rate of 2 percent per year.
' 172(c)(9) and are due by November 15,v --the contingency measures under this -: "•"••
• 1993, as set by EPA under.section 172(b).- -••alternative should be capable of- •"-"-"'- ':
reduction of CO emissions.
The EPA believes that for exceedance
of a VMT forecast, one appropriate
- choice of contingency measures would
.be to provide for the implementation of
•sufficient VMT reductions or emissions
•• reductions to counteract the effect of 1
year's growth in VMT while the State
revised its SEP (including VMT
projections) to provide for attainment by
the applicable date. These measures
may offset either the excess VMT in the
.nonattainment area or the additional CO
emissions in the area that are
attributable to the additional VlvfT.
Since EPA will require the State to 4"-
revise its SIP within 1 year of finding
that VMT levels are exceeding forecasts
considering the tolerance discunsed
-------
Federal Register. / ;.Vol-57. No.. 74 / .Thursday," April "16. .1992 /^Proposed Rules .13533
I3s~
I -.
>•&'
reducing future VMT (or offsetting VMT
growth) by 2percent . '..' :•-.:••
Aa discussed above for ozone areas,.
A Interprets the requirement for . .,
ntingency measures to ."take "effect.."..,
vrithout further action by the State or • .
the Adinini3tratbr"tomeah'thatnb'..'V .' ,
further rulemaking activitiesity the. .".''.
State pr EPA'wbuld.be needed to _'. . .
impleinentjhe measures. Certain „"" .":
actions, such as notification of sources, 1
modification bjf permits, etc, would .. .
probably"befneeded beforeia measure "'„'.. .
could be implem'ented effectively. States
must show that their" contingency ' .^.'V .'
measures can be implemented with ^.."
minimal riirthe_raction on their part and"
with rio'additiohal ruleihaking actions. _""",
(c) Special rule on TOM'S for Denver."
The requirements of section 187(a}(2){B)
have the'same effect as'sections <: V- -"
182(d)(lXA) and 187(b)(2). "discussed ;""
below m section lILB.3.(b) fTCM*s '
equivalent to severe ozone TOM'S). " ':'
Readers are referred to that discussion '.
for a description of this requirement ••" -
(d) Enhanced I/M. Section 187(a){6) "-'
requires moderate or above CO "" • • ' '_
nonattainment areas with a design value
greater .than 127 ppm to implement ';'
enhanced I/M programs in urbanized '•' , -
areas within the nonattainment areas,' '• ~-
defined by the Bureau of Census, "
ith 1980 populations of 200,000 or
ore. The section requires that the plan
meet the requirements of section
182{c)(3), as discussed in the section in
this preamble concerning enhanced I/M
in serious and above ozone
Eonattainment areas. •
In some cases, areas may have
become newly subject to both basic and
enhanced I/M requirements at the time
of enactment, with the basic I/M
requirements due shortly prior to the
deadline for submission of the SIP
revision providing for the enhanced I/M
program. In such cases, EPA regards
enhanced I/M requirements as
superseding the basic I/M requirements,
and therefore will not require the
submission of the basic I/M
requirements discussed previously. The
EPA will, under section 182(i), require
SIP revisions to provide for an enhanced
I/M program within 2 years in areas
newly subject to enhanced 1/M
requirements in the future as a result of
redesignation or reclassification.'
The SIP's for enhanced I/M programs
are due no later than November 15.1992.
In the event that EPA'a enhanced I/M -.
performance standard is not finalized
oon enough to provide sufficient time :
or full SEP development, EPA will use -: -
its authority under section 110(kJ(4) to
conditionally approve SIP submittals
committing to' adopt enforceable,. -7 -. _• .-
enhanced I/M programs consistent.with
EPA guidance. The guidance will cover.;
the elements of the SEP. -,-iv;.'.-. -.-•-•• •.:
. If a moderate nonattainment area fails
to attain the CO standard by.December.
31,1935, and is reclassified to serious, •.-
an enhanced I/M program- must be • r- •.:
implemented if the area meets the . -. "•:• •
population-criterion (urbanized area .. :
population, as defined by the Census •'.-•:
Bureau, of 200,000 or more).; The EPA: •-.- -
will under section* 162(i), require SIP''-.• *
revisions to provide for an enhanced :<..':
I/M program .within 2 years of: .-:•.;-_•.'.-.
redesignation or reclassification."L ••.(.:-
As mandatecLby section 202(m), the
Adminisbator.will promulgate-.*--; •:.:.• •:
regulations requiring manufacturers to'...
install diagnostic systems on all new .;.
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks,-1
The purpose of these systems is to •":. -
identify and track emissions-related -: ••
systems deterioration or malfunction. •-..;.
According to section 202(m)(3)I within 2
years of EPA's promulgating regulations
.requiring States to do so, all States with.
I/M programs must amend their SIP to .-
provide for inspection of these onboard -
diagnostics systems. The EPA will issue
revised I/M guidance which addresses -
onboard diagnostic inspections.. : .:-:-•-,-
• ' (e) Attainment demonstration. Section
187(a)(7), "Attainment Demonstration • ;
and Specific Annual Emission
Reductions," applies to CO r .
nonattainment areas with a design value
greater than 12.7 ppm at the time of .. •
classification. A demonstration of
attainment is required by November 15,
1992, and can be met through • •
application of a modeling analysis,-
following the guidance contained in EPA
"Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)."
The attainment demonstration must
include a SEP control strategy, which is
also due by November 15,1992. The SEP
control strategy for a given
nonaUainment area must be designed to
ensure that the area meets the specific
annual emission reductions necessary
for reaching attainment by the deadline.
(f) Tracking plan implementation and
milestone compliance. Section 187(a)(2)
requires States containing CO
nonattainment areas with design values
above 12J ppm to submit plans that
contain forecasts 1S of VMT for each
year before the year in which the plan
projects attainment Subsequently, the •
States must submit annual updates to
those forecasts and report on how -
accurate the previous forecasts proved
• to be. The annual reports containing '•
- estimates of VMT must be preapred for
each year in which a forecast was .
_'_» Guidance for preparing ie foreca Jti'of VMT la
contiiMd to the Mellon J8T VMT ForecaMihg and
• TrackingGuid«nc»."?..--.-%• • •• ^..-—-,--.. ». t-..-
required. Contingency measures.
developed in accordance with section
187(a)(3) (see section nLElfb)]. must be
implemented if either the annual -
estimates of actual VMT or any new
VMT forecasts exceeds the earlier •
forecasts included in the State plan.
considering the tolerance discussed •
above. The first annual reports for CO
areas (with'design values above 12.7
ppm} must be submitted to EPA within 9
months after the first ruD calendar'year
. after the attainment demonstration is
due (i.e.T the reports must be submitted
by September 1994). These reports must
contain estimates of actual VMT in the
previous year, forecast's'of VMT in" "•"
future years,"and verification that -
contingency measures are being •_••/""
implemented if the actual VMT "."
estimates for the previous year or any
new VMT forecasts fpr any"year until '
the'attainment year exceed any'earlier
forecasts in the State.plaiL The reports
must also^show that the control ' '
strategies are being implemented as .
projected in the plan. The EPA wants to
use the annual reports to ensure that
VMT forecasts are consistent with VMT
estimates. Furthermore, a serious CO.
nonattainment area'must demonstrate
by March 31.1996 that it has "achieved
a reduction in emissions of CO
equivalent to the total of the specific
annual emission reductions required by
December 31.1995" (section 187(d)(l}—
Milestone Demonstration).
(g) NSR. All CO nonattainment areas
with a design value greater than 12.7
ppm part D NSR programs meeting
sections 172(c)(5] and 173 requirements
not later than November 15,1992. Li
accordance with section 187(a)(7]. .
3. Serious Areas
(a) Major stationary source definition.
As specified in section 187(c)(l). for
serious CO nonattainment areas L".
which stationary sources contribute
significantly to CO levels (determined
according to guidance issued in the May
13.1991 memorandum from William
Laxton, Director, Technical Support
Division, to Regional Air Division
. Directors), a SIP shall be submitted by
November 15,1992 that provides that the
term "major stationary source" includes
any stationary source that emits or has
the potential to emit 50 tons per year or
more of CO. If such determination is not
made by EPA under section 187(c)(l).
then "major stationary source" includes
- any stationary source that emits or has
. the potential to emit 100 tons per year or
-• more of CO.'••"•;••--""• I-"-;--'•'
(b) TCM's equivalent to'severe ozone
•'. TCM's. Serious .CO areas (and Denver.
;•: Colorado) must adopt and implement '
-------
13534
Federal Register 7 Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
enforceable TCM's in conjunction with
other control measures necessary to
comply with the periodic emissions
reduction requirements of the 1990
CAAA. The TCM's, which are required
to offset any growth in emissions from
growth in VMT and number of vehicle
trips and to achieve necessary
reductions in mobile source emissions,
are due by November 15,1992. States
should choose from the list of TCM's
and other measures in section 108(f).
These requirements are contained in
section 187(b)(2) for CO areas and
section 187(a)(2)fB] for Denver. See
section IlLA.5.{d) above (severe ozone
TCM's] for a discussion of how to
calculate growth in emissions from
growth in VMT.
All serious CO areas covered by the
clean-fuel vehicle fleet program (except
for areas in New York State, should any
such area ultimately be bumped to
serious), as well as Denver, must
' explain why any section 106(f) measure
is not adopted, what proposed emission
reduction measures will provide
comparable reductions, or why such
reductions are not necessary to attain
the CO NAAQS. This requirement may
be met by an attainment demonstration
using EPA modeling techniques that
shows the other adopted control
measures are sufficient to provide for
attainment by the required date.
This requirement must be met by any
serious CO area meeting the section 246
definition of "covered area." Section 246
defines "covered areas" as areas with a
CO design value of 16 ppm or greater.
excluding those areas in which mobile
sources do not contribute significantly
to CO exceedar.ces. Of the three
existing areas with CO design values
above 15 ppm. EPA anticipates that one
(tha Steubenville, Ohio area] maybe
able to show that mobile sources do net
contribute significantly to CO
exceedances. Thus, at the minimum, this
r2quiremer.t would apply to the Denver
and Los Angeles areas. Areas that are
not "covered areas" are not required by
this provision to justify their rejection of
TCM's.
(c] dean-fuel vehicle fleet program.
Section 246(a](2](B) requires that all CO
nonattainment areas with 1980
populations of 250,000 or more and
design values of 16.0 ppm or higher.
submit SIP revisions providing for clear.-
fuel vehicle fleet programs by May 15,
1994 (42 months from enactment].
The programs must require a specified
percentage of fleet vehicles in model
year 1998 and thereafter to be clean-fuel
vehicles that use only clean alternative
fuels when operating in the area. For
light-duty vehicles arid light-duty trucks,
the required percentage must be 30
percent in 1998, 50 percent in 1999, and
70 percent in 2000 and thereafter. For
heavy-duty trucks, the percentage must
be 50 percent in each such year. Light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in
fleets participating in this program for
these model years must also meet the
title 11 clean-fuel vehicle standards for
mode! year 2001. If light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks of 6,000 pounds
GWVR or less are not available in
California before model year 2001, the
phase-in schedules will be delayed
accordingly.
' Some of the major program
requirements include the following: That
fuel providers make clean alternative
fuel available to fleet operators; that
Federal fleets (except certain vehicles
certified by the Secretary of Defense as
needing an exemption based on national
security grounds] be included in the
program; and that credits consistent
with EPA regulations due 1 year from
enactment be issued for purchasing
more vehicles than required, for
purchasing vehicles that exceed the
established standards, or for purchasing
vehicles prior to the effective date of the
program. In addition, certain TCM's may
not apply to covered fleet vehicles
consistent with EPA regulations.
Areas where mobile sources do not
contribute significantly to CO
exceedances may be able to obtair. a
waiver from the clean-fuel program. The
reader is referred to the discussion in
this preamble that addresses guidar.cs
on wsivers for mobile source measures.
section E.B.7.
Each State subject to the fleet
program may submit a SIP revision by
November 15,1992 consisting of fully
adoptsd control measures as 3.
substitute for all or a portion of the
clear.-fuel vehicle program required by
sect:cr. 246. The substitute measures
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that the long-term
reductions in CO emissions and toxic
substances are, at a minimum, equal to
those that would be achieved ur.cer the
cleah'-fuel vehicle program or the
percentage of the emissions redactions
attributable to the portion of the
prograin for which the revision is to
substitute. Substitute measures may not
include any other measures required by
the Act.
(d) Milestone and attainment failures
(economic incentive programs).
Economic incentives and transportation
control programs (as described" in
section 182(g](4]] are required for
serious areas under several different
types of failure: Failure to submit a
milestone demonstration (as denned in
section 187(d](l)], failure to meet the
milestone (section 187(d](3]], or failure
to attain the standard by the app.icabie
attainment date (section 187(g]]. In all
such cases, the State shall submit a plan
revision with such incentives within" 9
months of failure. The EPA urges such a
State to initiate the development of a
program of economic incentives and
transportation controls as soon as it can
reasonably define the objectives and
scope of an appropriate program,
without waiting until such a failure
occurs. The EPA believes that early
initiation is important so as to allow for
sufficient time to develop, implement,
and evaluate the effectiveness of the
program. Economic incentive progress
are discussed in more detail in s.;crlon
m.G.3.
(e] Long-term measures. The EPA
recognizes that some serious CC
nonattainment areas (and perhaps areas
with long-term attainment dates for
other pollutants) will have such large
emissions reductions requirements that
identifying, developing, and adoptir.2 in
final form the control measures iat
represent the areas preferred strategy
for their demonstrations of attainment
may present an unreasonable burden.
The EPA believes that these areas —ay
need additional time to fully develop
and adopt certain "long-term" measures
that would be the preferred means to
reach attainment These measures
would include those that requin:
complex analyses and decision cr.akir.g
and coordination among a number cf
government agencies.
The EPA intends to allow these =.:ass
reasonable additional time to complete
full development and adoption 'incsr the
following conditions:
(1) The plan containing the
demonstration of attainment must
identify each measure for which
additional time would be needed :'c: :V.!
development and adoption.
(2) The plan must show that the !cr.g-
terra measures cannot be fully
developed and adopted by the suhritta:
date for the attainment demons tr£t:cn.
(3) The plan must contain an
enforceable commitment by the: relevant
agency that development and adoption
will occur on an expeditious schedule to
achieve specified emission reducuons
from each long-term measure for each
year through the attainment year.
(4) The plan must contain "backstop"
measures that would be implemented to
achieve equivalent emission reductions
unless the long-term measure is adopted
on schedule.
(5) The long-term measures must not
be needed to meet any emission
reduction requirement before December
31,1995.
-------
federal Register / .Vol S7,:No. 74 / Thiirsday." April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13535
The "backstop" measures required .
under condition 4 must'be 'submitted
with the 1992 attainment demonstration
•in fully adopted form. The "backstop"
measures must be designed to go into •
effect automatically on a schedule •'"•
sufficient to achieve all of the reductions
identified with each long-term measure •
for each year through the attainment ••
year. The "backstop" measures may ••
represent broad, across-the-board •-•'•• •
reductions hi emissions, rather than '. '" "
thoroughly analyzed and developed : - •
control measures. For .this reason. EPA _T
does not anticipate the actual / ''. "... .-. :
implementation of "backstopT.measures
in most cases,' as States will have ample
opportunity to submit SIP revisions \i- '
incorporating the fully developed long-
term measures and deleting the ;•- ..
*4backstop".measures from the SIP. : : .
Additionally, if a long-term measure
cannot be developed, then the State has
the option to submit a SIP revision,
identifying a fully developed and -... ..-••.-
adopted alternative measure to replace :
the original long-term measure prior to .
any. necessary implementation of ,: . ,-
"backstop" measures. :•;-.-. ,-.-• ;• : ~ •„ ->_
Thus, a State may find that progress ...
can be achieved with measures that are
fully developed by the 1992 SIP *.'..": ~.
submittal date! However, the" State may
determine that expeditious attainment •
of the NAAQS is impossible unless the
SIP also includes measures which
cannot be fully developed until after the
1992 SIP is due. In its 1992 SIP submittal.
the State must clearly describe each of
these long-term measures and show that
each measure cannot be fully developed
and adopted until a specified future
date, despite expeditious
implementation efforts. The 1992 SIP
must include with each long-term
measure an enforceable schedule,
binding responsible agencies to achieve
identified emissions reductions from
each measure.
Along with these provisions, the
State's 1992 SEP submittal must include
"backstop" measures. The "backstop"
measures must be fully adopted and
scheduled for implementation to achieve
reductions equivalent to those assigned
each year by the long-term measures.
When each long-term measure is fully
developed, it must be submitted to EPA
as a SIP amendment This amendment
would also propose deletion of the
associated "backstops." The EPA's
approval of the long-term measures
would also rescind from the SIP, the
' "backstop" measures.
4. "Not Classified" Nonattainment.
(a) General. Nonclassifiable CO areas
consist of "not classified" areas. The "'•
EPA describes areas as "not classified"
if they were designated nohattainment
both prior'to enactment and (pursuant to
section 107(d)(l)(C) at enactment'and if
they did not violate the primary NAAQS
for CO in either year for the 2-year' '"""
period 1988 through 1989. -" . ' ;
Although it seems clear that the CO-
spetific requirements of subpart 3 of
partD do not apply to CO ^not •'
classified" areas, the 1990 CAAA are
silent as to How the requirements of _-. •[
subpart 1 of part D, which contains"";.;:
general SB? planning requirements for •
all designated nonattainment areas.'1 •
should be interpreted for such CO areas.
Nevertheless, because these areas 'are •
designated nonattainment some aspects
of subpart 1 necessarily apply. The EPA
interprets the requirements under'." . . .
section 172(c) for these areas below. ' V
Applicable revisions to the SIP are due 3
years from designation'under section
107(d) (see 56 FR 56694].' ,f . . ".
(1) RACM. Reasonably available
control measures are required for areas
needing to achieve attainment Because
"not classified" areas may be already"
attaining or are presumably very near
attainment the EPA believes that :. . -
additional RACM controls beyond what
may already be required in the SIP are
not necessary to achieve attainment and
are therefore not required. '
(2) Attainment demonstration. Section
187(a)(7) specifically exempts moderate
areas with design values less than 12.7
ppm from requiring an attainment
demonstration. Because these moderate
areas are exempt from this requirement
it would seem unreasonable to subject
this requirement to an area that was not
violating the standard. Therefore. EPA
will presume that the existing SIP
requirements and any existing and
future Federal requirements (e.g., the
title n rules) will be sufficient to provide
for attainment in these areas.
(3) RFP. A RFP requirement assumes a
long nonattainment period. The fact that
a "not classified" area is abeady in or
near attainment obviates the need for an
RFP requirement
(4) Emissions inventory. An emissions
inventory is specifically required under
this section and is not tied to an area's
proximity to attainment Moreover, even
if these areas are already attaining or
near attainment they will need such an
inventory to develop an approvable •
maintenance plan under section 175A.
Therefore. an emissions inventory must
be included in the SIP revision due 3
years from designation. -
(5) NSR. Like the emissions inventory
requirement the NSR requirement is not
tied to an .area's proximity to •
attainment and therefore exempting a
nonattainment area from the NSR
requirements is not allowed by the Act,
Furthermore, the new NSR program is
one of the Act's major bulwarks for
preventing further deterioration of the
Nation's air quality. Therefore. 'all
nonattainment areas, including "not
classified" areas, are required to adopt
NSR programs meeting the requirements
of section 173. as'amended. ". ~
(6) Monitoring. Section 172 (b) and (c)
explicitly states. that nonattainment
areas should meet the "applicable"
monitoring requirements of section
. _.-. ....
(7) Contingency measures,
Contingency measures are not required
for "not classified" areas in light of the
fact that moderate areas with a design
value less than 12.7 ppm are exempt
from the contingency measures .. ' .
requirement' ~ . .-'."• '.' . .-'"• '. . ..
(b) Attainment dates for "not
classified" areas. Section 172(a)(2) .
requires an attainment date of no later
than 5 years from an area's designation
as nonattainment For areas designated
nonattainment under section ., --: ' '.
107(d)(l)(C)(i) (pre-enactment -\ . ..
nonattainment areas), the attainment •
date is November 15, 1995. For newly
designated areas, the attainment date
will be 5 years from the effective date of
the nonattainment designation. For
areas that fail to attain in 5 years. EPA
is considering one or more of the
following actions:
(1) If an area fails to attain 5 years
from designation, the area is bumped up
to moderate if the area's design value is
at least 9.1 ppm.
(2) If an area fails to attain 5 years
from designation the area retains its
"not classified" status, but EPA will
tighten Subpart 1 requirements. This
could include a showing of enforceable
rules or possibly a basic I/M program.
(c) "Not classified" CO areas.
Violations are determined by the
number of nonoverlapping exceedances
greater than or equal to 9.5 ppm during
the 2-year period 1983-1989. If the
number of exceedances in either year
was greater than or equal to 2. the area
is violating the CO NAAQS. '
Once it has been established that the
area is violating the standard, the
highest second-highest nonoverlapping
8-hour measured value over the 2-year
period is the design value for the area.
The design value 'determines
classification. A CO area cannot be
classified submarginal because a design
value of <9.5 ppm is not violating the
standard (i.e., there are less than 'two
exceedances in each of the 2 years), and
. an area can only be submarginal if it is
violating the standard. ' ' " '
-------
13536
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / Thursday. 'April ~16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
(1} Requirements. The CO areas •
termed "not classified" are analogous to
ozone transitional areas. The amended
Act does not provide guidance in
subpart 3 for CO areas that fall into the
"not classified" category. However, all
nonattainment areas, including "not
classified" areas, are subject to several
of the requirements in subpart 1 of the
Act as discussed above. Specifically,
section 172(b) requires a SIP revision
within 3 years of designation. The SEP
revision must meet several
requirements, in particular, NSR.
If a State submits a request for
redesignation to attainment, then a
proper and adequate maintenance plan
as denned in section 175A. is required.
The Administrator announced in the
November e. 1991 Federal Register those
CO nonattainment areas that did not
violate the NAAQS during the 24-month
period between January 1.1983 and
December 31.1989. For such areas, the
requirements "under subpart 3 do not
apply.
In order to be redesignated to
attainment, a "not classified" area must
provide documentation to support the
conclusion that the five redesignation •
requirements of section 107(d)(3](E)
have been met For a discussion of the
specific State actions required for
satisfying these five redesignation
. requirements, see "Redesignations"
under section 11LH5 of this notice.
(2) NSR. By November 15,1993, all
such "not classified" areas must submit
rules to implement the new part D NSR
permit requirements of sections 172(c)(5)
and 173 of the 1990 CAAA. In the
meantime, all existing NSR rules will
remain in effect. If the area does not
have an approved part D NSR permitting
program and a State wishes to issue a
permit for a major stationary source or
major modification in such area during
the interim period, the State permitting
program should comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S, until the new part D XSR
reauirements become effective.1*
" If » "not classified" area has not recorded any
violations by December 31.1S91. and U in the
procest of developing a maintenance plan per
section 1/5A, then EPA may not require -
nonattainment NSR rules. However, these areas
must continue to apply their existing XSR program
or corr.ply with the NSR permitting requirements of
40 CFR part Si. appendix S. Prior to redesignation.
these areas also must adopt and be prepared to
implement a permitting program that satisfies the
requirements of part C and EP.Vs r-jalations
implementing the PSD program. Areas should
consider the need for offsets under the part C
program to ensure that new sources do not "cause
or contribute" to an increase in pollutant levels that
would take the area out of compliance. If the area is
found to be out of compliance and the statutory
deadlines for adopting amended part D permitting
rules for the pollutant in question have passed. EPA
(3) Failure to attain. If a "not
classified" area violates the NAAQS at
some time in the future, then it will be
classified in accordance with Table 3,
section 186(2). Upon classification, the
area will continue to be subject to the
requirements under subpart 1 and those
specific provisions under subpart 3
appropriate to the classification that
would have applied to the area had it
been so classified at the time of the
notice under section 186(a)(2). Under
section 187(f). the Administrator may
adjust any applicable deadlines (other
than attainment dates) if the deadlines
are shown to be infeasible.
5. Multi-State CO Nonattainment Areas
Section 187(e) defines a "multi-State
CO nonattainment area" as a single CO
nonattainment area that covers more
than one State. Section 187(e) also
establishes certain requirements for
such areas. First, each State in a multi-
State CO nonattainment area must take
all reasonable steps to coordinate both
the SIP revisions required and the
implementation of SIFs that apply in the
given nonattainment area. Section 187(e)
also prevents EPA from approving any
SIP revision submitted under this
section if a State has failed to meet the
above requirements.
Finally, section 187(e)(2) allows a
State that fails to provide a
demonstration of attainment for that
State's portion of a multi-State CO
nonattainment area to petition EPA to
make a finding that such State could
have demonstrated attainment, but for
the failure of one or more other States in
the area to adequately implement
measures required under section 187 for
the given area. If EPA makes such a
finding, then the sanctions provisions
under section 179 for failure to make an
adequate attainment demonstration •
shall not apply to the State awarded the
finding.
Pursuant to section 187(e)(l). EPA is
calling on each multi-State CO
nonattainment area to develop a joint
work plan as evidence of early
cooperation and integration. The work
plan must include a schedule for
developing the emissions inventories,
the VMT forecasts, and the attainment
demonstration for the entire multi-State
area. Each State within a multi-State CO
nonattainment area is responsible for
meeting all the requirements relevant to
the given area.
In order to be sufficient to avoid a
section 137(e)(2) finding of failure to
may impose a contraction ban pursuant to lec'Jon
113(a)(S) ur.Ul tuch time ai the area adopts a pan D
program satisfying the NSR requirements of the
CAAA.
demonstrate attainment, an attainment
demonstration must meet the
requirements in section 187(a](7). Refer
to section HLBJ.(e) for guidance on
developing attainment demonstrations.
Note that moderate multi-State CO
nonattainment areas with a design value
of 1Z7 ppm or lower at the time of
classification are not required to meet
the requirement of developing an
attainment demonstration since section
187(a) excludes all such areas from any
requirement for attainment
demonstrations.' .
6. Areas With Significant Stationary
Source Emissions
Section 187(c)(3) calls for the .
Administrator to issue guidelines and
rules for determining whether stationary
sources contribute significantly to CO
levels in an area. In the case of a serious
area in which stationary sources
contribute significantly to CO levels.
section 187(c)(l) requires the Slate; to
revise the definition of major stationary
source in that area to include any
stationary source that emits, or has the
potential to emit. 50 tons per year or
more of CO. ....
Guidance on the definition of a
significant CO stationary source Jirea is
available in an EPA memorandum dated
May 13,1991. from William G. Laxton.
Director, Technical Support Division.
regarding "Guidance for Determining
Significant Stationary Sources of
Carbon Monoxide." The guidance
defines a significant CO stationary
source area through the use of the
results of dispersion modeling of :ne or
more stationary sources of CO in the
area. The reader should refer to that
guidance for further information.
7. Guidance on Waivers for Mobile
Source Measures
The waiver provisions of sec'.icin
187(c){2) provide the Administrator with
discretionary authority to waive :e::a:n
mobile source requirements in be th
moderate and serious CO nonattaSi-ent
areas where mobile sources do not
contribute significantly to CO levels in
the area. Specifically, the Administrator
may on a case-by-case basis waive sr.y
requirements that pertain to
transportation controls, I/M. or
oxygenated fuels where the
Administrator determines by rule that
mobile source contribution is
convincingly demonstrated to be
insignificant in relation to the cause of
the area's overall CO problem. The EPA
will only consider granting a waiver
from controls on mobile CO sources
under section 187(c)(2) if it is clear that
mobile sources in the aggregate do not
-------
- Federal-Reg3ter:;/rtyol;57^Nb;74-V.'-Thursaay.-.April: 16.M992'/•'Proposed 'Rules •'• -.r ."-"13537
contribute significantly to the CO - < .- .' -
nbnattaihmeril problem/and_ there is a. -..
. SIP. submittal demonstrating'attainment
of the.CO^AAQS by the required date .
without such mobile source controls. .-
This.would be in addition toa showing
. under se'ction 3.87(c)(3) pertaining to • ---.
stationary sources that "contribute ..-".J'-.
significantly to carbon monoxide levels .
in the area£.The attainment'. '.'*ij. . /.;..
flemonstration"shoulduse'EPA-^.y''.f. ',.('
approved modeling techniques; Le« a ..-"
.complete modeling analysis is heeded.'".. .'
considering pknnt'area. and mobile ;.V. •} .
source emissions'. The wajver.would be
granted ujpon'approvai of the CO SIP..",'
The waiver; of.mobile source measures..' '_-
.would no longer'apply'lfa subsequent". 7
maintenance plan "demonstration relied..
on such mobile source measures.'...;, ^
C.Particulate'Matter*•••:': :*,>.-*a':v;;:-'." •
•. . v -,. -.-•.•'••_•.-;-• -".;.,..- •.:•::• •*.
1. Statutory Background :.,:/;".. ! ",..;'x
(a.) Designations.On the date of.-:*; .-; •.
enactment of the 1990 CAAA, PM-10 •>,;
areas meeting the qualificationa of:.-;,
section 107(d)(4}(B) of the'amended Act."
were"'designated nonattainment by -.••• :
operation of law. These areas included .-.
- all former Group I areas identified .in 52.
FR 29383 (August 7,1987} and clarified .
_ in 55 FR 45799 (October 31.1990). and .' • '
any other areas violating the PM-10 .: •'...
NAAQS prior to January 1,1989 (many -
of these areas were also identified in the
October 31.1990 Federal Register
notice). All other areas were designated
undassifiable. A Federal Register notice
announcing all of the areas designated .
nonattainment for PM-10 at enactment .
of the 1990 CAAA and classified as
moderate was published in Sfl FR 11101
(March 15,1991). A subsequent notice
correcting certain information in the
March 15,1991 notice was published in
56 FR 37654 (August 8,1991). Subsequent
to the 1990 CAAA enactment date. EPA
may redesignate any of these
undassifiable areas to nonattainment in
accordance with section 107(d)(3). On
April 22,1991 EPA announced in 56 FR
16274 that it had initiated the
redesignation process for 16 areas.
(b) Classifications and attainment
dates. Once an area is designated
nonattainment. section 188 of the .
amended Act outlines the process for
dassification of the area and establishes
the area's attainment date. In
accordance with section 188(a), at the
time of designation, all PM-10
nonattainment areas are initially
classified as moderate by operation of
law..A moderate.area can subsequently .
be reclassified as serious either before
the applicable moderate area attainment
date, if at any time EPA determines the
area cannot "practicably" attain the ...'.
PM-10 NAAQS bythis attainment date:
or following the passage of the ;.. • : .- •
applicable .moderate area" attainment
date, if EPA determines the area has -. -
failed to attain (see section 188(b)). -'• - •
- For those areas which were.: ..-.- • -
designated nonattainment upon - •••- ',''.
sriactment of the 1990 CAAA by. *:.-. -: -
..operation of law, where EPA determines •
• that the 'area cannot "practicably*! attain
.the NAAQS by December 31,'l994.the . "
amended Act specifies certain dates by .
, which EPA must propose la reclassify . ;
'appropriate mpde'rate areas as serious.-< •
'.(see^56 FR saase. November 21.1991) ,: ~\
and take'final action.,The EPA also has;; -'
^discretionary"authority under section -;..-
'188(b](l) to redassify any of .these areas
7 as serious at any time, if EPA. .-.":• '-.."
determines they cannot practicably .
•attain.thePM-lO.NAAQS by December.'
.'31.'i994.^.The EPA may exercise this '•;•-.
discretion where, lor example, EPA ';._..
' originally believed ah area could attain
''..the PM-10 NAAQS by December" 31, ',\
1994 but later ^determines thatit cannot^
"•attain. For example, EPA may find an
; area cannot practicably attain by.- \- _
Dece'mber" 31.1994 after reviewing the ~-
'November-is, 1991 SIP submittal for an '
area. Or. if a State fails to submit.a PM- .
10 SIP for an area, EPA could conclude
that the area" could not practicably •
attain the standards by the applicable '
attainment date based for example, on
' the "severity of the nonattainment.;.
problem, the feasibility of controls, and
other pertinent factors. Any decision by
EPA to redassify an area as serious will
be based on facts specific to the ,
nonattainment area at issue and will .
" One commenter questioned whether EPA hai
discretionary authority to reclaj»ify an ait a "at any
bice' EPA determine* the ana cannot practicably
attain the PM-10 itaadards by the applicable
moderate area attainment date. Under the plain
meanizg of the termi of (ection l&8fb)(l) EPA has
general discretion to reclassify at any time before
the applicable attainment date any area EPA
determine* cannot practicably attain the standard]
by such date. Accordingly, section lB3(b](:) is a
general expression of delegated rulemakikg
authpr-ty. In addition, subparagraphs (Aj and (B) of
tewca 188{b)(l) mandate that EPA redassify at
specified &ce£rames any areas it determines
appropriate for ^classification at those dates. .
These rubparagrsphs do not restrict the general -
authority but simply specify that, at a minimum |t
must be exercised at certain times. This
Interpretation furthers the overarching purpose of
the statute in that reclasiification would expedite
the application of additional control measures in the
situation where EPA finds, after the mandated •
recUssificaDon rulemalung and before the
applicable attainment date, that an area cannot
practicably attain the standards. This, in turn. .
wouid expedite ultimate attainment of the PM-10
standards. In summary', EPA believes it is a '
.. reasonable interpretation and consistent with the
plain language of the statute to construe section •
J88(b)(:) such that it authorizes EPA to redassify an
.. area, as appropriate, at any time before the . • .
'- applicable attainment date and mandates that, at a
minimum. EPA make this inquiry at specified times.
only b'e made after providing'notice b
the Federal Register and an'opportunity
for public comment on the basis for •
EPA's proposed decision. • * '• '-'_•.
The EPA does not believe" that .'
redassifying moderate areas as serious'
at any time EPA determines that an area
cannot practicably attain the'standards
by the applicable attainment date. ;• * •
rewards areas .who delay development
and implementation of PM-10 control •*
measures. Rather. EPA believes its".; •
policy creates an incentive for the timely
submittal and effective implementation
of moderate area SIP requirements and
.facilitates, the PM-10 attainment"---• .-.
objective. For example, if an area that
fails to' submit a timely moderate area -
SIP is reclassified. this does not obviate •
. the requirement that the area submit
. and implement RACM consistent with
the moderate area schedule. '•*:';-.
Accordingly, the area could be subject
to sanctions for its delay in submitting
- the RACM SIP requireme'nt (see section*
110(m) and 179).- Further, ^classification
before the applicable attainment date
will ensure that additional control "' "--*
measures (i.e. in addition to RACM, .' •
serious areas must implement best -;
available control measures"(BACM), are
implemented sooner^and will expedite
the application of more stringent new
source review requirements to tie area
(see sections 188(o)(l) and 189(b)(3)).
Similarly, where an area submits a
timely moderate area SIP, EPA day not
discover that the area cannot
practicably attain until some &ze after
it begins implementing its moderate area
'control measures. The EPA ties nay
want to reclassify the area in order to
facilitate the development and
implementation of BACM Finally, a .
reclassified area must demonstrate
attainment "as expeditiously as
practicable" and no later than specified
dates (see section 188(c)(2)].
Accordingly. EPA may reclassify srj
area and conclude that the cost
expeditious attainment date prac-cable
for the area is a time prior to the latest
possible attainment deadline.
For areas designated nonattair^ient
after enactment of the 1990 CAAA, EPA
must reclassify appropriate areas as
serious, within 18 months of the required
submittal date for the moderate area
SIP. Taken together with the statutory
requirement that these SIP's be
submitted 18 months after being
designated nonattainment the statute
thus req'uires that EPA reclassify the
appropriate moderate area as serious
within 3 years of the nonattaimnenl
designation.' ' ••'.•.•'•" '• .
Finally, in those cases where EPA
- determines that an area has failed to -"
-------
13538 Federal Register / Vol 57. .No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, the area is reclasslfied
as serious by operation of law. The EPA •
. must publish a notice in the Federal •
Register of such determinations and
consequent reclassifications within 6
months following the applicable •
attainment date...
Since this General Preamble .-
- addresses only the control measures •.
recommended for moderate PM-10 •• y-
nonattainment areas,-the following : ••' •
'discussion has been limited to the :. " •
• attainment dates for moderate - '•• '• •
• nonattainment areas. Section 188(c)(l) -
of the amended Act specifies that the •
; initial moderate nonattainment areas .:'.'
. (those designated nonattainment upon '
enactment of the 1990 CAAA) are to .
• attain the'PM-10 NAAQS as - : .~
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31,1994, unless they are
. reclassified as serious (as described - ~
above]. Areas designated nonattainment
after enactment of the 1990 CAAA and
classified as moderate must attain the
PM-10 NAAQS as expeditioualy as ".
practicable but no later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after the area's
designation'as'nonattainment
[c] General SEP requirements. Aa' '• :
discussed above. States must develop
and submit a SEP providing for the
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS for =
every area designated nonattainment ••
and classified as moderate for PM-10
-under the amended Act Under section
189(a)(2), States must submit a SIP "
revision (e.g. RACM/RACT and
attainment demonstration) for the
moderate PM-10 areas designated
nonattainment upon enactment of the
1990 CAAA by November 15.1992. The
NSR program provisions for these areas
are due June 30,1992. States must
submit SEP's for those PM-10 areas '
designated nonattainment after
enactment of the 1990 CAA within 18
months of these areas' being designated
nonattainment for PM-10.
The specific PM-10 SEP requirements
applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas ere set forth in the PM-10 subpart
(subpart 4 of part D, title I). These
requirements include section 189(a)
(NSR permit program,, attainment
demonstration, and RACM/RACT);
section 189(c) (quantitative milestones);
and section 189(e) (PM-10 precursors).
The SIP's for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas must also meet the
general provisions applicable to
nonattainment areas set forth in subpart
1 of part D, title I of the amended Act to
the extent that these provisions are not
otherwise subsumed by, or integrally
related to, the more specific PM-10
- requirements. Whenever possible during
this discussion of PM-lOyEPA has '•• '-•
clarified the relationship between -
subparts 1-and 4. All SIFs must also -
meet the applicable regulatory :. - .. • -
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 51 '
except to the extent those requirements
are inconsistent with the amended •- •_'
Act1* The EPA wffl provide guidance at
a later date for those SIP requirements •
not addressed in this General Preamble..
The discussion below.is intended to '•'•
•provide additional background on some
of the statutory requirements for •'•
moderate PM-10 nonattainment area ••?.
SIPs and. in some cases, to provide "-'-.,
guidance on these statutory • •-.'.-.
requirements.--T-I'".'•-'-• : •.
(d) NSR permit program. Section" ' •
189(a)(l) of theTamended Ad provides .
that for the purpose of meeting the .
requirements of section 172(c)(S), each
State with a PM-10 nonattainment area
classified as moderate must submit an
. implementation plan which contains a
permit program meeting the .
.requirements of section 173 for the
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 (and in . ;
some cases PM-10 precursors). For the
initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas designated according to section ..'
. 107(d)(4), States must submit the NSR
permit program SEP revision to EPA by .
. June 30,1992. For PM-10 nonattainment
areas designated after enactment of the
1990 CAAA, States must submit a SIP
containing the NSR permit program
within 18 months after designation of
each affected area. The EPA intends to
issue proposed regulations for the NSR
program SIP's. However, in today's
General Preamble, EPA has provided
guidance on the NSR permit program
requirements which is intended to assist
States in developing and timely
submitting their June 30,1992 NSR SEP
revision for the initial moderate PM-10
nonattainrnent areas, and any NSR SEP
revision submittal due for any
additional areas designated
nonattainment for PM-10 before the
NSR relations are finalized.
(I) Moderate areas. To meet the
requirements of section 172(c)(5), States
must implement e permit program that
meets all the permit requirements of
section 173 for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10. As defined
14 The 1990 CAAA include! • General Sarings
Qause (tee section 193) which provides that
regulations (or guidance* etc.) In effect Man the
enactment of the 1990 CAAA shall remain in effect
after enactment. However, the Saving] Cause also
provide! that >uch regulation! (or guidance, etc.]
ihall remain in effect "except to the extent
otherwiie provided under this Act Inconiistent
with acy provision of thU Act. or revised by th«
Administrator," Id. '
in section 302(j), the term major
stationary source means any stationary
source which directly emits, crias the
• potential to-emit 100 tons.per year cr •
more of PM-10. The emissions offset
ratio for such sources is equal to or
.grater than Id. as specified in section
173{c). : '••' ;•• ; ; .
. • Section 189(e) makes the conlrol
requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM-10 also
• applicable to major stationary tources
of PM-10 precursors. For the purposes of
-implementing the requirementi of ' .
•• section 189(e). precursors of.." -"
secondarily-formed PM-10 may include
VOCs which form secondary organic
.compounds, S0» which form suifate
compounds, and NO, which form nitrate
. compounds."Therefore; the control
requirements applicable under PM-10
SIP's for major stationary sources cf
PM-10 shall also apply to major -
stationary sources of these potential
precursors, except where the .- -
Administrator determines that nuch
sources do not significantly contribute
•to PM-10 levels that exceed the PM-10
•ambient standards in the area. 'The Act
leaves unaddressed the question of
whether each specific PM-10 precursor
•should be considered together or
independently in determining major
source size and the applicability of
section 173 (e.g., permit requirements).
However, with respect to ozone, EPA's
practice has been to consider each .
specific ozone precursor independently
. when making similar determiatttior.s.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to treat PM-
10 precursors analogous -to ozone
precursors and also consider each
specific precursor independently when
determining source size and whether
section 173 provisions apply. Nothing in
this guidance, however, would preclude
a State from adopting a stricter star.pard
' and, thus, proposing to consider all
•specific PM-10 precursors together.
(2) Serious areas. Section 16<>(b)(3)
defines the terms "major scurcs" and
• "major stationary source" to inches any
stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emts, or
has the potential to emit, at least 70 tons
per year of PM-10. Such new and
modified major stationary sources that
emit PM-10 are subject to the permit
. requirements of section 173 and the PM-
10 precursor provisions of section lS9(e).
' (e) Attainment demonstrction. Section
189(a)(l)(B) provides that States with
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
must submit a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) showing
attainment by the applicable attainment
date; Alternatively, the State must show
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16.1992 / Proposed Ruks
13539
that attainment by the applicable date 5s
impracticable. This SIP submittalis doe '
on November 15,1992 for the moderate'
' areas designated nonattainment for PM-
10 at enactment of the 1990 CAAA and
within 18 months for those moderate • :
areas designated nonattainment after
enactment of thel990 CAAA. As a
necessary adjunct to the demonstration
of attainment, the Sffsubmfttal must -
contain a comprehensive, accurate,. .
current inventory of actaal emissions •
from an souTcei of PM-lOin the area, as '
prescribed m section 172(cX3}. ""':'' . .
la general,''attafnment demonstrations
for the initial moderate nonattainment '..
areas should follow the existing • .
modeling guidelines addressing PM-10
(e.g,'TM-10 SIP Development ...
GDiddme" Qune 1987); "Guideline on'
Air Quality Models'"-pevised]; '
memorandum from Joseph Tflcvart and
Robert Bauman dated July 5,1990) and
any applicable regulatory requirements.
The EPA also ha» developed « ;'
supplemental attainment demonstration
policy that may be followed for'initfal
moderate PM-10 nbriattainment areas •
facing special drcumstances. That
poh'cy statement is provided in appendix
C5. Attainment demonstrations for
moderate areas designated after'
enactment of the 1990 CAAA will be
reviewed in accordance with the general
guidance addressing PM-10, cited
above, and any other applicable EPA
guidance or regulations. The" •
supplemental policy also noted above
will not apply-to these areas.
(f) RFP/quantitative milestones. The
PNf-10 nonattainment area SIP'S must
include quantitative emissions
reductions milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years and which.
demonstrate RFP. as defined in section
171(1), until the area is ^designated
attainment (section 189(c]]. Under the
milestone requirement, the States must
demonstrate to EPA that the SEP
measures are being implemented end .'
the milestones have been met, within 90
days after the milestone due date. The
EPA must then determine whether or not
the State's demonstration is adequate,
within 90 days of receiving the
demonstration.
Under section 189(c), the State is
required to submit'a SIP revision if it
fails to submit the quantitative '
milestone demonstration, or EPA
determines that a milestone was not
met The SIP revision is due within 9
months oi either the missed reporting
date or EPA's determination that a
milestone was missed. The SIP.revisIon
must assure that the State will achieve
the next milestone by the applicable
date and/or meet the PM-10 attainment
date if there is no next milestone.
There is a gap in the law that the text '
of section 189(c) does'nol articulate the •
starting point for counting the 3-year
period The EPA believes it is.
reasonable to begin, counting the 3-year .
milestone deadline from the due date for
applicable implementation plan • .
revisions' ty^tafafng the control ' " ' "
measures for the area. The EPA believes •
it i> reasonable to key the milestone
clock to the SIP revision containing ••
control measures which will give rise to
emission reductions. Further, control
measures must be Implemented in less
than 3 years after the'SIP revision
containing them is required to be
submitted. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect that some reduction in emissions .
will have occurred 3 years after the SIP
revision due date. The EPA believes that
measuring the 3-year period from the SIP
revision due date is also reasonable. •.
Essentially, EPA believes it would be . -
. unreasonable to begin counting the 3-
year period whenever the SIP revision is
submitted, in disregard of its due date. ~
The statute contains specific SIP
submittal and attainment deadlines. •.
These deadlines and the framework
they set up inform EPA's interpretation
of this requirement. Here, EPA believes
that the law contemplates that some
improvement in air quality be made
between the SIP submittal due date and
ensuring 3-year increments. Further, to
begin counting from the date oi actual
SEP submittal and not its due date would
allow those States that submit SIP'S late
- to defer meeting their quantitative
milestones and, consequently, to defer "
making RFP toward attainment of the
PNMO standard. Thus, the first
quantitative milestone deadline for the
initial PM-10 moderate nonattainment
areas is November 15,1994; 3 years after
November 15,1991 when SIP revisions
containing RACM (including reasonably
available control technology) are due for
these areas.
For the initial PM-10 moderate
nonattainment areas, the emissions
reductions progress made between the
SIP submittal (due date of November 15,
1991) and the attainment date of
December 31.1994 (only 46 days beyond
the November 15,1994 milestone date)
will satisfy the first quantitative
milestone. The de minimis timing
differential makes it administratively
impracticable to require separate
milestone and attainment
demonstrations. Thus, EPA's policy is to
deem that the emissions reductions
progress made between the SIP
submittal due date and the attainment •
date will satisfy the quantitative • .
milestone requirement for these areas. •
This is consistent with the purpose of <
the milestone requirement which is to
"provide for emission reductions
adequate to achieve the standards by
the applicable attainment date" (HJL
Rep. No. 490.101st Cong, 2d Sess. 267
(1990]}. However, the Administrator is
required to determine within 6 months
after the applicable attainment date
whether a nonattainment area has .. •
.attained the standards (sections 179(c)
and 188(b)(2}J. Therefore, consistent
with the milestone requirement, within
90 days after the attainment date. States
must demonstrate that the SIP has been
implemented and the area has attained
the standards or alternatively, qualifies
for a 1-year extension of the attainment
date (section 188(d)}- The EPA will issue
future guidance on the RFP/quantitative
milestone requirements for those areas
designated moderate PM-10
nonattainment after enactment of the
1990 CAAA and for the 'serious PM-10 •
nonattainmenl'areasl . - ' .
1 (g) PM-10 precursors." Section 18S(e)
' provides that the applicable control
requirements under PM-40 .;
nonattaiament area SIP1 a in effect for
• major stationary sources of PM-1Q are
also applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors, except.
: where EPA determines that the sources
of PM-10 precursors do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which .
exceed the PM-10 NAAQS in the area.
This determination will be based upon
air quality analysis in which States
assess the contribution of precursors.
The contribution of precursors may be
nonexistent. Alternatively, if precursors
do contribute to nonattainment. States
will need to consider both the source-
receptor relationship and the "
significance of precursor contributions
to overall nonattainment. Factors which
may be considered in determining the
source-receptor relationship induce
'source mix and density, nonatiainment
area size, meteorology, and topcgraphy.
. In making a determination regarding
significance and the need to control
precursors in a specific area, EPA will
rely in part on the technical information
. contained in the State's submittal,
including filter analysis, the relative
contribution of precursors to overall
nonattainment. and the State's RACT/
RACM strategy, among other factors.
States, however, are encouraged to
submit additional material for
consideration, with all findings made on
a case-by-case.basis due to the high
degree of variability among
nonattainment areas. There will be
variability, for example, in the
characteristics of the area-wide
-------
13540
Federal Register / .Vol. 57. No. 74. / .Thursday..-April 16.-1992 / Proposed-Rules
nonattainment problem in Spokane, ' discussion regarding" the relationship •-..;. notice, determining that RACM guidance
* ' "^^****^** vmnMA^ottt nnn •B^/III* at*O9 * . - «>1*«*«*1«3 V«« S«»*iAs4 f«*«* 4l«^«A BV^S* •«*«*.•> »«. *3 !_^
n \vnitn TnJlV \V3ITSJlt A
finding of significance that diSers from .
that made'for'a point source in Clairtbn,
. -Pennsylvania. The EPA is required, to" ."
. .issue guidance on this'req'uiremeht. This
General Preamble'contains a lengthy ; '
between moderate and seriqus~area -.~.j-; .should be issued for these sources and is
control measures. As discussed above,". • issuing such guidance. Section 190 also
moderate PM-^10 nonattainment areasj ,ft "requires that EPA take into account the
may be reclassified u leripu&Tursuaat .VemissSonYeductions achieved or •>• -: -.-
to section 189(b), States having areas ;*;•'* ~.expected4o be achieved under title IV- '..
that are'reclassified ai'.tenous must.x V'; andother provisions in tissuing
•*•* *-•«* .. * -^* • * ' ' • " • « . * * . .w
• r'discussion'on control reqmremen'ts for '•';-, submit SIFs forthYareas containing J.. ^guidelines and maWng'detenninations
PNMO precursors in moderate -,1: •'•' -.-' * .BACM which includes ^the.'applicatipn' Vi. under this section." In deciding whethi
- nonattainment areas and is intended to.;'': of best avaflable control technology to; :•-.. to issue guidance for the categories of
.-• • • -»^i i» *-•• n- • 4 «•+« *••••••»• • n« ••!*'••**' IT.T ^T" DAM' ~ ' . - • . . "•"•«."••".•
•• precursors'when it issueVpropqsed
. regulations for the*NSRpermit program ^V'
.. • aDolicable(-•*»* •««•——•"—•-—-'-»:- ;•»*--.
•' ' r*^ • - .» v ., ••
emissions from A
"Preliminary' gui'dar ce" on
sw-ad^
.; :was issued by EPA staff on April i 1991
• --.. •• • r • •
V,1 ^vJSm-5>"""i -V-V.-v- to facilitate PM-10 SIP development for •
£29!;^
!M«I! *•*•• J« WM4* «T«*m tt A l^\ / mv*>3 .-• . « ~. f A ^^ _ A ! *lJ -J__ *_ j? « * ^* t f« A /*^l^ '"'"^.** -
- - iS.a -A>»- «? KvUi -r,i'&£™?iY •<*.••-.•; guidancealsb updateVpreviously-iisued - H a State receives substantive public - -.-
amended Act. in turn, provides that . ,. .^^ ^u&gHffa forlafge ':•,'' "-" comment demonstrating through----- •-,=,.-..
ii areas snau , ^^^3^ 80UrCes-. The BACM guidance '."appropriate documentation that .
to'facilitate SIP development in serious . -additional control measures may well be -
"PM-10 nonattainment areas Will be '"-" - "reasonably available in a particular .'•;-.
• issued at a later date.v:"'- '-•-":" ' '--:- circumstance, those measures should be
.. • .'include "such reductions in emissions
" . fromexisting'spurces'in.the area as inay
.be "obtained through the" adoption, at a
piinimnm'. of reasonably"available" •' -
' control'technblogy *-.* *.".Thus, read -
together, these provisions require that ••
' moderate area PM-10 SIFs include;
RACM and RACT for existing sources of
' PM-10 emissions. .;••- ••" •""-"
Under section 189(a) (1), (2) of the
amended Act. initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas (i.e.. those areas
designated nonattainment upon
enactment of the 1990 CAAA) must '
submit SIP's containing RACM/RACT
control measures by November 15,1991.
and these SIP's must provide for the
implementation of RACM/RACT no
later than December 10,1993. Those
areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate after enactment
. of the 1990 CAAA must "submit SIP's
• containing RACM/RACT control ' .
measures 18 months after the . .
nonattainnierit designation (see section '
189(a)(2)(B)).These.SIP's must provide
for the implementation of RACM/RACT
no later thari~4 years after'the affected
areas are designated rionattainment,
which is 30 months after the applicable
SIP submittal deadline (see section / •
i89(a)(i)(C)). :--::-. -.•."- - ';
Note that serious .area control "
requirements are briefly described here
as background for subsequent /*. *..:.,'..-' i
.
.' . In addition to requiring RACM •
guidance for urban fugitive dust,
residential wood combustion, and
prescribed silvicultural and agricultural
. burning, section 190 requires that EPA
examine other source categories • •
contributing to nonattainment of the
PM-10 Is'AAQS. determine if additional
guidance for RACM and BACM is
needed, and issue any such guidance by
November 15,1993. This document
provides RACM guidance for sources of
fugitive dust (including urban),
residential wood combustion, and
prescribed burning (including
silvicultural and agricultural). The EPA
believes, at this time, that these
categories of sources are contributing to
nonattainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. To
- the extent that these categories of - .
sources are broader than, or in addition
to, those expressly identified in section -
190, the Administrator is by today's
added to the list of available mes,sures
. for that area. The RACM is then : - .
'-determined for the affected area':! SEP.
•- While EPA does not presume that these
' control measures .are reasonably
* available in any or all areas, EPA
expects States to preparra reasoned
justification for rejection of any
- available control measures. If it can be'
shown that one or more measures are
unreasonable because emissions fron
the sources affected are insignificant
(i.e., de minimis), those measures may
be excluded from further consideration
as they would not represent RACM for.
that area.1* The resulting available
•control measures should then be
evaluated for reasonableness, '
. considering their technological' _.
feasibility and the cost of control fii the
1' The Act does not expressly define "b«t
available control measure*".(including "best ' •
available control technology"^ for PM-10
nonattaimsent purpaie*. Guidance on "be*t —. •
available control measure*" (Including "best -
available control technology"] ttquiremenu to ' '-
: facilitate SIP development for aerioiu PM-10 • - -
, nonattainnient areas will b« lamed by EPA at a _•'
. later date.' ,""__"...'.-.; • ;,... :. --;r--,--.« :• ; .
•' " Where the sources affected by a partcular
measure contribute only negligibly to ambient
concentrations tnat exceed the NAAQS, EPA's
. policy is that it would be unreasonable and
' "therefore would not constitute RACM to nttjuire
• -' controls on the source. In this regard, it is wonh
; noting that the inherent authority of administrative
- agencies to exempt de minimis situations .from
regulation has been recognized in context! icch as
• this where an agency t» invoking a de minimis
_ exemption as "a tool to b« used in implementing the
;, legislative design". [s«e Alabama Power Co. T. • -
: Castle. 638 Fid 321.380 fJD.C Or. 1979)]. -.• '-' '-'••'. '• '
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
13541
area to which the SIP applies. In the •
case of public sector sources and control
measures, this evaluation should •
consider the impact of the '.-.'•
reasonableness of.the measures on the •
municipal or other governmental entity -
that must bearihe responsibility for
. their implementation (e.g, paving of
unpaved public roads). It is important to
note that a State should consider the
feasibility of Implementing measures in'
part when foil implementation would be
infeasible. The SIP submittal to EPA
should contain a reasoned justification
for partial or full rejection of any . •:.'
available control measures, including
those considered or presented during the
State's public hearing process, that
explains, with appropriate •
• documentation, why each rejected •
control measure is mfeasible or •
otherwise unreasonable. When the :
process of determining RACM for an
area is completed, the individual
measures should then be converted into
, a legally enforceable vehicle (e.g.. a . -
regulation or permit program) (see
sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A)). The
• regulations or other measures should
meet EPA's criteria regarding the
enforceabflity of SIPs and SIP revisions.
These criteria were stated in a ' '
September 23,1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
. Radiation; Thomas L. Adams, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for •
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring: and Francis S. Blake,
General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, entitled "Review of State
Implementation Plans and Revisions for
Enforceabiliry and Legal Sufficiency."
As stated in that memorandum, SIFs
and SIP revisions which fail to satisfy
the enforceability criteria should not be
. forwarded for approval If they are
submitted, they will be disapproved if,
in EPA's judgment, they fail to satisfy
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements.
The technical guidance that discusses
in detail the suggested initial measures
in appendices Cl, CZ and C3 and that a
State should consider in determining
which of the measures in appendices Cl,
C2, and C3 are technically feasible and
economically reasonable hi a particular
area is contained in four documents:
"Control of Open Fugitive Dust -
Sources," (EPA-450/3-88-008}
September 1988; "Guidance Document
for Residential Wood Combustion
Emission Control Measures," (EPA-450/
2-89-015) September 1989; "Prescribed
Fire Smoke Management Guide" (NFES
No. 1279), February 1985; and . . .
"PrescribedFire Plan Guide" (NFES No.
1929). August 1980. These documents
have been in use for several yean and
are based on substantial input from
State and local agencies, trade groups
and associations, and control experts. .
"Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources'*
may serve as an example in analyzing
control costs for a given area. Copies of
these documents may be obtained by
contacting National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road. Springfield, Virginia 22161. ....
(b) RACT. This guidance follows
EPA's historic definition of RACT as the
lowest emission limitation that a '.
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic
feasibility.1* The RACT applies to the
"existing sources'* of PM-10 stack,
process fugitive, and fugitive dust
emissions (e.g., haul roads, unpaved
staging areas) (see section 172(c)(l)).
The EPA recommends that major
stationary sources be the minimum
starting point for RACT analysis. .
Generally, EPA recommends that '- •
available control technology be applied
to those existing sources in the
nonartarnrnent area that are reasonable
to control in lighfof the attainment
needs of the area and the feasibility of
such controls. Thus, EPA recommends
that a State's control technology •
analyses for existing stationary sources
go beyond major stationary sources in
the area and that States require control
technology for other sources in the area
that are reasonable to control in light of
the area's attainment needs and the
feasibility of such control20 Specific
" See. for example. +4 FR 53728 (September 17.
1973) and footnote 3 of that notice. Note that EPA'i
«=u5iioru ending policy statement has dariSed thai
the RACT requirement may be satisfied by
achieving "RACT ehouid apply to "existing scarce* in the area.
This is the sun* hngnage lh«t appeared in the
RACT requirement under the CAA prior to the 1990
Aoendnenti (see section 172(bX3} of the pre-1990
CAAA law]. Under the pre-amended law. EPA b
effect Interpreted the phra*« "exfsttng tourers In the
area' as U is Interpreted here. EPA believes that
a placed tt» terprhnatur OB. tf not
guidance on the evaluation of the
technological and economic feasibility
of control technology for existing
stationary sources is contained in
appendix C4.
(c) PM-J0 precursors-Section 189(e]
of the amended Act provides that for all
PMrlO nonattainment areas, the control
requirements applicable under PM-10
SIFs'ln effect for major stationary
sources of PM-10 are also applicable to
• major stationary sources of PM-10
. precursors, except where EPA.
determines that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM-ia levels •
which exceed the PM-10 NAAQS in the
area. Thus, for example, because
moderate PM-10 nonattaininest area
SIP's should contain RACT for major
stationary sources of PM-10. they
should also contain RACT for major . •
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors,
unless EPA determines otherwise.
Section 189{e) also requires that EPA
issue guidance for the control of PM-10
precursors. This discussion represents
. EPA's guidance for controlling FM-10
precursors for major stationary sources
in moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas. ". • ...
As explained earlier (see section
Ifl.C.l.(g)], pursuant to the requirement
of section 189{e}, EPA intends to make a
formal determination as to whether
major stationary sources of FM-10
precursors contribute significastly to
PM-10 levels in a particular area when
it takes rulemaking action on the
individual moderate area SIFs.
However, a determination will be based
on air quality analyses, on any
additional technical information
discovered by individual States curing
SIP development, and on any ctier
studies conducted by the State cr EPA
which may help to indicate wbe—er
major stationary sources of specific
precursors contribute sigrJficar.dy to
PM-10 concentrations in a particular
area. Therefore, while the subsequent
discussion provides guidance as to
EPA's implementation of section 189(.e],
and gives an indication of some'of the
factors that will guide EPA's findings
' under this section, none of the general
views expressed herein are intended to
preclude specific findings based en
reviews of individual SIP's for FM-10
nonattainment areas.
The following discussion is intended
to provide initial guidance with respect
to each of the above named potential
' adopted, EPA's prior interpretation of RACT (s«.
e.g- section ISX.t'Kiy.A] of the amended Act see
also section 193 of the amended Act (savings clause
preserving prior EPA guidance except wbere
inconsistent with the Cean Air Act A=t3<±nenfi;).
-------
13542 . Federal .Register / .Vol. 57. No. 74 / Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
PM-10 precursors. Since the potential of
SOs and NO* emissions to contribute
significantly to PM-10 exceedances is
more regionally dependent than VOC •
emissions, the following discussion *
focuses on general regional • • .
characteristics attributable to SO* and
NOx emissions. In the western United -
. States, (considered west of the 100th
meridian for the purpose of this
discussion). EPA believes that sources
of SOs arid NOx emissions may •••"•
contribute to exceedances of PM-10 ;.
levels in several major metropolitan ' ..
areas (e.g-Los Angeles, Salt Lake
County. Utah County. Denver and the .
San Joaquin Valley). The EPA's •
conclusion with respect to these areas is
based on the presence of factors which
enhance the likelihood of secondary
formation from these precursors, such as
source mix and density, nonattainment
area size, particular meteorology, and
topography. Where nonattainment areas
are relatively small in size, precursors
are usually transported out of the area .'
before secondary particles can form in
significant quantity. However, due to the
greater size of the areas mentioned .. .
above, pollutant transport between
." airsheds is considerably diminished:
consequently, locally emitted PM-10
precursors remain in the area long
enough to form secondary particles and
make a significant contribution to the
PM-10 problem in that area.*1 The
particular combination of source mix.
meterblogy. and topography in these
major metropolitan areas rarely occurs
in other areas in the West. For this
reason, EPA believes that sources of
-SO; and NOx emissions are not as likely
to be significant contributors to the
nonattainment problem in those other
areas. Therefore, if EPA determines.
based on information contained in SIP
subrr.ittals and any other available
information, that major stationary
sources of SO; and NOx in the Western
United States do not contribute
significantly to exceedances of the PM-
10 standard, such sources would not be
expected to meet the requirements that
apply to major stationary sources of
. PM-10. (e.g.. RACT). Further discussion
on the need to apply RACT in PM-10
nonattainment areas is found in the
• *' The locus here and elsewhere on transport
between airsheds and on the characteristics of the
nonattiiinment area flow from the statutory
language of section 189(e) which states that in
determining not to require RACT for major
stationary tources of precursors, EPA must find that
the sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10
levels which exceed the NAAQS "in the area."
Thu*. this provision EPA may determine that major
stationary sources of precursors in a nonattainment
area should not be subject to RACT because the
sources do not contribute significantly
levels in the sJme area, .. .
sections below addressing control '
requirements for PM-10 nonattainment
areas that do/do not demonstrate •
attainment. - - . ' '
Unlike the case in the Western United '
States, as a general matter, pollutant
transport between airsheds in the
Eastern United States can be
responsible for a relatively large portion
of secondary particle concentrations in
no nattainment areas. Thus, the - .-' -
determination as to whether sources of .
PM-10 precursors in the nonattainment
area would contribute significantly to .
PM-10 concentrations in the same area •
is correspondingly .more difficult.
Moreover, the characteristic " • .
contributions of the subject precursors
vary. Sulfate compounds, for.example. '
are generally known to be present in
significant quantities in many eastern
areas, while historically, nitrate .
compounds have been measured in
relatively low concentrations.throughout
the East As explained earlier, and as
with VOC's. EPA will determine the
applicability of section 189(e) based on
technical and any other available
information provided by States in their
individual SIP submittals. However.
when considering whether sources in .
PM-10 nonattainment areas should be
required to adopt PM-10 precursor .
control, EPA will assess the
reasonableness of the SIP submittal in
light of the fact that substantial region-
wide reductions of SOz. NOx. and VOC
emissions are expected to result from
the implementation of the Act These
emissions reductions may mitigate
precursor contributions due to PM-10
concentrations. The EPA will also take
into account the historically low nitrate
concentrations in the Eastern United
States.
The EPA will also consider the
information submitted by States
containing major stationary sources of
VOC's in areas which are in
nonattainment for PM-10 to determine
whether VOC emissions from such
sources-do/do not contribute
significantly to exceedances of the
•ambient standard in their particular
area. In considering the reductions to be
achieved by controlling PM-10
precursors under section 189(e).
Congress has indicated that EPA should
take into account reductions achievable
fronrcontrol requirements imposed by
other sections or titles of the 1990 Act.22
Thus, along with their information
addressing whether VOCs contribute
significantly to PM-10 nonattainment in
their area. States may wish to include in
their SIP submittals a showing that
control of VOC emissions under* other
'Act requirments may suffice to relieve
them of the need to adopt PM-10
precursor controls under section 18S)(e).
Any such finding will be made By EPA
based on information provided in the
individual SIP submittal. Other Act -
control requirements which could be
considered as contributing to VOC
reductions are where, for example, areas
which are nonattainment for PM-10 are
also nonattainment for ozone and. thus.
are already required to apply RACT on
sources of VOC under section 182(b)(2).
The VOC reductions may also be
realized from new or modified.major
stationary sources due to the .
Implementation of NSR programs in "
• ozone^nonaUainment or attainment .
areasfWhen reviewing a SIP.submittal .
containing a request for an exemption
from PM-10 precursor controls under-•
section 189(e] in pat because of actual or
expected VOC reductions from other
control requirementsjjf the_l_990_Ae:t. .. '
EPA's determination will include an
assessment of the reasonableness of the
submission. This assessment by EPA.
will take into account the possible •
significance of differences between .
control strategies for PM-10 and other
pollutants (e.g., requirements imposing
. BACT as opposed to RACT. and .
differences in attainment deadline:;)-
(d) Condensible PM-10. Condenisible
participate matter (CPM) refers to
. particles which form in the atmosphere
as the exhaust gases from a source cool.
The CPM emissions form particles in the
PM-10 size range and are considered
PM-10 emissions (see. e.g.. "PM-10 SI?
Development Guideline," (June 19£ir) a;
p. 5-32 and 55 FR 41547 (October 12.
1990]). The EPA issued guidance on
CPM in a December 24,1990
memordandum from John Calcagni ar.c
William Laxton entitled "Interim
Guidance on Emission Limits and Stack
Test Methods for Inclusion in FM-10
• SIP's." Generally. RACT for sources of
CPM will be reviewed consistent with
this guidance. In addition. EPA believes
it is reasonable and therefore
" Congress recognized that sources of P.M-10
precursors may be otherwise controlled. For
example, the House Report atates that "lt)he .
Committee notes that some of these precursors may
well be controlled under other provisions of the
; .Act" (HR. Rep. No. 490,101st Cong. 2d S«s. 263
(1990)). Moreover. Congress expressly
. - recommended that EPA consider other provisions of
the CAA in adi-essing precursors. The House
Report states as follows: "The Committee ecpec:;
the Administration to harmonize the PSl-10
reduction objective qf this section with oth< r
applicable regulations of this Act regarding PM-:0
precursors, luch as NOx" (H.R. Rep. No. 490 at 33).
Throughout the discussion of PM-10 precursors EPA
has relied on the actual and expected reductions
-from other CAA requirements and has atteir-ptec" '.o
•" reconcile these with the CAA's PM-10 attaimf.er.i
objective. ''•.'• • • ' " .
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 74 /.Thursday."April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13343
constitutes RACT to control CPM only
where CPM is a significant portion of
the emissions from an existing .
stationary source." Further guidance on
the identification of sources where a • .
State's RACT analysis should consider
CPM is found in "Assessment of the •.
Controllability of Condensible ' -
Particulate Matter," published in .
October 1990. The EPA recognizes that
this document is interim guidance .and is
still subject to review. Also, note that 1
EPA has recently proposed to add a v. '
method for measuring CPM emissions . -.
from stationary sources to appendix M
• of 40 CFR part 51 (55 FR 41546, October
12.1990). .,,•-.•,.-. •:" ."..".".." :i- •-:;...-'
(e) Total suspendedparticuJate (TSP)
RACT. Since 1979. EPA has taken action
to approve a number of TSP .
nonattainmeht area SIFs that require -
RACT for existing stationary sources of
TSP. As a technical matter RACT level
measures to control TSP emissions •
generally utilize technology that also '-,
effectively controls PM-10 emissions.
Thus, EPA believes it is reasonable to ..;
generally presume that control
technology "which represents RACT for
TSP .emissions from a source satisfies
the requirement of RACT for PM-10_ '
emissions under the'amended Act., . '
However, the reasonableness of this
control technology may be refuted for a
particular source in a PM-10 '
nonattainment area by information
•which indicates that a level of PM-10
control greater than that achieved by the
TSP RACT would constitute RACT for
PM-10. Further, with respect to controls
on stack and process fugitive emission
points that represent RACT in currently-
approved TSP SIP's. EPA specifically
recommends that ths emission limits be
reviewed in light of improvements in
control technology and reductions in
control costs that may now make lower
emission limits reasonable. In addition.
regulations submitted as part cf the PM-
10 SEP should be reviewed to determine
whether they meet EPA criteria
regarding enforceability, as noted above
(see sections 172(cH6) and 110(a)(2)(A)).
Consistent with the previous discussion
on RACM, EPA will not approve any
PM-10 SIP containing RACT measures
that fail to meet applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements for SIP
enforceability.
11 Where CPM emissions are i negligible portion
of the emission* from an existing stationary source.
EPA's policy i» that such control may be excluded
13 being unreasonable for that source (See also
Alabama Power Co. v. Cattle. 638 Fid 323.360
(D.C Or 1979). discussed above). RACT for the -
source would therefore be no control or. stated
alternatively. EPA would conclude that control
technology for the source la not "reasonably"
available. .' •••..-, -..••'. •• • •
In those PM-10 nonattainment areas
that do not have previously-approved -
part D TSP nonattainment area plans,
the particulate matter regulations for
existing sources should be reviewed to
determine if: • " - ...
(1) Additional controls are necessary •
to meet RACT requirements. ' • -
(2) The"regulations meet EPA's
.'enforceability criteria. Similarly, . •
existing regulations controlling .
emissions of specific PM-10 precursors
should be reviewed on a case-by-case .•
basis for major stationary sources in . - •;
those areas and RACT analysis • • • v " •
conducted unless the Administrator - -.-
determines the source'does not ; ;
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels
which exceed the NAAQS in the area. •
Section* 110(n)(l) of the amended Act
provides that all TSP SIP's, including
any revisions, that were approved or
promulgated by EPA before enactment .
of the 1990 CAAA shall remain hi effect
until EPA approves or promulgates a
revision to the SEP under the new law. -
Further, the General Savings Clause,
section 193 of the amended Act, states
that any control requirement in effect or
required to be adopted by a SIP in effect
before enactment of the 1990 CAAA for
any area that is a nonattainment area
for any air pollutant may not be
modified unless the modification
ensures equivalent or greater emissions
reductions of such air pollutant Thus,
under section 110(n)(l), existing
provisions of TSP SIP's remain in effect
until such provisions are revised under
the new law. Also, under section 193,
modifications to TSP control
requirements, such as TSP RACT,
cannot be approved unless at a
minimum they ensure equivalent
emission reductions of PM-10.2<
3. SIP's That Demonstrate Attainment
The SEP's for moderate nonattainment
srsas should provide for the
implementation of control measures for
area sources and control technology for
stationary sources of PM-10 emissions
which demonstrate attainment of the
PM-10 NAAQS as expeditiousiy as
practicable and no later than the
applicable statutory attainment dates.
Therefore, if a State adopts less than all
available measures but demonstrates,
adequately and appropriately, that (a)
RFP and attainment of the FM-10
NAAQS is assured, and application of
all such available measures would not
result hi attainment any faster, then a
plan which requires implementation of
less than all technologically aid
economically available measures may
be approved.19 The EPA believes it
would be unreasonable to require that a
plan which demonstrates attainment
include all technologically and ' .
economically available control
measures even though such measures
would not expedite attainment. Thus, for
some sources in areas which
demonstrate attainment, it is possible
that some available control measures
may not be "reasonably" available
because their implementation would not
expedite attainment." " ' .
• As provided in section 172(c](9) of the
amended Act, all moderate . .
nonattainment area SIFs^that
demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. These measures
must be submitted by the'initial ".
moderate nonattainment areas no later
than November 15.1993 (See section
172(b)).*« These measures become
effective without further'action by the
State or EPA, upon determination by
EPA that the 'area has failed to make
RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by
the applicable statutory deadline. These
contingency measures should consist of
other available control measures that
are not included in the control strategy.
One basis EPA recommends for.
determining the magnitude cf
contingency measures is the amount of
actual PM-10 emissions reductions
required by the SIP control strategy to
attain the standards. When developing a
control strategy and demonstrating
attainment with dispersion modeling,
the State may determine that seine
actual emissions must be reduced and
also some allowable emission limits
must be reduced to the levels that the
sources are actually emitting.
The contingency measures to bs
implemented if an area does r.ct attain
the standards on schedule should be a
portion of the actual emissions
reductions required by the SI? control
strategy to bring about attainment.
Therefore, the contingency emissions
reductions should be approximately
equal to the emissions reductions
" A moderate PM-10 area a a nonatlainment .
area for any air pollutant within the meaning of
lection 133. Thus, for these areas, any codifications
to any control requirement*, including TSP. would
have to ensure equivalent emission reductions of ••
PM-10. -.• -•-,:•..•-. / - / .-.-..-
11 See. e.g~ 44 FR 20375 (April 4. ISTSj. See also 5S
FR 5460 (Feburary 11.1991).
" This deadline constitutes the forru]
establishment of the schedule according to which
the initial PM-10 moderate nonattainzeat areas
must submit the contingency measure requirene.it.
The initial PM-10 nonatlaimaent areas were
designated nonattainment upon enact=e=t by
operation of law. S«e section 107(dX-tjfB;. Under the
schedule established today, contingency measures
must be submitted no later than 3 yean from the
nonattainment designations for these areas which.
. In this instance, is no later than Nbvesber 15,1933.
-------
13544 Federal Re^ster / Vol 57,' Nol.74 /'Thursday; April 16. 1992 / 'Proposed Rules
necessary to demonstrate RFP for one
year. For instance, reductions equal to
25 percent of the total strategy would be
' appropriate lor a moderate"'
nonattainment area since the control
strategy must generally be implemented
within a 3- to 4-year period between SIP
development and the attainment date. •
and since RFP generally requires annual
incremental reductions in emissions to
attain the standards.
The contingency measures should
consist of other, available control
measures beyond those required to
attain the'standards and may go beyond
RACM-It is important not to allow
contingency measures to obviate an..
adequate and appropriate control
strategy demonstration. " .
Contingency measures "must be - ..
Implemented immediately, after EPA
determines the area has. failed to make
RFP or to attain the standards. Le, if the
shortfall constitutes a fraction of the
area's annual reduction target, the
measures to be implemented should
address the specific deficiency ..
indenury.The purpose of the
contingency measure provisions is to •
ensure that corrective measures wfll
automatically "become effective at the
time that EPA makes such a
determination. The EPA Is required to
determine within 90 days after receiving
a milestone demonstration and within 8
months after the attainment date (or 1 or
2 years later if extensions of the
attainment date are granted), whether
these requirements have been met
(sections 179(cJ, 188(b)(2J and 183(c](2)).
Contingency measures must be fully
adopted and take effect within 1 year
without further legislative action once
EPA makes such determinations.
Moderate areas that EPA Finds have
failed to attain the standards by the
applicable date are reclassified as
serious areas by operation of law
(section 188(b}(2)). Guidance for serious
areas addressing the contingency
measure requirement will be issued at a
later date.
4. SIPs That Do Not Demonstrate
Attainment
In those moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas where the State's
control strategy cannot demonstrate
attainment by the applicable date
mandated in the Act the State should
document that its control strategy
represents the application of RACM.
consistent with the "determination of
RACM" discussion above, to existing
sources. The EPA believes it is
reasonable for all available, control
measures that are technologically and .
economically feasible to "be adopted for
areas that do not demonstrate '•
attainment . .. ..... ..
Areas that cannot practically
demonstrate attainment of the PM-10
•standards by the applicable attainment
date will be reclastified as serious areas
. under section 168(b) and will be
required to implement BACM. which
includes the application of BACT to
existing stationary sources (see KR.
Rep. No. 490.101st Cong, 2d Sess. 276
(1990)). As discussed below, for those
areas that will be reclassified as serious.
EPA believes it may "be reasonable, in
some limited circumstances, for States
to consider the compatibility of RACM
and RACT with the BACM and BACT
that will ultimately be implemented
under the serious area'plans for those
areas. . y
In the case of RACM for area sources,
EPA anticipates that any future
implementation of BACM lor these
sources will be additive to, and hence
compatible with. RACM. This is because
BACM will generally consist of a more
'extensive implementation of the RACM
measures (e-g., paving more unpaved
roads, strengthening the components of
a smoke management program, imposing
additional requirements to improve ihe
performance of wood burning devices).
Since EPA anticipates that RACM and
BACM for these sources will be
compatible, the SIP's for these areas
should reflect the application of
available control measures to existing
sources in moderate nonattainment
areas as determined by the analysis
described above for RACM.
. As discussed previously, the
determination of RACT for specific
stack and process sources includes
consideration of the technological and
economic feasibility of control
measures. In the case of those moderate
PM-10 areas that were designated
nonattainment upon enactment of the
1990 CAAA, EPA plans to redassify
those areas which EPA believes cannct
practicably attain by December 31.19S4.
Implementation of BACT will be
required for sources in the initial
moderate areas that EPA so reclassifres
approximately 2 years after the deadline
for implementation of RACT.27 In many
" Under lection 183(j). moderate areaa
designated notultainment tt enactment most
implement RACM (including RACT) by December
. 10.19S3. Under section 189(b) area* redauified is
•erious must implement BACM (including BACT]
within 4 jnears after rectification. Tbui. if EPA
takei final action to recUtiify treat in 1S9Z. they
will be required ie implement BACT tpprcoduteJy
2 yean after the December 10,1993 implec-.estition
deadline for RACT.
instances, the installation of pollution
controls representing RACT. may involve
substantial capital expenditures. In the
event that BACT is later required for
those sources, this may require controls
significantly incompatible with those •
recently installed as RACT. largely
wasting those recent expenditures. •
Under such circumstances, the
installation of controls In the first round
of SIP planning would be unreasonable.
Accordingly, SIFi for the initial
moderate areas reclassified as serious in
the mandatory reclassification
rulemaking for these areas need not •-
require major changes to the control
systems for specific stack and process
sources where a State reasonably
demonstrates that such changes will be
significantly incompatible with the
application of BACT-level control
systems. A State's demonstration should
include, for example, showing ~what the
State believes RACT and BACT are for
the source arid why they are : -"
significantly incompatible. ."".
In the case of fugitive dust associated
with stationary sources, EPA anticipates
that the implementation of BACT will be
compatible with the implementation of
RACT. This is based on the fact that
control of such emissions under BACT
wfll generally be additive to RACT
controls (i.e, consist of a more extensive
application of fugitive dust control
measures imposed as RACT). Therefore,
EPA expects that to the extent that
control of these sources is
technologically and economically
feasible, the SIP's for these areas must
reflect the application of available
control technology to address fugitive
dust emissions associated with
stationary sources.
(a) Attainment date waiver
nonanthropogeru'csources). Under
section 188(f) of the amended Act, EPA
may waive.attainment dates for a
moderate area where EPA determines
that nonanthropogenic sources of PM-10
contribute significantly to a violation of
the PM-10 NAAQS in the area. Thus.
those States having moderate FM-10
nonattainment areas where significant
contributions to PM-10 emissions come
from sources not caused by humans
directly or indirectly may request an
attainment date waiver. However, EPA
may only waive the attainment date for
those moderate areas that fully
implement their moderate area SIP
requirements (see HJt Rep. No. 4SX3,
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 265 (1990)).Thus,
any State haying a moderate
nonattainment area that the State
believes may qualify for an attainment
date waiver should be nevertheless
-------
Federal Register / ,VoL 57. No. -74 / .Thursday. April 16, 1992. / Proposed llules . 13545
proceeed witLSIP development and
implementation. -••• ••••-..•''• "
In addition, the legislative history
suggests that Congress contemplated a •
narrow definition of what may qualify
as "nonanthropogenic" and would limit .
it to activities where the human role in •
the causation of the pollution is highly . •
attenuated (see generally HR. Rep. No.
490).'The term'anthropogenic sources' •
: is intended to include activities that are •
. anthropogenic in origin. An .example of ••
such sources is the dry lake beds at •-;-, •••
•• Owens and Mono Lakes in California,.:: •
which give rise to dust storms that are a
result of the diversion of water that :Vi •
would otherwise flow to such lakes and .
should be considered anthropogenic
sources" {KR. Rep. No. 490 at 265]] The .
EPA intends to issue additional •. - •
guidance on the scope of the waiver '. ,-
provision as it applies to both moderate
and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas
in the near future.' ' • : •
= $) International border areas. Under -
section"l79B of the~amended Act, a SIP .-
for a moderate PM-^10 nonattainment
area affected by emissions originating
from sources outside"the United States .
shall be approved by the Administrator
provided such plan meets all the "•;• : - ;
. applicable requirements under the Act ,
(including, for example. RACM/RACT),
other than a requirement that such a
plan or revision demonstrates
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by the •
applicable moderate area attainment
date; and the SIP demonstrates that the
area would attain by that date, but for
the emissions emanating from outside of
the United States. Generally. EPA
expects that such areas will be adjacent
to international borders (e.g.. El Paso,
Texas; Nogales. Arizona; Imperial
Valley. California).
D. Sulfur Dioxide
1. Designations
The Act. following the 1977 CAAA,
gave the primary authority for initiating
designations to State Governors.
Although State Governors continue to
have authority to initiate the designation
process {section 107(d)(3)fD)). the 1990
CAAA also give the EPA the authority
to initiate and to promulgate
designations (sections 107(d)(l). (3)).
(a) Classification categories. In
general, areas may be designated as
nonattainment attainment or
undassifiable for the NAAQS (section
107(d)(l)(C)), and they provide authority
and schedules for designations of areas
following promulgation of a new or .
revised NAAQS (section 107(d)(l)(A).
(B))..'.- .: : .-• •••_•• - • • -
(b) Basis of designation. Ihe SOi
• designations can be made on the basis
of modeling or monitoring information- •: •.
which indicates attainment or • -.: - • •
nonattainment of the NAAQS. For :
example, an area might be designated
nonattainment for violation of the -.
primary SOj NAAQS, the secondary V- '-•
SOj NAAQS, or both.** More detailed
information about the basis for - ; -.- • '
designations under the new law is
provided in the following discussions.-,.; ,
(c) Methods of designations. Some ,."-.••
areas were designated "by operation of :.
law", upon enactment of the 1990 CAAA ;
based upon their status immediately,-:. r,
.before enactment Areas which were -,. ,.
: designated nonattainment by operation
of law (section 107(d)(l)(q) are listed in.
40 CFR part 81.V V. - I •-.:'. : ; '.-.I.'.--. .
The EPA now has the authority to .
redesignate additional areas as "_ 1 • . '
nonattainment for SO:.The first step in. •
this process is for EPA to notify .the
affected State's Governor that available ".
information indicates that the - \ ' ;
designation of an area in the State. «-:.-..-.'
should be revised (section 107(d)(3J(A)j. .-
Section 107(dH3)(A) provides that EPA, .
may act (i.e., notify the Governor that an;
area should be redesignated) "on the -•.
•_ basis of air quality data, planning and .. v
control considerations, or any other air •"
quality related considerations the . :.
. Administrator deems appropriate."-No
later than 120 days after receiving this
notification, the Governor should submit
appropriate redesignations to EPA ' •
(section 107(d)(3)(B)). If the Governor
fails to act within 120 days of this
notification, EPA shall promulgate the
appropriate designation (section
107(d)(3)(C)). If the Governor does
respond, within 120 days after EPA
receives the Governor's response, EPA
must promulgate a redesignation making
•any modifications EPA deems necessary
(section 107(d)(3)(C)). If EPA intends to
modify the Governor's redesignation •
submittal, then EPA must notify the
Governor of the modifications no later
than 60 days prior to the date EPA
promulgates the redesignation (section
107(d)(3)(C)).
(d) Criteria for redesignation. The
revised law sets forth specific
requirements which govern the
redesignation of an area from
nonattainment to attainment (section
107(d)(3)(E)J. The particular criteria for
redesignating nonattainment areas to
attainment (section 107(d)(3)(E)) include
the following: The area has attained the
NAAQS, the area has a fully approved
(section 110(k)) implementation plan, the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions, the area has a maintenance
plan meeting the requirements of section
175A, and the area meets all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D. The Agency will issue detailed -
guidance for States seeking -
redesignation of nonattainment areas to
attainment at a later date. .1 - •
11 "The primary SO, NAAQS. is that level which is
"requisite to protect the public health" (section
109(b)ll)). The secondary SO, NAAQS. is that level
" which is "requisite to protect the public welfare" • •
(section 109(b)(2)J. - :••; . ,- ,--..•• - -:: ::: ,-".' •
- The'dassification'provisions (section
.-172UK1)) give EPA iheauthonty to .
classify nonattainmenf areas for the
purposes of applying attainment dates
(section 172(a)(2)(A)). In exercising this
authority, EPA may consider "such
factors as the severity of the : "•
nonattainment problem or the •
availability and feasibility ol the " '
pollution control measures. Based upon
the classification. EPA may set later
attainment dates for areas with more
severe air quality 'problems (section
172(a)(2)(A)).;At the present time. EPA -
does not intend to establish a specific
- classification scheme for areas which .
' violate the primary or the secondary
SO* NAAQS. . : . ;-. r--- . r ; .; . . '. • ;
3. Plan submission Deadlines . . • . .'.
Submission deadlines for States to
submit implementation plans (part D
Plans) for SO- NAAQS are given in
. section 191. Explicit plan submission
deadlines are given for nonattainment
areas which violate the primary SOi
NAAQS (section 191). Explicit plan
submission deadlines are not given for
nonattainment areas that violate only
the secondary or both the primary and
secondary SOi NAAQS, however.
(a) Initial nonattainment crecs. States
with existing nonattainment areas for
the primary SOj NAAQS where those
areas lack fully approved SIFs,
including part D plans, must submit
implementation plans (section 191(b)).
These implementation plans must ir.ee'.
the requirements of subpart 1 of part D.
and they must be submitted within 18
months after enactment of the 19SO
CAAA (i.e., by May 15. 1992).
(b] Subsequent nonattainme.it areas.
States with areas that are designated or
redesignated, after 1990 CAAA
enactment as nonattainment areas for
the primary SOj NAAQS must submit
implementation plans (section 191(a)).
These implementation plans must meet
the requirements of part D and the plans
must be submitted within 18 months of
the designation or redesignation.
(c) Secondary NAAQS. In the past.
Congress and the Agency has required
• •more expeditious resolution of • .
• nonattainment for primary NAAQS than
-------
13548
Federal Segster / -yol S7, Ng-y4 -/?Thur»day. April la 1992 V. Proposed Sries
for secondary NAAQS. Examples of this . authority to establish flexible .v:1"
. are the availability of 18-month -.-
extensions for implementation plan •
submittais tor Secondary NAAQS. -
(section U0(b)), and the discretion
allowed in dates for attainment of ..
.secondary NAAQS (section •-:;,:•' .-
... .
For areas which violate both prioiary ::
and secondary NAAQS, allowing :• •,:;;:.
separate schedules for secondary and ; .„'
primary plans unnecessarily ~ ~ " •';' •; ,'-
- Complicates the plan impi**"*"*3**"" * •/
' and processing. Therefore, EPA expects ;
• secondary NAAQS attainment plaits to
attainment dates (section 172fa}f2)(A)-.-.-
(C)). this flexibility does not apply to . -
areas which have specific attainment .:-.-'
dates (section 172(a)(2)(D)). Specifically. •,
the flexibility dees not apply to'-•----•;•-
attainment of the primary SOi NAAQS ;••;
because t^* attainment date is fi'x ^f»*^
for primary SO» BODatta&nneolareas ;-M
{section 192). but it does apply to' •:•- •: w X-
secondary S0» NAAQS because the .•;
1990 CAAA do not ipecirjan &?;•••:•.,--. s
•• attainment <3ato far Secondary SO* •.""* "*
nonattainmentareas."*-^ ~-?U "£<7'V.1 "!<.'••.?
(a) Initial ttonattamment areas'Aseat
attainment dates should generally not ''
exceed 3 years from planaubxolttal -..-. r-.
(section 110(tX2XA)).TnU implies that
the only test for the approvability of i
secondary NAAQS attainment date b •
whether ar not the' "date is fas ?~» v c"
.expeditionslf as practicable" (section —
As a result of,the 1990 CAAA. EPA.". -"::. of law), must attain the primary NAAQS
has the authority to establish a schedule : as expeditiously as practicable but no'- •"'
for lubmittal.ofa secondaiyNAAQS -: /s.. .later than 5 years'afteVWacbnentofthe;'
plan or plan revision {section 17Z(b)]. ":.- ""
The EPA must establish this schedule at
the time of .the nonattainment ;; ;-."•••.; •.
designation. The SlPjnust be submitted .
no later than 3 years 'from the date of the
nonattainment designation. Although •:.-.
the law allows up to3yeais for SIP..-: -bTmust attain the primary HAAQS "as
submittal, because the level of control is / expeditiously as practicable,'*' but not
no more difficult to establish than for ;0
the primary NAAQS, and absent
To maintain continuity wits past ' :"= •'
program -guidance. EPA plans to aBow ; -
attainmenl -with the »ecoQdaTyNA?kQS
tobevcbeddedonthebasisofWIuttis -
expefflttbas for ^ area t««cfi<»193).": -
Areas which are nonattainment for the"-
secondary SOTNAAQS inay "be allowed
additional fene for attainment beybntd
the deadlines mandated for' the primary'
NAAQS. fa seneral. EPA wffl rely 6a &s '
substantiwproytsionsof40CFR5134p -
(subpart R) to'detenmae *& *•?*&."' *:-. ~
"
1990 CAAA (Le., by November 15.1995]"'V
(section 192(b)]. v •'.*:*•'«> 3':«
-------
Federal Register /-.VoL 57, No..74 /..Thursday. April 16. 1992 /.Proposed Rules
13547-
.
that was approved prior to enactment,
the EPA wUl not require a new part D.:
SIP. For these area*, a new part D.SJP-
will not be required regardless of •".•
SIP at the time of. enactment in •• . definition of RACT for SO} is that .- .
relationship" to the requirements'of the '; control technology which is necessary to
1990 CAAA. This is consistent with the: achieve the NAAQS (40 CFR SUOO (o)).
Savings Clause for existing plan ,---, . * Since SOs RACT is already defined as .
provisions (section 110{n](l)). If the .--"'.i.i^-the technology necessary to achieve ......
nonattainment area had a part D plan .:-• NAAQS, control technology which ,- • ~'
' '"': fafled4o'achieve the SO, NAAQS . t
.would, by definition, fail to be SOj •;- •
•RACT. -•''".:->-'*.ris-'/j^:--.^^ •"••'.•'." v- '.
m _ _t -The EPA intends to continue defining ;
whether the attainment date for the area ' RACT for SOs as .that control technology'
had passed at the time of encactment of '..which will achieve the NAAQS within •;'/
the 1990 CAAA. However, if the:«.,^};.. "statutory timeframes.":-. •-:'. ,-*• '..- '•--:•-::~-. -;
approved plan was hot a part D plas,' •''"... (2) RFP. Section 171(1] of the amended
the State will have to submit a complete '. Act defines RFP as "such'annual ?:'-.'.: -..r
part D plan to EPA for ap'proval because . incremental reductions in emissions of -..•
.part D plans'are'requiied for. * ''•'.-•/-'•"• .v',;". 'the relevant air pollutant as are required
nonattainment areas (section 191(b)).'./ by this part (part D] or may reasonably --.-.
Policy clarification is also needed " '• ''jibe required by EPA for the purpose of :-."
* ensuring attainment of the applicable .:-.
• national ambient air quality standard by
the applicable date.".This definition is ;r.
most appropriate for pollutants which .- .-
are emitted by numerous and diverse :.: .
;.sources, where the relationship between -.
.any individual source and the overall air.
quality is not explicitly quantified, and .-
' where the emission reductions •.•; „•-, -.••<--
-necessary to attain the NAAQS are."-.- : .
inventory-wide. The definition is
concerning the* status of area's that lack ''
• approved part D plans and that contain :
a SOj emission source that has ••-.-:'r::\"'.
; permanently shut down, A ininimtim of -
two actions are required for.States ;* "'•'•
wishing to establish that these areas are
inoperative for SIP purposes/ c, -v:i-/.v • ••
The first action is that the State must,.
provide EPA with sufficient evidence to.
. establish that the source has in fact:"-:- :.'->
been permanently shut down. Three .-
criteria exist for establishing permanent t generally less pertinent to polhitants
source shutdown. These criteria require " - ~
proof that the source has been
inoperative for at least the 2 preceding •--
years, that the source is precluded from
resuming operations, and that the source
has been withdrawn.from the State's : .
emissions inventory. '. - ' -\
The.second action is that the State .
must establish that fully-approved NSR
and PSD programs are in place so that
the source would be required to undergo
NSR prior to start-up if it were
reactivated.. -
After the State has completed these .
actions, EPA will consider additional
plan requirements of such areas on a
case-by-case basis. Alternatively, the
State may choose to submit complete
part D plans to EPA for these areas. As
discussed in a previous section on ' -
redesignation, section 107(d)(3) provides
that a nonattainment area must meet all
the requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E), including a maintenance
plan consistent with section 175A,
before it may be redesignated to
attainment .The EPA recognizes that this
issue is of immediate concern to some
States and Regions. The EPA will issue
guidance concerning plan requirements
and redesignation requirements in the
future. .. • .
(b) Issues—(!) RACT. For most
criteria pollutants, RACT is control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility (see memorandum from R.
Strelow, December 9,1976). The.
such as SOj which usually have a
limited number of sources, relationships
"between individual sources and air . - -.
quality which are relatively well = • • • •
defined, and emissions control measures
which resuh in swift and dramatic -''
improvement in air quality. That is, for . .
SO:, there is usually a single "step" ."
between pre-control nonattainment and
post-control between pre-control
nonattainment and post-control " -
attainment '".•".
Therefore, for SOj, with its discernible
relationship between emissions and air
quality and significant and immediate
air quality improvements, RFP will
continue to be construed as "adherence
to an ambitious compliance
schedule."30 ' .
(3] Contingency measures. Section
172{c](9) of the amended Act defines
contingency measures as measures in a
SIP which are to be implemented if an
area fails to make RFP or fails to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Contingency measures
,become effective without further action
by the State or EPA, upon determination
by EPA that the area ha's failed to (1)
• make reasonable further progress or (2)
attain the SOj NAAQS by .the applicable
statutory deadline. These contingency -
.'• U.S. Environmental Prelection Agency. Office
of Air Quality Planning §nd Standanis, rCaidance
•Document for Correction of part D StP"* for
- North Carolina: January 27.1984). pa^e 25. .. • ,
measures shall consist of other available
control measures that are not included
in the control strategy.-'- •.•:'.:.. ••'-. • -
• The EPA interprets the contingency
measure provisions as primarily . v • •
directed at general programs which can
be undertaken on an areawide basis.
Again. SO» presents special :•-•".-•-,:-
considerations.Firstforsbmebfthe -. -
'.other criteria pollutants, "the analytical -
toob for quantifying the relationship -'-
between reductions in precursor -. - -•'
emissions and resulting air quality--'. °-
improvements remain subject to -:-"-.
; significant uncertamities, in contrast '
with procedures for pollutants tuch as
SOjiSecond, emission estimates and
attainment analyses can^be strongly
influenced by overly-optimistic".-.--.
. assumptions about control effidency
. and rates of comph'ance for many small
sources. In contrast"controls for SO* are
well understood and are far less prone '
- to uncertainty. Since SOj control •: '-
measures are by definition based upon .
what is directly and quantifiably '•'• •'-"'
.necessary to attain the SO, NAAQS, it
• would be unKkely for an area to"'.•'•'•'
Implement the necessary emissions
; control yet fafl to attain the NAAQS.
Therefore, for SOj programs, EPA -^ . -.
interprets "contingency measures" to •
mean that the State agency has a '
comprehensive program to identify
sources of violations of the SOi NAAQS
and to undertake an aggressive follow-
up for compliance and enforcement
including expedited procedures for
establishing enforceable consent "
agreements pending the adoption of
revised SIFs. ' -.
•This definition of minimum
contingency measures for SO? does not
preclude a State from requiring
• additional contingency measures that
are enforceable and appropriate for a
particular source or source category.
(4) Stack height issues andrezicnd.
Three provisions of the stack height
rules have been remanded to EPA as a
result of the court decision in NPDC v.
Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.). cert
denied, 109 S.Ct 219 (1983J. The EPA
has allowed Stales to move'ahead on
affected SIP revisions without regard to
the remanded section of these rules, but
.with the caveat that the States must .
remain aware of the status of these .
rules.'and may be required to take
•-action at a later date to respond to any
rule revisions resulting fron the remand
' (see, "Interim Policy on Stack Height
Regulatory Actions," J. Craig Potter,
April 22,1988.) ...
(5] Existing modeJing protocols. The
-. amended Act requires submittal of a •
- 'complete SIP 18 months from enactment
/or nonattainment designation (section
-------
13548
Federal Register :/--Vol 57. No.74 /'Thursday; Apiril 16. 1992 /.Proposed-Rules
191J. -This 18-inohth submittal. supported .any utility boiler that physically meets ~ ' meeting all preexisting requirements.
by a guideline model must be'completed 'the applicability requirements of 40 CFR - areas which are'designated r'~ ~ ' ' ;•
.—--. . i_ii- .1 _J-K_« .-.;- 'part 60. subpart Da. whether it is an -' - --- nona ttainmeht by operation o flaw •-
^existing boiler"under.40 CFR part 6a >": (section i07(d)(i)|[q(i)). as Well as .areas
subpart Da or'no'Cmust have CEMS for -~; which "are designated nonattaijunent in.
NSPS compliance'and should therefore :-V the future (section 107(d)(3))."must all
walif fin nrVlC ff\f CTT} ^Am«1t4n/*A*«»*~ ' I.-*.* * «.V«2* •• ^Z^ft^^l.'.'—.^^^^,. V-lf^ * A!
even in cases where the modeling
protocol is currently under review.::;,; ;
• Equivalent models to those approved for
regulatory use in EPA's ^Guideline on
asection"302fj).
SIP submlttaL=;i~fj
established for sources that fall into
-..vlfStates and/or source owners wish•';.«
. 'alternative models, then the SEP may be
revised accordingly. However, if th<
alternative model is not completed i
L. timelyfashion,'of if the alternative is.. .::>..economically feasible in otner cases, -f--j v0pefatiori'6f new'and modified :"".r.">""" ':
,'_ "unacceptable, an acceptable regulation "=/;• other appropriate continuous mbnitbring ""statioMry'sourees'of SOj"*7""-' ~^"T:"
..^nustbe in place .to assure expeditious..-; techniques", such as continuous "^v ^ *• c"o^s'0Ysa'poii^anr^-^---- - ^
'-_• attainment.and.to avoid sanctions for.,-, ,v compliance "of relevant process ;<.1^>'-""^v-'V^,_"^;^25"Sii^
which offer guidance in a'question-and-
- Quality Models (Revised)" as the basis
for all prescribed procedures and is in'.
;• the process of_revising~4p CFR part 51 to •
. effect this requirement. .•-'..,•-,; :-" \'.-
(6) Test methods and averaging times'.']
- The NAAQS are expressed as maximum
ambient concentrations that are to be .
- inet on a continuous"basis. • ..-;;. •-...' ,._.!•
Consequently, States must demonstrate
that source emission limitations,..
averaging h'mes, and compliance "
monitoring methods are sufficient to
assure compliance with the air quality
standards. The choice of a monitoring
technique should consider regulatory
needs, monitoring technology costs, and
the relative benefits of one technique
versus another.
. Continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) are a reliable technique
for continuously monitoring emissions of
SO; for many source categories. .
Detailed guidance documents for •
determining'CEMS feasibility in .
indiviudal cases are listed in section
. ULD.6. of this preamble (see letters from
W. Reilly to ]. Dingell. April 10.1991). . '
. Further guidance is being developed. In
general, the criteria for determining
' when CEMS are appropriate are as
follows: •" • .. • 1;.'-.'.
• . i. Any source where there is an •
established new source performance
standard (NSPS) which requires CEMS
regarding the enforceability' of SJP's and -'-
SIP revisions. • • -.;. :V>.'. -y.. -..:, -: i: :.• -.'i.
.. Guidance on enforceability" ...-. • ;•!!.•.'
requirements has been provided to .L -'•'•
Regional Offices in various memoranda.-.
"(see Bauman/Biondi and Potter/Adams/ -
'Blake memoranda listed in section- -
answer format See also:"::- -"••' '-•
"(a) 5Os Guidance..'J-":-"!f •--!-•'••• ''"
(IJ.SO? Guideline. October 1989.
(2) SQi Guideline Appendictis, -
October 1989.. - . : •_.:-•'•'" :
.(3) Letter from William Reilly to
m.D.6. of this preamble. Those SEP's and - Representative John Dingell. in, response
SEP revisions which fail to satisfy the
enforceability criteria should not be • •
forwarded for approval. If they are
submitted, they will be disapproved if,
'in EPA's judgement, they fail to satisfy -
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. • '
• (8) Maintenance plans. As discussed
previously, section 107(d)(3) of the
amended Act (see subparagraphs A and
E of section 107(d)(3) as well as section
175A) requires that nonattainment areas
must have a fully-approved maintenance
plan meeting the requirements of section
175A before they can be redesignated'to-
attainment.Section 175A(a) mandates, ...
. among other things^ that a State must .•.
submit a SEP revision which provides for -
maintenance of the NAAQS for at least --
10 years after the redesignation to
attainment (section 175A(a)). A - -. .
. subsequent SEP revision providing for
'. maintenance of the NAAQS for an .
1 additional 10 years is due 8 years into
the first 10-year maintenance period. - - •:
' The law does not provide any .-
for determining'compliance should rely'.:: exceptions to the maintenance plan ; •
. oh this method in the.SIP. For example. - requirement. Therefore, in addition to '
to questions and GAO report April 10.
1991. .
(4) Memorandum from Craig Potter. '
Thomas Adams, and Francis Blake to .
Air Division Director. Regions I-X. -
"Review of State Implementation Plans
and Revisions for Enforceability sr.d
Legal Sufficiency." September 23.1S87.
(5) Memorandum from Gerald A.
Emison. Director. OAQPS. to Air "
Division Director. Regions I-X.
"Transmittal of Reissued OAQPS CEMS
Policy," March 31,1988. •
(6) "Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans: Dearborn. Lake.
and Porter Counties, Indiana. " 54 FR .
612. January 9,1989. ". ' ... \ : .'.
(7) Memorandum from Robert Baurnar.
'and Rich Bibndi to Air Branch Chiefs. •
"SOj SIP Deficiency Checklist'. ....
November 28,1990." . ;'': '•
(8) Memorandum from Gerald Emison.
. Director, OAQPS, to David Ke«:. •;." . .
Director. Air Management Division. . . .
Region V. "Need for a ShortrTera BACT
. Analysis for the Proposed .William A. "; .
' Ziminer Power Plant,"-Noyember 24."-..'
"1986. *"'"-. :"~ --.;-•--.--'" :
-------
= Federal Register / -Vol 57; -No/74 '/^Thursday;-April 10, 1992 /Proposed. Rules -'-. . .13549
(b) SIP. Guidance.. (1) Guidance'.:'-, .. .-•
Documentfor .Correction of Part D SIFs
for Nonattainment Areas,'January 27, --. •-,
1984.:-:: ;,.:>-:fJ~U?:v;:? - --:- :-';"' •''*••
• ; (2) Memorandum from R-Strelow to
Regional Administrator. Regions I-X v
""Guidance for Determining -.:-.;vji-c--i.i
Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-
nonattainment designations and plan •• -
revisions under part D.- -• •«"- -='•'— '•-'•-.••v
... , The Act as.amended-cleariy defines •?.-.
s-) - EPA's authority to designate areas for.-^vf
•'.-.: • lead. Section 107(d)(5) authorizes EPA to
•Xs require States to designate areas (or..; •.'••• ••*
.vcv portions thereof) as nonattainment, •. ,;' •:•.
r _f ^ x- '.attainmentorundassifiablewith .'./'"'••':•,:..
Attainment Areas."; December 9,1976. v3'-respect to the lead NAAQS iireffect as -i.
.(c)ModeUag Guidance (i) T.Guideline>.of the date of enactment of the 1990 /-"..f:'
:on Air; Quality Models".(Reyised).-July«LV CAAAAiAs provided in section.".o- :.'>-.
y^-&;zt;&&£g:'!*.&.?&:J;V"U-.'.'i>.vcI«-::"• 107(d)(5), these lead areas are .to be ".ye-:*
•• (2) "interim Procedures for Evaluating ^-designated pursuant to the procedures .•;>
- Air .Quality Models: Experience with>~f." outlined in section 107(d)(l)(A) and fB). *.
.Implementation," July 1985. r;:^":-^.2^Y<- .except that certain timeframes of .us.-,V'V,
-_(3) Model Cletiringhouse."<'i/V''.-"';i->T.->'--8ubparagraph (BJ ha've been modified by •-
'_ :(d) New Source Review Guidance. (1) .-. secticm 107{d)(5). Section 107(d)(l)(A) 'W
Memorandum from Richard Rhoads,->-.'. permits EPA to require the.Governors of -.
Director CPDD, to Division Director,'- .' affected States to submitrecommended ...
Regions I-X, ^Growth" Restrictions in •;-•-•:- designations for. the areas EPA seeks. 7-.,
Secondary.NAAQS Nonattainment ~ vj. designated in a timeframe that EPA •:-•..,-.•
Areas.".Qctober28,1980.-.i-.i.-s.-<-o-:.--'---" deems reasonable.,!^ timeframe. __-... ,:
' (2) New Source Review Prevention of :-however," can-be no sooner than 120 :.---i-i
Significant Deterioration and •• .-• - ';^:- -'days nor later thah.i .year after the date .-
" "Nonattainment Area Guidance ;?•;::.----,-.;f EPA notifies the Slate of the •..-,-,,:; •.-*---•
Notebook, January 1988."^--.--^••*.-.. = •.. ,- requirement to"submit such .:= :-.-.•-.f-:-:; -
' . (3) Guidance onState Operating v..''. designations. Section 107(d)(l)(B).'7., .^:
' Permit Progr'ams. Federal Register •=- -.•;:-requires that EPA must then promulgate ,-
" notice, lune 1989.'-?"-;-";---'--V- •'••'• ••• these designations ho later than 1 year..,.-
- ' ••---•--••- - '• :.. after notifying the State of the ; j-..->;......
;. -requirement .to designate areas for lead.'
.-• The EPA may make any modifications ••
. "deemed necessary to the designations ••
. submitted by .the State (see generally
section 107(d)(l)(B) of the Act).
_However, no later than 120 days before
"promulgating a modified area, EPA must -.
notify the affected State and provide an
opportunity for the State to demonstrate
why any proposed modification is
inapporpriate. "' ' .
If the Governor of an affected State
fails to submit the required lead
designations, in whole or in part, EPA is
required to promulgate the designation
that it deems appropriate for any area
(4) NSR Electronic Bulletin Board.. t- ~
Computerized CompilationLof Previous •
and Latest NSR Policy Memoranda and.
Technical Information Items, Federal :
Register notice, January 1990. •-- . •
(5) ."Draft Workshop Manual for New
Source Review (NSR) Programs,".. •
December 1990. '•••-.•'.•• . .
(6) Memorandum from J. Seitz,'
OAQPS, to Air Division Director.
Regions I-X. "New Source Review
(NSR) Program Transitional Guidance,"
March 11,1991. " ' - ' .
LLead
l&.
1. Statutory Background
(a) Designations. In 1978, when EPA
promulgated the lead NAAQS, EPA
believed that implementation and
maintenance of the lead NAAQS should
be in accordance with the SIP
requirements set forth in section 110 and
not part D. The EPA believed that
section 107—and and part D
requirements—were intended by
Congress to apply only to NAAQS
which were set prior to 1977. In these
cases, SIFs had already been adopted,
the attainment dates bad already . ',.
passed, and the SIFs had proven to be
inadequate. The designation process
was intended as a mechanism to initiate
new SIP revisions for those existing
NAAQS. Since the attainment date for .
the lead NAAQS at that time had not
yet arrived, no lead SIP'S had yet been
proven inadequate. Consequently, lead .
• did not meet the' circnmstances which -:--.,
•. Initially resulted in a need for • .-,.-•- •-.-.; . : ;
(or portion thereof) not designated by
the State.
(b) Area boundaries. States should
identify the boundaries of the"
nonatJainment areas when submitting
nonattainment designations for lead. A
lead nonattainment area consists of that
area which does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality~in a
nearby area that does not meet) the lead
NAAQS (see section 107(d)(l) of the
amended Act). Generally, EPA - -I1
recommends that the lead •
nonattainment boundary be defined by
the perimeter of the county in which the
ambient lead monitors) recording the
violation is located: In addition, if the •
ambient monitor measuring violations is
located near another county, then EPA
recommends that die other county also
be designated as nonattainment for lead.
In some situations, however, a boundary
•other than the county perimeter may be
appropriate. States may choose :
: alternatively to define the lead ••": - ^- • "-.
:nonattairmientb6undary"by using any ' .
'one, or a combination^ of the following
techniques: Qualitative'analysis, spatial ~
. interpolation of air;mo"nitbring data; or
••air quality simulation by dispersion'
mo'deling. These techniques, are more
.fully described in "Procedures" for .-
•Estimating'Probability'of Nonattainment
. of a PM-10 NAAQS Using Total '•: . '
Suspended Particulate or PM-10 Data," '
• December 1988. The EPA re'cwnmends
that the State submit a defensible '. '. '
; rationale for the boundary chosen with '
• the Governor's designation for an area.
.-- (c) Classification.** Section '."-•" .
172(a)(l)(A) of the amended Act '
"authorizes EPA to classify areas'. \.
.-designated as nonattainment for the
• purposes of applying an attainment date
pursuant to section-172(a)(2) or for other
reasons. In determining the appropriate
classification, EPA may consider such '
factors as the severity of the "'•• . ."
nonattainment problem and the
availability and feasibUity of the . .
pollution control measures (see section
172(a)(l)(A) of the amended Act). The
EPA may, but is not required lo, classify.
. lead nonattainment areas. At this time,
EPA does not intend to classify lead
nonattaLnment areas with respect to the
lead NAAQS in effect on date of
enactment of the 1990 CAAA. That is,
while section 172(a)(l)(A) provides a
mechanism to classify nonattainnent
areas, section 172(a)(2)(D) provides that
the attainment date-extensions
described in section 172(a)(2)(A) do not
apply to nonattainment areas having
specified attainment dates under other
provisions of part D. Section 192(a)
specifically provides an attainment date
for areas designated as nonattainment
for the lead NAAQS in effect at the date
of enactment of the 1990 CAAA.
Therefore, EPA has legal authority to
classify lead nonattainment areas, but
. »' Section 107(d)(5) of lie tmended Act doei not
indicate that til treat of lh« SUtessiat be '
designated At Uiii toe, EPA hsj only requested
thai jp*cifiedire«« within »ffec;r'V-.':-V-'-:v/-.-.-r •---••—: • '„..--•
'* It U important to note that claiiiEcations and
designation* are icpante concept*. Dexignationt
refer to an arts'* attainment staroa (U, ts« area it
designated attainment, poaallilnmfirt. or
uncUsiifiable), dasaliicationi'tre applied to area*
• designated nonattainment and are i mechajuaio /or
addreaaing difTerencc* among nooaRainznest areas.
For example, dauificaticns uroaDy renll in
' applying additional control meaaorei and provknrtg
longer attainment deadllnei for tnote areai saving
' more *erkroi nonattainnient problems." -i'". •- .
5*;
-------
-13550 . • : Federal RegbterTjVol 57. No. 74 /NThursdayrApri} 16;'1992;'/. Proposed Rules'
'• .the 5-year attainment dale under section
, 192(a) cannot be extended pursuant to :
•section 172(a)(2)(p}, and EPA deems it - •
inappropriate to establish a • -
• classification scheme 'within the15-year'
'» -'. interval, s.'.... -••":{'.-. •-.•.<<-•"'. '-;'»> :i^••^f-'^-i
. t \\. •*! I **•'_> _"* . ^» _"* It t\i^
required to have a nonattainment NSR - :
program consistent with section'173 of • -•-
the Act However.'now that there will be
areas designated nbnattainment for. -'•-.;
lead.'a nonattainment NSR program is ..-,-:
required for "such areas. Specifically, v-"1
. • (d) Plan submission: Generally, the -.-. • section 172(c)(5) requires that States : --.' '•
'date by which a plan must jbe.subxriitted ?•' having areas designated nbnattainment • .„ „ r
.'for an area is trigggered by the area's .-^f-.for lead submit as partof the applicable ~. • CFR 5l:ll7(a)(l);?3cTo 'cc
'.:nonartainmen^designation. For areas *.i,,: SIP^provisions" requiring permits for. the" - --'—---^-•—------ — -
. designatedjiona'ttainment forf— "- '
'.primaryjead NAAQS in effect
enactment of the 1990 CAAA, States
"/must submit SIP's':
Guideline for Lead Implementation
Plans;M;Augwt 1978.---'^'r-~-:-•-•--- .. -
[c} Modeling and meteorological •''• '•
monitoring. The lead SIP regulations at *
40 CFR 51.117 require that atmospheric '
dispersion modeling be employed for the
demonstration of attainment for areas in
the vicinity of point sources listed in 40
ete.the ;~-'i"
_____ ______
:-?.i should foUo'w the pro'ceduyesputlin'ed in
' "
".Guideline On AirjQuality Models
(Revised)." The "Guideline- intates
•
-.;^- specific to lead SIFs. States.sh.ouia>--- - -,
f'i"- however continue 'to relon uidance -i-
NSR
-
..
"-£ however, continue 'to relyjon guidance -i- .
. -
;>utno.latCT&an£y^
of an area_s nonattamment desffinauon ;•. -recommends that States'evaluate their--' guidance" on the RACM nieas'ures '-: -^
y. Is.** .svS3??-^?^ •"-'--J-•~: "•'••"-•' --'-• -"•-•'
• 2/PrerSIP Submittal•Activiues\r!.'j^j'.;'-.rr.!.*here ar? any impediments to'"-
••'••.'-' •* -V--"'•-•"-'''?' v-"i--^-:--—cV'i ^ "•->' - ••• V implementing a nonattainment
-V; As discussed.above, any.States ——-£—inthe areas"designate
containing an'area designated as . —• •-; ^attainment for lea'd." *4'
nonattainment with respect to the lead •- - -
NAAQS in effect at enactment of the /•/'
1990 CAAA'must develop "and submit a'-"
part D SIP providing for 'attainment. ':\~'
Most of the general part D '••'•'• ' '• •••'•*••*'
•• nonattainment.plan'provisionsare'set -'-^ jj"0*0- ^missions mventones
forth in section 172(c). The SIP's ,- r • ^' *>ased on measured emissions or ,
- submitted to meet the part D "-•' •:- - • -': •' documented emission factors. The more
requirements must." among other things/ ' comprehensive and accurate the • ,
include RACM. RACT. provide for RFP. • inventory, the more effective the control
evaluation (see section 172(c](3) of the
fb] Emission inveniones.;An -
emissions inventory is required to '' "' :
determine "the nature and extent of the :
specific co'nbxil'strategies that are
needed. Emissions inventories should be
contain contingency measures and
require permits for the construction and
operation of major new and modified •
stationary sources. This portion of the
General Preamble does not address
more specifically RACM. RFP.
contingency measures, or some of the
other part D SIP requirements for lead
nonattainment areas. States should
nonetheless proceed, consistent with
more general guidance on part D
requirements to collect information and
data necessary to.complete SIP -
analyses. A listing of some of the - .
specific SEP activities States should be. "
• completing is described below. The EPA
will continue to evaluate the need for. -
more detailed guidance on the part D .
lead SIP requirements as it proceeds
with nonattainment designations for -...
.lead. . . :'' '.',,: ' '..' •=" -. •••.
(a) Nonattainment NSR. Previously. •..
^ areas that were not attaining the lead
amended Act which specifies that
nonattainment area SIP's include "a
comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or •
pollutants in such area * * *"]. The
States should begin to evaluate the type
. of emissions inventory that needs to be
developed and the type of information
that needs to be collected to'support a
. SIP submittal. Postponing completion of
' the emissions Inventory could--.
jeopardize the submittal of the lead SIP
within the statutorily-mandated
. deadlines. • . •'• • ---.-' \;' : '• "-'.
The'following documents provide
further information for lead emissions -
inventory development Draft Manual
'- "Updated Information on Approval and
. Promulgation of Lead Implementation: •
Plans." EPA, July 1983; "Guideline/ : '-
Series; Development of an Example
'.. emissions! In light of the fact that some '-•
'- SIP's are due July 6,1993.1EPA r '-,:•=. ' -
:, recommends mat States focus their
- efforts more specifically now oh • ••• • i
' evaluations of the affected lead 'sources.
• ' The EPA believes that the efforts States
should undertake include an assessment
of operation and maintenance (O & M]
-'' and work practice measures. In' -' .-
addition. State efforts should identify
and analyze control measures which •
reduce process fugitive and lead-bearing
open dust emission sources. These
evaluations should consider the
technological feasibility of additional
control measures, as well as the cost of
• the identified options. ' .
3. Transition Issues
(a) Transition from pre-amer.ded lew.
As mentioned, under the pre-amenced
• law there were no designations for lead.
" Generally, in addition to meeting applicable • •
- requirements under part 0 of title I of the imecded .
••Act SIP'S for those areas designated nonauain=ent
for lead must aUo meet the applicable regulatory
requirements Ut forth in 40 CFR part 51 except to
the extent those requirements are inconsis'.er.t with
. the amended Act The 1990 CAAA include a - .
General Savings Clause which provides lh.it •. . .
regulations (or guidance, etc.) in effect before the .
-enactment of the Amendments shall remati in e.Tect
• after enactment (see section 193). However, the
: Savings Clause also provides that such regulations -
- (or guidance, etc.) shall remain in effect.".encept to. .
-.,.».-_ -j •. . j - •• « , if, .-"-*-» -'-J .. •«. -i" ~~. ••-:-the extent otherwise provided under this. Act
. -. NAAQS were not designated as ^ ;._ • _= -. Control Strategy for Lead.". April 1979; :.,: incoruuten, With «y provisions pf ihis'Acfor'-
;..'nonaUainment'and therefore were not''-/'.. and '-'Guideline SeriesrSupplementary -;. --.-. revised by the AdministrBior-.A/..^-i".;-.'". vH-";
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No.^ / .Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed Rules
13551
and States were required to submit SIFs -
in accordance with section 110. The •
amended law. as discussed, now .-. .
authorizes EPA to designate areas for .
lead. There are transitional issues raised -
by the changes in the new law including.
for example, the status of the obligation
to submit adequate section 110 SIFs
under the pre-amended law and the
status of any approved section 110 SIFs.
(b) Unapproved or inadequate section •
. 110 SZP.'s. Before enactment of the 1990 ?.
CAAA, a State may have failed to '.- : *'
•submit a section 110 SIP to EPA. it may ."
have submitted a section 110 SIP which
was not approved by EPA, or it may
have submitted and had approved a
section 110 SIP which EPA subsequently
found substantially inadequate. The last
situation is true of at least three States. -.
Specifically, prior to the enactment of *'•••
the CAAA. EPA Issued SIP calls for
three States having substantially • .-.
inadequate section 110 SIFs. Except for •
those areas designated nonattainment . '-•
for lead, section 110(n)(2) requires these
States to continue their section 110
planning in accordance with the SIP
calls (or. as the case may be, in response
to EPA's 1978 promulgation of the '•;..:
quarterly 1.5 fig/m1 lead standard) and
to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
date specified in section 110(mH2). Any
area in these States that is designated
nonattainment under the new law for
the existing lead NAAQS must instead
submit a part D SIP that comports with
the applicable requirements in subpart 1
and subpart 5, including the SIP
submittal material deadlines and
attainment dates in sections 191 and 192
of subpart 5.
The EPA intends to ensure that a
State whose SIP needed correction prior
to enactment of the 1S90 CAAA and that
expects to have an area designated as
nonattainment under the new law,
continues' to progress with its plan
dsvelopcient and implementation for
that area as provided in section
110(7>.}(2}. Once areas are designated
ncnattainment for the existing lead
NAAQS, the State must complete a SIP
providing for attainment by the date that
is as expeditious as "practicable" for
any such newly-designated
nonattainment area. In reviewing any
future SIP's under sections 191 and 192,
EPA will consider what progress could
reasonably have been accomplished
both prior to enactment of the new law
and after enactment but before the area
was designated nonattainment. . •
(c) Approved section 110 SIP's. In the
situation where a State submitted and
• EPA approved or promulgated a section
110 lead SEP before the 1990 GAAA
' enactment,'then all provisions of such '
SD? shall remain in effect unless and
until EPA approves a revision under the
new law (see section 110(n)(l)). -
F. Nitrogen Dioxide \ . '•'
This section applies primarily to the '
South Coast Air Basin of California.
which is the only designated NO*
nonattainment area in the Nation. The •
basin was designated nonattainment by
operation of law (section 107(d)(l)(C). -
'The requirements described in this
section would also generally apply to
any subsequently designated NOj '•_'•• -
'nonattainment areas. Nothing in this • •
guidance prevents a SI? for a .'.'-'• •-
nonattainment area from containing •
measures more stringent than the "
guidance recommends.
In general, the Act as amended in
1990, does not require significant
revisions in the NO» NAAQS program.
The General Savings Clause (section
193) provides for general program • ' ' _
continuity by explicitly preserving ' •
existing rules, policies, and guidance
that are not affected by Act changes.
1. Designations ' -' • •
'. The 1977 Act gave the primary'
authority for.initiatirig designations to
State Governors. Although State .
Governors continue to have authority to
initiate the designation process (section
107(d)(3)p)). the 1990 CAAA also give
the Administrator the authority to
initiate and to promulgate designations
(section 107(d) (1) and (3)).
In general, areas may be designated
as nonattainment, attainment or '
undassifiable for the NAAQS (section
107(d)(l)(A) (i). (ii), and (Sii)). The 19SO
CAAA provide for designations of areas
based upon the attainment status for the
current NAAQS (section 10T(d)(l)(C));
they also provide authority and
schedules for designations of areas
following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS (section 107(d)(l) (A)
' and(B)).
The revised law sets forth specific
requirements that govern the
rsdesignation of an area from
nonattainment to attainment (section
107{d)(3)(E)). The particular criteria for
redesignating nonattainment areas to
attainment (section 107(d)(3)(E)) include
the following determinations: The area
has attained the NAAQS, the area has a
fully approved (section H0(k))
implementation plan, the improvement •
in air quality is due to permanent and '
enforceable emissions reductions, the
area has a maintenance plan meeting
the requirements of section 175A, and •
the area meets all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D. See "Redesignations a'n'd ; •' '
Maintenance" under B1-H.6 of this
document . • '
2. Plan Deadlines .. "... • ,..
Submission deadlines for States to'
submit implementation plans (part D *
Plans) for NO* are given in section 191.
Plan submission deadlines are explicitly
' given for nonattainment .areas 'which
violate the primary NOi NAAQS
(section 191). The NOi primary and
secondary NAAQS are identical Thus.
the South Coast Air Basin must submit
•an implementation plan that meets the
. requirements of subpart 1 of pah D, and
the plan must be submitted within 18
months after enactment of the 1990 "
CAAA (i.e., by May 15.1992)."- ;
States with areas that are designated
or redesignated, after enactment as
nonattainment areas for the NO:
NAAQS must submit implementation
plans (section 191[a]). These ...
' implementation plans must meet the
• requirements of part D and 'the plans
must be submitted within 18 months of
. the designation or redesignation.
3. Attainment Dates • - '
In the 1990 CAAA, Congress set
specific attainment dates for '
nonattainment areas that were found to
violate the NOj NAAQS. The 1SSO
CAAA require attainment of the
NAAQS "as expeditiously as . .
practicable" (section 172(a)(2) (A) and
(B)). Although the 1990 CAAA give EPA
authority to establish flexible . •
attainment dates (section 172(a)(2) (AJ-
(C)), this flexibility does-not apply to
areas that have specific attainment
dates (section 172(a)(2)(DJ). Specifically,
the flexibility does not apply to
attainment of the NOj NAAQS because
the attainment date is specified in
section 192.
Areas that were designated
nonattainment at the time of er.sctrr.ent
(i.e., areas that are nonattainmer.t by
operation of law] must attain ths
primary standard as expediticusly as
practicable, but not later than 5 years
after enactment of the 1990 CAAA {i.e..
by November 15,1995) (section 192(b)).
This requirement applies to the South
Coast Air Basin.
Areas that are redesignated as
nonattainment, subsequent to the
November 15,1990 date of enactment,
must attain the primary standard as
expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than 5 years after the
nonattainment designation (section
4. Nonattainment Plan Pro visions .
• • -Thy 1970 Act required States to" '
• submit implementation plans'that would
-------
13552
•Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 74 I Thursday; April 18, 1992 / Proposed Rules
Indicate how the. State would attain and
maintain the NAAQS. The requirements
for these general SIP> were listed in .'
part A. section 110. In the 1977 CAAA, •
requirements for implementation plans
in nonattainment areas were given in
part 0 (sections 171-178]..These • • ".
requirements addressed a number of .-
issues including, but not limited to. .
attainment dates, permit requirements,.
and planning procedures. :- /••
.• .The 1990 CAAA have not made . .
significant changes in the plan < •
requirements for NOi nonattainment .;.
areas (section 17Z(c)).For this reason.- . -
States may generally continue to rely on
past guidance for NO* programs in
meeting those requirements. This ..._••
position is further supported by the -
General Savings Clause contained in .
section 193.. ';..-^.-.\ .....,.'.•..'•, '•-...•'.:•. "•
C. New Source Review(NSR) "'-'-- -
Nonattainment Permit Requirements ~ '•• '•
• This sectipn of the .General Preamble
describes the new or revised NSR .
nona'ttainment permit program ',_•',.-'
. requirements under part D of the .' .
amended Act and generally explains .
EPA's interpretation of these ...
requirements. For these new or revised
" provisions, the provisions discussed :
below are the minimum statutory
requirements States must use to revise
their existing NSR nonattainment permit
plan provisions (or to adopt such
provisions if none exist) which must be
submitted to EPA for "approval by the
^deadlines set forth in the CAAA of 19SO.
'. In keeping with past practice. EPA "
! intends to issue regulations setting forth
in more detail the requirements for an
; approvable NSR program.
•^
1. Construction Bans
Under the 1977 Amendments to the
Act. section 110(a)(2)(I) of the statute
required EPA to place certain
nonattainment areas under a federally-
imposed construction moratorium (ban)
that prohibited the construction of all '
new or modified major stationary
sources in nonattainment areas where
the State failed to have an
implementation plan meeting all of the
requirements of part D of the Act. The
amended Act repeals the provisions
previously found in section 110(a)(2](I).
The amended Act also contains a
Savings Clause in section 110{n){3) that
preserves certain existing section .
110(a)(2)(I) construction bans in place •
• before November 15.1990, if the ban
was imposed by virtue of a finding that
the plan for the area did not contain an
adequate NSR permitting program as
.required by section 172(b)(6) of the 1977
Act. or the plan failed to provide for
timely attainment of the SOj NAAQS by
December 31.1982. All other
construction bans imposed pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(I) are lifted as a result
of the new statutory provision. In .
accordance with new section 110(n](3).
the construction bans that are retained
remain in effect until the EPA . .:
determines that the SIP meets either the
new part D permit requirements or the
new requirements for attainment of the •
NAAQS for SO, under subpart 5 of part .
D, as applicable... ?'-••:•;• v :-.-: ".. • ;"
Section 173 and the various subparts ...
of title I of the amended Act contain the
requirements for.issuance of a NSR -.- ',•
contraction permit to a new or modified .
major source in a nonattainment area or
. ozone transport region. To Issue such . .
permits, the permit authority must first
find per section 173(a)(4) that "the .."-
Administrator has not determined that .
the applicable implementation plan is -
not being adequately implemented for
the nonattainment area".in accordance
with the requirements of part D. If the .
Administrator determines that the SIP
for the part D requirements is not being .
adequately implemented for the
nonattainment area where the new -
source or modification wants to locate,
permits that would otherwise meet the
requirements of section 173 cannot be
issued. . " .'.'.' ~. .
While EPA policy generally is to
impose a FIP where States fail to adopt
Clean Air Act NSR provisions, section
113(a)(5] of the amended Act provides '
that EPA may prohibit the construction
or modification of any major stationary
source in any area, including an
attainment area, where there is a
violation of the statute's NSR
requirements. Specifically, EPA may
apply section H3(a)(5) whenever the
Administrator finds, on the basis of
available information, that a State is not
acting in compliance with any
requirement or prohibition of the Act
relating to construction of new sources
or the codification of existing sources.
Upon such a finding, the Administrator
may issue an order prohibiting the
constrjction or modification of any
ma jo: stationary source in any area to
which such requirement applies, issue
an administrative penalty order in
accordance with the requirements of
section 113(d},' or bring a civil action
under section 113(b], Nothing in section
113(a)(5) precludes the EPA from taking
other enforcement action or
commencing a criminal action under
section 113(c) at any time for any such
violation. Section 113(a~)(5) is'discussed
in greater detail in section IVJ3.2.
2, Emissions Offsets . . .
The 19SO CAAA clarify and expand _
the basic requirements for emissions ;
offsets already contained in section 173
of part D. Moreover, in limiting the •
States' opportunities to set up a growth
allowance (described in section 1H.G.3).
the 1990 CAAA establish emissions
offsets as the primary regulatory
mechanism for accommodating major .
new source growth without jeopardizing
the Act's mandate for reasonable
rogress toward NAAQS attainment In
ight of such statutory changes, each
State should review the emissions offset
requirements in its current NSR rules .
and determine what revisions are
necessary to conform those roles with
the criteria described below. '-•... • ...
. (a) RFP. The basic requirement in
. section 173(a](l) remains the same in -.
that to issue a permit the State must
-demonstrate that the new source growth
does not interfere with the approved-.
demonstration of reasonable progress .
for the area. Such growth results from
. new or increased emissions potential ,
from major stationary sources, as well
as from emissions from minor source
growth unaccounted for by the control
strategy in the EPA-approved SIP.
.. The EPA interprets section •:
• 173(a)(l)(A) to ratify current EPA - .
regulations requiring that the eriissions
baseline for offset purposes be
calculated in a manner consistent with
the emissions baseline used to
demonstrate RFP. Regarding the. amount
of offsets that is necessary to show
noninterference with RFP. EPA will
presume that so long as a new s ource
obtains offsets in an amount equal to or
greater than the amount specified in the
applicable offset ratio (or. where the
statute does not specify an offset ratio.
in an amount greater than 1:1), Ihe new
source will represent RFP. In general.
this presumption may be overcome only
if the applicable SIP expressly relies on
new sources to generate a greater
amount of reductions than set forth in
the statutory offset ratios. The offsets
still must satisfy the section 17o(c)
requirements as discussed beioiv.
The EPA regulations at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(i) presently require that
offset be based on allowable or actual
emissions, depending on which .currency
is used for RFP and attainment
demonstration purposes. Historically. .
RFP often has been tracked primarily by
a yearly assessment of the net actual
emissions reductions that have "
occurred, because actual emissions best
correlate with ambient air quality
concentrations. In such cases, liPA
regulations disallow the use of "paper"
• offsets based on SIP allowable
emissions in excess of actual emissions,
• and the statutory changes do nut call for
' any change in this approach. - -
-------
/ . •
• Federal :Regfcter/ Vol 57. No. 74 /Thursday. April "16. 1992 /Proposed Rules 13553
(b) Geographic location of offsets.
New section 173(c)(l) stipulates that
emissions offsets generally must be
obtained by.the same source or other
existing sources in the same • '•* •'•. • •
nonattainment area. However, the '
statutory provision does allow offsets to
be obtained in another nonattainment
area under two specific conditions. First,
the other nonattainment area must have .
an equal or higher nonattainment :•••••
classification than the nonattainment '. •
"area in which the source would '/;£' ;."••'
constructln applying this 'provision, the
other nonattainment area must have an
equal or higher nonattainment .'• . .
classification for the same pollutant For
example, a proposed major new source
of VOC seeking to locate in a -:
. nonattainment area classified as serious
for ozone could possibly, obtain emission
offsets in another ozone nonattainment
• area if such area were designated
serious, severe or extreme for ozone,
"' The'second condition is that the.
emissions from such other ..: . . ';
nonattainment area must contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS in the .-:•-_.
nonattainment area in which the source
would construct The showing that such
contribution from sources in another
nonattainment area exists should be
acknowledged and verified by the
permitting authority. Generally,
dispersion modeling is used to identify •
the existence of such impacts.
(c) Timing of offsets. New section
173(c)(l) also adds the condition that
any emissions offsets obtained in
conjunction with the issuance of a
permit to a new or modified source must
be, "by the time a new or modified
source commences operation, in effect
and enforceable * * * *." This new -
statutory condition for offsets augments
an existing requirement under section
173 that provides that offsets must be
• "legally binding" before a permit may be
issued. The 1990 CAAA clarified the
existing requirement by requiring that
the offsets be federally enforceable
before permit issuance (see revised
section 173(a)). Accordingly, while it is
possible for a State to issue a permit to
construct once sufficient emissions
offsets have been identified and made
federally enforceable (generally through
a permit condition made to the permit of
the existing source), the State must also
ensure that the required emissions
reductions actually occur no later than
the date on which the new source or
modified source would commence
operation. . -..-..••=
(d) Actual emissions reductions. New
. section 173(c](l) includes the provision .
that the: -•-••- -. •. :'-• ..-;.---. •-
* * Total tonnage of increased emissions •
from the new or modified source »haU be •
offset by an equal or greater amount, aa.
applicable, in the actual emissions of such air.
pollutant from the same or other sources in
the area.' • •' " ".'•'/'.''.
The Act waa previously silent on this
issue: however. EPA's current policy
concerning the baseline for emissions .
offsets, as contained in the part 51NSR ".
nonattainment regulations, provides that
the offset baseline is the emissions limit
.under the applicable SIP hi effect at the '.
time the permit application is filed,'• ..' -
unless the State's demonstration of .RFP .
and NAAQS attainment is based on •'-..'
actual emissions, or the applicable SIP
does not contain an emissions limitation
for that particular source or source
category (see existing § 51.165(a)(3)(i)).
The new statutory requirement provides
. that emissions increases from the new
or modified source must be offset by
real reductions in actual emissions. As
noted above, RFP and attainment_ •''... .
demonstrations generally are based on •
actual emissions. However, to the extent
that these plans are based on allowable.
emissions, offset credit for reductions in
allowable emissions (as necessary to.
conform with the requirements of.. , ..
• section 173(a)(l)) is appropriate, but will
be deemed inadequate if there is not a .
real reduction in actual emission's that
equals or exceeds, as applicable, the ,
Increase in emissions resulting from the
operation of the major new or modified
source.
(s) Creditable reductions. The final
condition, added under new section
173(c)(2), prevents emissions reductions
otherwise required by the Act from
being credited for purposes of satisfying
the part D offset requirement. For
example, reductions required to meet
RACT and acid rain reductions pursuant
to statutory requirements are not
creditable for emissions offsets.
However, the statutory language does
allow reductions that are achieved
L-directly pursuant to a requirement of
tie CAAA (incidental emission '
reductions] to be credited if they meet.
the other criteria for offsets contained in
section 173(c)(l) as described above.
Section 112 of the CAAA contains
source requirements for hazardous air
pollutants. The listed hazardous air
pollutants in section 112(b)(l) are not
exempt from regulation under the
nonattainment provisions of part D.
New and existing sources must meet,
where applicable, the MACT emissions
limitations as promulgated under section
112(d). As part of the schedule to comply
with an applicable MACT standard, an
existing source may elect to comply with
the early reductions requirements of. - •• '
section 112(i](5). By electing to achieve
early reductions, an existing source
may, under certain conditions outlined
below, meet an alternative emission
limit in lieu of meeting an applicable
MACT standard for a period of 6 years
from the compliance date of an
otherwise applicable MACT standard. -
Except as follows, to obtain the MACT
compliance extension, the redaction
must be achieved before the otherwise
applicable standard is first proposed. A
• source may also obtain an extension if it
achieves the early reductions after the •
proposal of an applicable MACT
limitation but before January 1.1994.
and it makes an enforceable
commitment to achieve'such reductions
before the proposal of the MACT
standard. . -:"
Emissions reductions of the hazardous
air pollutants listed in section 112(b)(l)
to meet a standard under section 112(d),
' including emissions reductions to meet
the early reductions requirements of
. section 112(i)(5), are not creditable
emissions reductions. These reductions
are required by the Act and therefore
are not creditable for offsetting emission
increases under part D (section
However, any emissions reductions in
excess of the required MACT standards
or, in the case'of early reductions under
section 112(0(5). any emissions .. '
reductions in excess of 90 percent (or in
excess of 95 percent for particulates)
should be considered surplus and
therefore should be creditable for
offsetting purposes if all other
applicable requirements are met Also, if
emissions of a pollutant other than one
of the specific pollutants required to be
controlled are reduced as a result of
complying with a MACT standard (e.g.,
reductions in nontoxic VOCs that are
incidental to reductions of a toxic VOC
that is subject to the MACT standard].
or if reductions are achieved pursuant to
a State requirement that goes beyond
the requirements of the Act such
emissions reductions are considered
incidental and, therefore, shodd be
considered as creditable reductions if all
other conditions for a creditable offset
are met • .
For purposes of equity, EPA
encourages States to allow sources to
use pre-enactment banked emissions
reductions credits for offsetting
purposes. States may do so as long as
the restored credits meet all other offset
creditability criteria and such credits are
considered by States as part of the
attainment emissions inventory when
developing their post-enactment
attainment demonstration. For VOC
offsets, it is important to note that such
. reductions must be used in accordance
-------
. 13554 :•• Federal Register./.;VoL.-57. No:.74 /.Thursday.-April 16. -1992 /^Proposed-Rules
with the offset ratios established by the
1990 CAAA for the different ozone -• -
nonattainment area classifications. •• •.;.
.Existing EPA regulations (40 CFR - •'-. •
5L16S{a)(3Kii)(C)(l}) prohibits certain.--:
pre-enactment banked emissions ':; •.•-.;
reduction credits, Le4 reductions .. -• .-
achieved by shutting down existing .--- :_-
sources or curtailing production or ,•:.;" .-
operating hours, from being used in the -,•
absence of an EPA:approved attainment
~'" " ' " ~
3. Creditable'Emlsaions Reductions for '-' .
Netting *~~*-~- -^'{-'- ^ -• •• -f -~~-'":-'jr--t.
Except for the 'provi3ions"ofsubpart 2 •
of title I the '1990 CAAA generally do~0'
noVaffect EPA's'cuirent procedures for..;
netting emissions" decreases and ^ -.T;'r -,--.
increases (see section JILAJ-5). Netting"
emissions increas'es and decreases I. .-
should be determined consistent with
EPA's. current NSR rules 'and EPA'f •' 1 '• '
"Emissions Trading Policy .Statement ' j.
fETPS]" (51 FR 43823, December 4. 1986].
Use of p'rMnactmeht reductions for".'._ "
netting with pqst:enactment emissions .;
increases continued to be available to ;'„'
the extent allowed under State rules.; , ,"
" However, because these reductions . "..".
represent emissions that are not ' \ ," ^
included in the 1SSO base year": '"' '/
inventory ; States should consider the
post-enactment increases (less post-
enactment decreases) as growth even
though, for applicability purposes, the ,
. source's net emissions change is de
minimis. •'" --' - '
Early reductions of hazardous air -
pollutant (HAP) emissions under section
112(i)(5) may also be creditable -
emissions reductions for netting. The
EPA considers early reductions under
section 112(1)(5) to be "surplus" under
the ETPS and creditable for netting. As
stated above, early reductions cannot be
used as creditable reductions for offset
purposes due to the statutory limitations
of section 173(c)(2).
4. Growth Allowances
Before the enactment of the 1990
CAAA. the Act provided in general that
States could establish a pollutant-
specific allowance for additional growth
in any designated nonattainment area
by controlling existing source emissions
beyond the amount of reduction •
required to demonstrate RFP. Based on
the amount of excess control of existing
emissions, section 172(b)(5) of the 1977
Act provided that States could
"expressly identify and quantify the
emissions, if any, of any such pollutant .
•which will be allowed to result from the -
construction and operation of major new
or modified stationary sources'* in a • -
particular nonattainment area. Before :•
the 1990 CAAA. section 173(1)(AJ ".- •-'- ;-
implied that the emission* reductions'
used to "allow"-the new emissions from
the proposed source could be furnished
by controlling existing major sources to'
a greater degree than that required by .-._•
RACT or by controlling minor sources: ..:
Commensurate wththleabbyej..". :
provision.' section 173{i)(B) of the 1977.i
Act required thatTje/ore a part D permit
to construct could be issued "to any'.'.-_•_-,
'major new or modified stationary -v; •;':_.
source, the permitting agency had to •—'•• -
have,"determined that "emissions of such
pollutant from the proposed source.-;..^ .-
•would not cause or contribute to • v.;--.-,
emissions levels which exceed the'-.^•••*,
allowance permitted •-?*•.?.":••.'.-?' c^:'--;:< -'
Alternatively, when a major new or": •••;-.
modified stationary source applied for a
part D permit (in the absence, of an: :•: -
approved growth allowance), "-:Jr::.5:,/; -
corresponding emissions reductions ; ""
(offset) were to be obtained from^ -~ "-
existing sources as'a prerequisite for '-•"•'
approving the new construction-'These "•
provisions formed the basis for States to '
develop "growth allowances'* in their -"'-'
SEP*s." '-"V" :o".;:----.r».V='"«r .= ;:£--"•"• •
. The revised Act restricts where; new '•'"
allowances may be*established and :, / -
voids certain existing growth V. ? ~". "
allowances. Revised sections 172(c)(4) '
and 173(a](l)(B) limit new growth •
allowances to only those portions of a
nonattainment area which have .been
formally targeted for economic growth .
by the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development New section 173(b)
of the Act invalidates by operation of
law any existing growth allowance in
any nonattainment area that either
received a notice that the SIP was
substantially inadequate under section
110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the 1977 Act, or
receives a notice of inadequacy under
new section 110(k){l) of the amended
Act Again, section 173(a)(l)(B) lifts this
restriction from targeted economic
growth areas. Where a growth
allowance is no longer valid or cannot
be established, a proposed major new or
modified stationary source in a
nonattainment area is required to obtain
emissions offsets on a case-by-case
basis in order to obtain construction
approval • ... •:-.-..
5. Analysis of Alternatives
Before the enactment of the 1990
CAAA, section 172 of part D contained a
provision requiring that in the case of •
implementation plans that could not
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS
• for ozone or carbon monoxide by ."• - •"
• December 31,1982, such plans must '•'-'-
. include -"--::' ->r:- -"•~",^ -!•-'-•
*. * ' A program which requires, prior to
the i**uaace of «ny permit * .*. * an iinalyrj
of alternative lite*, size*, production -.--
procesie*, and environmeaUl control
techniques for *uch propoted tource which
demonstrate* that the benefits of th«
proposed source significantly outweight the
environmental and »odal co*U imposed u *
retult of iUkxatioa instruction, or .
The 1990 CAAA removed this .-V- - -
provision from section 172 and added it
as new section 173(a)(5). Consequently,
such analysis aid demonstration are •
now'prerequisites to' the"issuahcs"bf any
c''"-- - -
6..Control Technology Information .r. -•
Per section 173(d), the.States must
provide that the .control.technology
Information from/permits issued under
section 173 be promptly "submitted to ".'
EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER .;.„ " .........
clearinghouse, to "other States, jand to the
general public."*: v'*: ..'"'".".." :i'7 "-.
7. Innovative Controls for Rocke 1
Engines arid Motors' - -.';' •'•;":•'.
.".Under section 173(e) States arc" •.
authorized to allow offsetting, by -: •'
alternative or.innovative means, of
emission increases from rocket engine
and motor firing, and cleaning related to
..such firing. This authorization applies to -
any existing or modified major source
that tests rocket engines or motors
under the conditions found at section
173(e) (1) through (4). The conditions
require that a proposed modification be
solely for the purpose of expanAng the
testing of rocket engines or motors at a
facility already permitted for such
purposes, and that the testing is required
for a program essential to the national
security as certified in writing by the
appropriate departments and agencies
of the Federal government Also, the
source must have used all reasonable
means to obtain offsets, all available
offsets must already have been used
and sufficient offsets must not be
available to the source. Once these
criteria are met the source will comply
with an alternative measure, imposed by
the permitting authority, designed to
offset any emissions increases not
directly offset by the source.
In lieu of requiring alternative offset
measures, the permitting authority niay
impose an emissions fee to be pjiid to,
• and used by, the State to maximize
• emissions reductions in the area of the
test facility. Section 173(e)(4) caps such
fees at 1.5 times the coat of stationary
• .control costs"adopted in the area during
' the previous 3 years.
-------
Federal Register./. Vol 57. No.:74 /^Thursday. -April 16. 1992 •/ Proposed-Rules. 13555
8. Exemptions for Stripper Wells :-... - /.. 10. Tribal Lands Applicability,.. .;•. • ..
'
: Section 819 of the CAAA provides a • "
limited exclusion for activities related to
kstripper wel&vrhere «uca activities V : '
occur In certain designated ; : '''_ :"/*.~;;.;
nonattainment areas. The statutory" '• v-
provision as written applies to' the ' . '^ r
production of oil or natural gas from a " -.
stripper well, and the'equipment used in ;
the expldratioryproduction. ~ '^.-.\ ... V,'- '.
development, storage.'.and processing of . j
. such stripper well oil and natural gas. ":'".[
Stripper wells' are low-'production wells,' '
Oil stripper wells produce less' than 10 ['."
barrels of oil per day and natural gas ",'. ....
stripperwells (as 'defined in the ". :-;. --.*•-•'
National'Gas Policy Act 15 UAC. VVV.ff
section 3318{b)} cannot exceed an. _" •.:...-
'
. Ai'discussed more fully m section - '••.'•
V.B. of this preamble, the 1990 CAAA ::
grant EPA the authority1 to treat Indian •- -;
tribes in certain respects as States^ and * ••
specifically allows Tribes- to develop ~' "••':
tribal implementation plans for ".^-"- -..-V?
implementating the NAAQS on tribal^ ---:
lands. Like STFi'these plans must::;; ,•'•"-
include aH implementation requirements,
set out in the Actjtocluding'complete '- •
NSR programs fofconstructing or":-;;'' '•• :'•
modifying existing sources located oif'.'r-1
; tribal lands. Further'guldance bn'tiie'-v. ^
treatment "of Indian' "tnbes'vrill be"; "J;--";'
provided as part of a separate ^'".' < ""•:'"•'"
rulemaldn{~"—'--'*--J *-— •-~^-^~'^ •*•>'•-*'
of the Act
av ... _
productipn day during a SO^day. ~--. -.._, y~ ,
production period. .. v^« ; vo-ri'.;^.'-;:'.1 :"• '•
\Vhile still subject to the general ;: ."-.:.-/
requirements under sections 172 and 173
of the Act for NSR nonattainment area
permitsT including requirements :: ', .-:V.
applicable under.those sections •-.',.-••••• Si. •"
pursuant to subpartl of part D of the .'; •• •
amended Act these activities are not : '- '
required to satisfy'the additional '••«•' •'.••:•
nonattainment area requirements'.-"- '*.••':•'••••
enacted under new subparts"2, 3, 4 and 5
of part D of the amended Act Section •'
\ 819 of the 1990 CAAA limits this • • -
exclusion to PM-10, ozone, or CO
nonattainment areas classified as ' • •
marginal, mpderate,'or serious (and
having a population of less than
350,000). (subpart 5 of part D provides
no additional NSR requirements for
sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, or lead
nonattainment areas.] No exclusion
from the additional requirements of
subparts 2 through 5 is provided for
serious PM-10, ozone or CO
nonattaimr.ent areas having a
population of 350,000 or more, or in
severe and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas.
s
9. OCS source Applicability
Section 801 of the 1990 CAAA adds a
new section 328 to the Act entitled "Air
Pollution from Outer Continental Shelf
Activities\This section contains
. provisions pertaining to the control of .
air pollution from OCS sources. These
provisions necessitate a revision of the
Federal NSR regulations under both the
PSD and NSR nonattainment permit - , .
programs to facilitate implementation of
OCS regulations. The OCS regulations
will be proposed in a separate EPA -
action and codified at 40 CFR part 55. -
The reader is referred to the separate - ,.
OCS proposal package for more specific
• information on the'OCS rules,; -.\... .-.., .
11. Stationary Source Definition :-",! .r-rr.">
'The 1990 CAAA^added a new ':: ;-''• >"^
definition'of "stationary" source" in .' '•'' '7
section 302(z) of titlelQ of the'Act and "3;
amended the w^'ting definition already ;
contamed ui'section lil(a)(3).The':\:i^^
addition of the new definition^appears'y'^
to strengthen congressional intent that_
certain internal combustion engines ."';
must be^subjectjo.co'ntrol under State ,:J.
permit prpgrams^^wMe'r^'quiring the"/"''.
exclusion of those' IJaternal combustion • *'
engines which fall under, the'newly.' ; ".
defined category of '."noibiroad engiries.""...
Congress authorized EPA to establish
emissions standards for categories of 1
nonroad engines that are deemed to •
contribute significantly to pollution
problems. Such authorization preempts
States from further regulating such
sources of pollution under .the stationary
source permit process. The EPA
presently believes that most internal
combustion engines used in stationary
applications should be subject to the
State permit process for stationary
and all other requirements for the • -- -
attainment in of ^igbfeot
air quality standards, both during *n<^ -
after the project Section 415(b)(4) '.-
requires EPA to Issue rules or - --- •; •_.
interpretive rulings to implement this ... -
exemption. As required. EPA has --.- ..
proposed such changes to the rules for -
•team electric utility units. These -: r -'; - :
' proposed changes were published in the
Federal Register on June 14,1S91 (56 FR
27630). Readers are referred to mis'.'.: - -.
notice for more details on the --: '•-.-. •: •>' ..
applicability of this exemption. Under •••
section 4150>){4). these rules axe limited
to those areas where EPA is the :.- .-.-••
permitting authority. Where the State is •
the part D permitting authority', the State.
may. but is not required to, adopt and •:
submit to EPA for approval rule changes
incorporating the section 415{bK2} ....
exemption in its SIP.-'.'.L'ibt-s.-ib- :•;.,.-. •
sources.
12. Temporary Clean Coal Technology
Demonstration Projects
Section 415(b)(2) of the amended Act
provides under certain conditions an
exemption from the part D requirements
of title I for the installation, operation,
cessation, or removal of a temporary
clean coal technology demonstration .
project Section 41S(b)(l) specifies that
clean coal technology projects are those
funded under the Department of Energy-
Clean Coal technology appropriations or
similar projects funded by EPA and
limits the applicability of section 415 to
existing facilities. • -.' ' '
Under section 415(b)(2),'to qualify for '..
this exemption, a temporary clean coal .
demonstration project must operate for -
no more than 5 years. The project must
also comply with any applicable SIP for'.
1 the are'a in which the project is located :;
13. Failure to Submit NSR Rules By " 4
Statutory Deadlines :i?-T J>~' -'.. - -. —
~- ..''-•. ., :-i:.> . : - .-:.l ,?T!v'-^"'- •-'". - • '
iThe 1990 CAAA require States to" .."• -"
adopt SIP revisions subject to EPA •- ;:.
•approval that incorporate the new - ... -.
preconstrnction permitting requirements
for new or modified sources that were •":
• discussed in the preceding'iections. For.
instance, new permit rules forPM-10 . -
nonattainment areas must be submitted
to EPA by June 30,1992; new rules for
ozone nonattainment areas must be .
submitted by Novembef'lS, 1992: aew
rules for most CO nonattainment areas
are due 3 years from the date of the
nonattainment designation. The EPA
has previously announced its :~
interpretation that the new NSR
requirements did not go into effect with
passage of the 1990 CAAA but rather
become effective in accordance with the
schedule for State adoption of SIP
revisions (see J. Seitz, "New Source
Review (NSR) Program Transirior.al
Guidance;" p. 6 (March 11,1991)
(appendix D)).
If these deadlines pass without States
submitting NSR revisions. EPA may
impose sanctions on delinquent States.
Specifically, the Act (in two separate
provisions) grants EPA the authority to
impose sanctions based on several
different types of State failures including
a State's failure to submit a SIP or SIP
element or a State's submitting an
inadequate SIP or SIP element (see
section IVJ:L2}. The sanctions inclcde
reducing a State's highway funds
(section 179(b)(l)) or increasing .
.emissions offsets (to at least 2 to 1) for
• new and modified sources (section
v 179(b)(2)). In addition to these general
. sanctions, section 113(a)(5) provides that
I,when the Administrator finds that a ;.-
- State is not acting in compliance with -''-:-
-------
: 13556..' Federal Register / Vbl 57. No. 74 / Thursday; April 16..1992 / ;Proposed Rulei
any requirement or prohibition relating
to NSR. the Administrator may issue an
order prohibiting the construction or
modification'of any major stationary
source in any-area where such • v. •-.
requirements apply. In States that delay
in revising their SIP* to include the new
•preconstruction permitting requirements
by the statutory deadline. EPA may - - :
exercise this authority by proceeding -'
•under section 113(a](5] whenever a -<;-v'
: particular new source attempts to • ••• •• -' •>
construct without meeting the NSR •-'•"-": '-
requirements.added by the 1990 CAAA,":
• or by issuing a general construction ban! •
. As an alternative,' the Administrator '-.-•
. could issue a contingent order -.>><•=. w;"v/.c:
• prohibiting construction of any major '' '-•
new or modified source that failed to :
. obtain a permit that met the amended •
statutory NSR requirements. The EPA '•'-
. will provide additional information on "
this issue in its NSR regulatory package. •
• In addition to imposing statutorily "-_
required sanctions, EPA is also required '
. by the statute'to promulgate a HP when
it finds'that a State has failed to make a'-v
required SIP submittal or has made an -.
incomplete submission (see section • •; . * -.
.• IV.Q. Pursuant .to this authority.-EPA is :
developing revised NSR regulations that.
. would include, at 40 CFR part 52, a.-. -
Federal NSR nonattainment permitting
program that EPA (or the State pursuant
to a delegation agreement) could
implement as a FIP in those States that
fail to submit NSR regulations by the
statutory deadlines. Because of the
importance of the increased offset • .
ratios, reduced source thresholds, and
other NSR changes to States' overall . -
attainment effort, EPA presently intends
to impose this NSR FIP on any State that
fails to adopt its own NSR regulations
within the deadlines established by the
Act In addition, or until such time as the
FIP is in place, EPA may impose any of
the sanctions identified above. Of
course, once it receives and approves
the State's NSR regulations, EPA would,
under ordinary circumstances, withdraw
the FIP and any sanctions that may have
been imposed. • '
• H. General
1. Part D. Subpart I/Section 110 (to the
Extent Not Covered Under Pollutant-
Specific] - • . .
Subsections (A) through (M) of section
110(a)(2) set forth the elements that a
SEP must contain in order to be fully
approved. Although Congress
substantially amended section 110(a)(2)
: upon enactment of the amended Act ••
• many of the basic requirements remain
- the same. •. • • ••:;.-•
; • Amended subsection (A) includes the.
- pre-amended subsection (B}requirement
that all measures and other elements in •
the SIP be enforceable. The amended
provision specifically authorizes SIFs to '
contain certain nontraditional .'•-•••
techniques for reducing pollution—-. . :...
economic incentives, marketable : i.-.; •: •
permits,- and auctions of emissions -...-.. .
rights. The EPA reads this language to ,•
require even these other means of,: .. :'•
achieving reductions to be enforceable. ..•
Section 172(cX6). one of the general SIP •;
requirements for nonattainment areas, -.-.
'.also includes this' reqiiirement in ; -\'-.-"•>
-essentially the same .language.'."~;". . •••-.;
j .Subsection'(B) carries forth the p're- "'-•
amended subsection (Q requirement to
monitor and compile data on ambient.-.;.
air quality.' The EPA historically has. .
promulgated regulations in part 58 of the
. CFR, indicating the necessary data
States need to collect and submit as part
of their SIP. The existing regulations .
remain in effect, pursuant to section 193,.
•to the extent they are not inconsistent ,
: with the new law, until EPA elects to . •
amend them.' ',.v';";"'"-~---.. >;: - -•._ ."...
•. The enforcement p* revisions of pre-""1. "
amended subsection (D) are now under .
subsection (C). While this provision
retains the preexisting requirement that..
the SIP include a pre-construction"
;• review for all new and modified . .
stationary sources, it deletes the
previous provision's specific reference
• to pre-construction review of sources
subject to NSPS.
Amended subsection (D) also contains
provisions that essentially remain
unchanged. It incorporates language
from pre-amended subsection fE]
requiring States to include SEP
provisions prohibiting sources from
emitting pollutants that would
contribute significantly to
nonattainment interfere with
maintenance of the standard, or
interfere with PSD or visibility.3*
Subsection (E] of the amended Act
incorporates one provision from pre-
amer.ded subsection (F]—clause (E](ii)
reinforces the section 128 requirement
that the SEP contain certain
requirements as to State boards. Li
addition, clause (E](i] of the amended
" The pre-amended section 110(a)(:;(E] required
SIPi to contain t provision prohibiting stationary
sources from emitting in air pollutant in amount]
. which will "prevent attainment" in another State.
The amended version of this language requires a SIP
provision that prohibits emission! that will
"contribute significantly to honatuinment" in
another State. However. EPA interpreted the pre-
amended language in the manner that Congress
expressed in the amended Act. See Air Pollution
Control DisL v. U.S. EPA, 739 Fid ion. 1090-93 '"
: (6th Cir. 1984). In the Senate Report. Congress noted
that the pre-amended language presented an
impouible standard and noted that it was adopting
'significantly contribute" to clarify when a violation
' of that requirement would occur. S. Rep. No. 228,
. 101st Cong- lat *esa. 21 (1989). *~ 1 . . - .. ', : ; ~
Act includes the pre-amendment
subsection (F] requirement that States
ensure that the State and/or local
governments have adequate resources to
implement the plan. This includes a new
requirement that the State ensure that
nothing in the SIP is otherwise • .
prohibited by any other State or Federal
law. Finally, clause (E)(iii) adds a new :
requirement—that the State retain . '.
responsibility for ensuring adequate .
implementation in cases in which it
relies on local implementaticn.of plan
provisions.-'- *-.;•>_'.•''-.-''•'•''".
:'Subsecti6n"(F) carries fortlj the •' ,
•requirements of pre-amended subsection
. (F) that concern emission monitoring.
• The EPA promulgated monitoring •' ".
regulations at § 51.210 of the CFR and in
appendix P to part 51. Under section 193,
the existing regulations remain effective
to the extent they are not inconsistent
' with the'new law. until EPA elects to
amend them.- • • ..-. - =•;
Amended subsection (G) also carries
forth a" provision of pre-amended
subsection (F); States must provide '
authority to bring emergency actions'
(comparable to that granted to EPA in :
section 303} in cases where a source or a
group of sources present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the
public health. The EPA has also adoptee9
regulations regarding such authority in
40 CFR 51.150, and these regulations w
remain effective under section 193. to
the extent they are not inconsistent with
. the new law, until EPA amends them.
Subsection (H) was not revised by the
amendments. It still requires States to
provide for the revision of their SIP's
(commonly referred to as "SEP calls") in
two circumstances: if the N/LAQS were
revised, or if EPA made a finding that
the plan was substantially inadequate to
attain the standard. New section
110(K)(5] gives EPA the authority to
issue a SEP call.
Amended subsection (I) adds a new
requirement to section 110(a)(2). It now
states explicitly that any plan or plan
revision must meet the applicable
' requirements of part D (provisions
relating to nonattainment areas].
Although this is a new section 110(a)(2]
provision, it does not add a new
• requirement to the Act as a whole. The
SIP's for nonattainment areas have
always been required to me;t the part D
requirements.
Subsection (J) has also been retained
in its preexisting form. It continues the
' requirement that SEP's meet the
applicable PSD and visibility
" requirements and the associated
• consultation and public notification
.• provisions of sections 121 and 137, •
• respectively. '-.'"••• ; •" • -• '
-------
Federal'Register / Vol 57. No.-74" /.-Thursday; April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules . 13557
Amended subsection (K) reinforces •
EPA'i authority to require States to do'.
air quality modeling. Although this is a.'
section 110(«)(2) provision, EPA has
) always had the authority to require • •' • -;
appropriate modeling. This requirement -
will be met if the State submits its actual.
modeling in its SIP submittaL end EPA • .-
determines that the submitted SIP -'•'.-•-: •
measures are.approvable. Tie EPA •i-'-z-r.
currently does not have regulations ;;-: ~{
concerning modeling for the SIP - .-_•• .:. -••••;
demonstration purposes,** but has :-..;-.-.
issued guidance (e.g, "EPA's Guideline;-.:
on Air Quality Modeling" (1987)).-.;- : .
: The pre^amended provisions- -.,. - .•
concerning pe'nnitting fees has been -•..•_ -,
carried over in subsection (L)..Although_-=.
the language of this provision has not - -
changed, in light of the new permit -
provisions of the amended Act (title V}, ,
these requirements could have a .--. ••,.=~-.:
different impact from under the pre-. -..,.-;
amended Act..;, r..J-.../".-.;..'.>:. ..,-••,-'-• -
Amended subsection (M) is a new '..
provision requiring States to provide for •
consultation and participation by local
political subdivisions affected by the ." .
SIP. This section builds on several other
section 110(a)(2) requirements that '..!..• \\
require" consultation and participation in".
regard to specific SIP elements." -."...'•" '..'
2.Conformity •.;••.;: .-V.-.:-•-.•'./••;"••. "•
(a) General requirements. Section
l"6(c) provides the framework for "
ensuring'that Federal actions conform to
air quality plans' under section tip.
Under section 176(c). before any agency,
department or instrumentality of the
Federal Goyernme'nt engages in.
supports in any way, "provides financial
assistance for, licenses, permits, or
approves any activity, that agency has
an affirmative responsibility to ensure
that such action conforms to the SEP or
FTP.'
"Conformity to an implementation
plan" is defined in section l~e(c)(l) (A
and B) of the Act as meaning
"conformity to an implementation plan's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the
serverity and number of violations of the
national ambient air quality standards
and achieving expe-ditous attainment of
such standards: and that such activities
will not cause or contribute to any new
violation of any standard in any area;
increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violation of any standard in any
area; or.delay timely attainment of any
" Under the PSD provi«ionj ejection 320. EPA
thai historically had >uch modeling nJes. In
iddls'ca. EPA iuu tued tim« ralei ct guidanca for
other purpose*. «»lng tb« guidance ai'ibaiU for -•
what Is adequate modeling. Thi< flew «ub»ecSon [K)
requirement ratifiea EPA't past application of Uu
- • rulei, ai rule* forTSD purposes and r» yiidanca for
othefpurpose*. •'..-' " = .-. - -"• " "• ':•'• "• '• • -"'
standard or any required interim -" : ' "•
emission reductions or other milestones
in any area,". :~'.'-' '•" "•". '-'.';.
•The intent of these provisions is
explained in the Committee Report - •".;
• Throagh the" evaluation of the air quality'
impact* of propoaed projects before they arev'"
undertaken, the conformity provision is '-•'v
intended to foster long range pluming for the
attainment and m«i"**n«nr« of air quality
standards. '"^ to urare that Federal . _ • • - •
agencies do'not take or. rapport actioni'which
are In any way Inconsljtent with the effort to
. achieve HAAQSw which fafl to take . :r j
advantage of opportunities to help in me ••". • '•"
effort to achieve the NAAQS. (Committee - ?
expects that the new conformity provisions ••'•
will be especially helpful in awnring that ah* •>
quality consideration* play a greater roie in
•Federally supported transportation planning • •
effort!, which can have a major impact on air
quality and. fa some teverery polluted areas, •
are essential as part of the program for '. '• '• ••'
achieTiag tte NAAQS ("Committee Report."
page 222J v^;;:...:.:-. -.:;- - '..-..:
. Section 178(c)(4) required EPA to ;. ;
promulgate general criteria and : /••-•- '•-']
procedures for determining conformity -:
by November 1991..In the case of. • .
transportation plans, jprograms, and ••«•-.
projects, the EPA Administrator, with '•-'-"'
the concurrence'of the Secretary of • • :
Transportation," was" required to -
promulgate'criteria and procedures for
"demonstrating and assuring" :
conformity by November 199L Section •
176{c)(4)(Q requires EPA to include in •
such procedures a requirement that each
State submit to EPA and the DOT by
November 1992 a revision to the •
implementation plan that includes
criteria and procedures for assessing the
conformity of any plan, program, or
project subject to the conformity
requirements. Until this revision is
approved by EPA. existing conformity
provisions in the SIP remain in effect.
The criteria for determining
transportation conformity ultimately
require the existence of SIFs which
contain estimates of emissions from
motor vehicles. Until such times as EPA
approves these SIFs however, there
exists en interim period with criteria for
determining transportation conformity
which are different from those that will
• apply after the SIP is approved. These
interim criteria are contained in section
175{c){3). The EPA and DOT jointly
issued guidance on transportation
conformity for this interim period based
on these criteria In June 1991.
The EPA's transportation conformity
regulations are still under development,
in coordination with DOT. On October •
24.1991- EPA and DOT jointly Issued .
further guidance indicating that the • .
'• interim transportation guidance issued "
.' on June 7.1991 would continue in effect 7
until the agencies promulgated final'-""-1
conformity regulations. It is unlikely that
final regulations will be'available
significantly before November 1992 to *
allow States to submit SIP revisions
addressing conformity by November IS,
1992. the date the iterate requires EPA
to call for such •ubioittals In its '
regulations. The EPA consequently
anticipates that in its conformity -
regulations, it Will establish'* later date
for such SIP submittals m recognition of
the impossibility of imposing the 1992
'date. The EPA intends to provide States
• with a reasonable period to develop
'conformity regulations, roch as the year
that Congress had in mind hi section . '
178{c)(4Kq. The EPA notes'for "-:
clarification that States are under no
duty to submit conformity "regulations -
'until EPA promulgates its regulations
and establishes a'date for such '- ••'•
submittals. Detailed guidance on the
overall conformity proigram will be
provided in later rulemaking actions.
The guidance below coricerns'section
.176{cKlP)(iii)as appliedtcf: '".-.." -
nonattainment areas. V- •-•'• . :
(b) Establishment of emission budgets
for transportation-related 'actions in
ozone or CO nonattainment areas. In
. general. Federal actions may riot delay
timely attainment of arr/standard or
any required interim emission"
reductions or other milestones in any
area. More specifically, after the interim
period, conformity cannot be determined
for a transportation plan or program
. unless a determination has been made
by the metropolitan planning
organization that emissions expected
from implementation of tuch plans and
programs are consistent with estimates
of emissions contained in the applicable
SIP, The EPA interprets these provisions
to mean that the combination of
highway capacity expansion, highway
extensions, support for transit and
TCM"s in the transportation plan azd
program must result in vehice emissions
that are not in excess of those contained
in the SIFs demonstration of RFP and
attainment despite any difference that
may exist between the area's current
and forecasted population, employment,
and travel demand and those that were
assumed at the time of SIP preparation
and adoption. In other words, the
conformity provisions envision that the
SIP will create an emissions budget (for
the criteria pollutant and its precursors)
for highway vehicles^ and that the
transportation planning" process will be
required to produce plans and programs
that will result in emissions within that
. _budget For regional pollutants (ozone,
~NOj,,CO in some areas, and PKMO in
-•some areas) the transportation planning
"' process is not required to "demonstrate
-------
13553 Federal Register'/ VoL 57. No. 74. /Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
again that the budgeted emission level
.will result in attainment (For pollutants
capable of forming hot spots of '
nonattainment, an air quality * • • •
determination is required.)
(1) Areas required to demonstrate
RFP and attainment For nonattainment -
areas that are required to demonstrate
RFP and attainment by a future year, the
SIP revision that contains those •:
demonstrations -will necessarily contain
• statements of the motor vehicle ' *. -•• -•: -:
emissions for future years on which • • • • •
those demonstrations are based. These ;.
statements will become the emissions
budgets that will be used for later ..: •.-
. conformity determinations. Budgets will
thereby be defined for a number of
future dates, depending on the RFP and '•
attainment showings required for the :•
area based on its nonattainment status. •
States should make sure that these
budgets are stated clearly and -
unambiguously in the SIP. For example.
assumed temperature inputs and the .; •"
geographic area of the inventory must .'•"
be stated so that comparisons can be .
• made later on an accurate basis. The
RFP milestones will usually be defined
in terms of typical seasonal weekday .
emissions, like the base and periodic
inventory. Attainment demonstrations
may be based on individual episode •
days, however. If so, the SIP must
contain'an attainment year inventory -
expressed on the same basis as the.
other milestone inventories.
The 1990 CAAA allow a single budget
for a nonattainment area fcr a given
criteria pollutant or percussor. However,
States have the option of specifying the
budgets in more detail or disaggregation.
For example, an ozone attainment
demonstration using a grid model will
contain estimates of vehicle emissions
for rr.any small grid squares. The SIP
may provide that only the sum of vehicle
emissions from all grids within the
nonattainment area will spply for
"purposes of conformity determination,
or it msy divide the area into subareas
and establish a budget for each. This
approach would provide additional
assurance that transportation plans and
programs will result ir. emission patterns
that will produce attainment. Such an
approach will of course constrain the
transportation planning process, and it
may later be found useful for the State •
to submit a SIP revision showing that
some other distribution of emissions, or
even a different emission total, is also
consistent with attainment A SIP may
also provide for alternative emission
budgets each of which is shown to
produce milestone compliance and/or
attainment, for example, different' •
combinations of VOC and NO,' '- .
emissions. Finally, a SIP that -. • -
demonstrates a margin of safety with
respect to milestones may identify a
budget for conformity purposes which is.
higher than expected to result from the
measures in the SIP. but is consistent
•with the milestone and attainment date
requirements, for purposes of providing
the transportation planning process with
a cushion for unexpected growth or less
than expected effectiveness from TOM'S."
This sort of cushion for unexpected '.
growth is only a suggestion and EPA -
wants to affirm its confidence in the SIP '•
planning process. This does not change' •
the substantive requirements for SIP
approval, however.:-'•••'' '• •- ~'-'~ •: • •' • •'
(2] Other nonattaihmeht areas. •
Transitional, submarginal, and marginal .
ozone nonattainment areas, not-
violating CO areas, and moderate CO
areas with design values of 12.7 ppm or •
less are not required to include specific
attainment demonstrations or to show
compliance with interim milestones.
Consequently, they are not required to
contain statements of future emissions
which could be used as emissions
budget for later conformity - .
determinations. Nevertheless, EPA
believes that the intent of section 176(c] •
is to make conformity a meaningful
process for these areas, rather than to
release the transportation planning
process of all rsponsibiliry for area-wide
motor vehicle emissions. On the other
hand, the need to provide emissions
criteria for future conformity
determinations should not defeat the
evident congressional intent to
temporarily excuse these areas from
having to develop and implement
control strategies beyond vehicle fleet
turnover. Federal measures, and
required measures specified for them in
the Act It also seems clear that
Congress did not intend these areas to
be subject to any serious constraint on
VMT and industrial activity growth'
prior to the date on which they are
vulnerable to being reclassified for
failure to attain. To satisfy these intents,
these States should choose fron two
options as described b«low, and clearly
indicate their selection in the SIP.
FL-st option: The State may elect to
extend the interim conformity criteria of
section 176(c)(3)(A) for the entire period
prior to EPA approval of either a section
175(A) maintenance SIP or—following
bump up—a SIP that meets RFP and
attainment requirements. These interim
criteria would otherwise expire when
• EPA approves the conformity SIP • ' •
revision described in section lHJi.l.a. .
The most important of these criteria is -
.. that the transportation plan and •:'-••••
program must contribute to emissions '
reductions. i.e- that implementation of
the plan and program will cause lower
emissions than if new projects were not
implemented. This option requires the
least analysis by the State, but
precludes transportation plan-caused
increases in emissions that might in fact
not interfere with attainment by the
deadline due to the large reductions
resulting from other measures. In the
joint EPA/DOT interim conformity"
guidance, these areas were implicitly
•placed under this option and will remain
there unless a SIP revision.exercising
the second option is approved/ "'-•
Second option: The State may "- - "
voluntarily submit, as a SEP revision, an
attainment demonstration'and ' . .
corresponding motor vehicle emissions
budget like higher classified areas. This
may show that transportation plans that
cause emissions increases are in fact
compatible with attainment, thereby
providing the transportation planning
process flexibility to adopt such plans
later. " ; -• \.-
(3) Maintenance plan. More specific
guidance on the content of maintenance
plans may be provided at a date closer
to when States will be prepairing these
plans. For how, States should be aware
that transportation planning In areas
redesignated to attainment and -
operating under a maintenance plan will
also be subject to the emissions budget
concept A budget for motor vehicle
emissions must be establishment in the
maintenance plan and shown to be
consistent with the maintenance
demonstration in light of expected
emissions from other sources.
(4) Emission budgets during the
rep'anningperiod immediately
following failure to meet a milestone or
failure to cttcin. Failure to meet a
milestone or to attain by the expected
date may be due to inaccurate
inventorying of 1990 emissions,
inaccurate air quality modeling, excess
growth in nonvehide emissicns, or
excess growth in vehicle emissions
despite the operation of the conformity
process. In such cases, the adequacy of
the emissions budgets for me tor vehicles
is called into question and nei'.v budgets
• must be developed as part pi the
" rsplanning that is required by the 1S90
CAAA. Until a new SIP is approved or a
Federal plan is promulgated the
previous budgets will continue to be
applied for demonstrating confomity.
(c) Identification and scheduling of
transportation control measures.
' Section 176(c)(2)(BJ requires that '
. transportation improvement programs
• provide for timely implementation of
• ; TCM*s consistent with schedules • .
included in the applicable SIP. In
-------
Federal Register:/ VoL 57, No."74./.-Thursday, April 16, 1992 / -Proposed Rules
13559
general, EPA will allow emission . "..'•-•
reduction credit only for TCWs that are -;
fully .adopted and for :which a . - . •-..
sponsoring agency has made an • ::.i. ,•
'enforceable commitment of its own;
nevertheless, the provision regarding - .'-.".-
transportation improvement programs -
will be an important aid to •.- =..•-.?•: .;. J
implementation. Effective ^Vv-...-"-. -•.., ;•
implementation of this' provision will';..-. •
require.that SIFs adequately describe' -'. .1
Previous guidance issued by EPA and -,
:DOT in 1977 specific to section 174 was :
superseded by this 1991 update. The •
EPA will soon update Subpart M. •-• . ;•• • "
Intergovernmental Consultation.'of the •
"Code-of Federal Rejjulationa''. to reflect
the new section 174 requirements. - ":rr" •
4. Economic Incentives T-V" r "•"-':' ' '-" "
'' ' '' '' '
specific emissions reductions milestone,
or for serious CO nonattainment areas
to attain the* standard (sections ." ""- •
. .. .. .. -. .. -..
• 'Since 1980 EPA ha* developed several
•programs to allow industry and States -X
' '"
.implementation schedule including X^-~ ~
milestones prLorjp fuD-adoptionV •;i.'-,.^~:j;
Section i74."Planning Procedures, was
broadene'd to ensure that State and localj
authorities'share in the develbpment '";
implementation/and enforcement of thes;:
SIP. 'TWs'section're'quires the State to ;-''"
certify "Ae'plannmg organization and to ;
identify"the jspecificiState, kcal or ^- ._". ~j
'• regional agencies thatwill develop/"* '•'/ "•
.adopt and implement the "elements of
the SIP. In addition, a new subsection" '*' '•
was added to clarify that when a : •''•'--"'ri
.nonattainment area includes more than V;
-one State, the'affected States may "'•"'; ^ ;'"
jointly undertake planning'proceduresr •';
States are required to review and '.' •:r"
pdate.'as necessary, their SEP planning "
rocedures by November 1992.' ' ':'
.Two" options are generally available to
States through section 174: To continue ""•
using the planning organization :" ' T".
. previously certified.-or to certify a new
planning organization. If a new planning
organization is certified, section 174 • • •
requires that organization to include ••
elected officials or local governments in
the affected area and representatives of
the State air quality planning agency.
the State transportation planning
agency, the metropolitan planning
organization designated to conduct the
continuing cooperative and
comprehensive transportation planning
process for the area under section 134 of
title 23, U.S.C., the organization
responsible for the air quality
maintenance planning process, and any
. other organization with responsibilities
• for developing, submitting, or
implementing any aspects of the SEP.
The EPA encourages the States to
certify either the previous organization
or a new organization well before the - •
" November 1992 deadline. Early '
certification will be helpful to the
various agencies that must meet • •
deadlines by this date.. - . ...-"• : . -
•' Additional guidance on the new
section 174 provisions is contained in
the update of. the1978 Transportation-'..
; -Air Quality Planning Guideline's by EPA
'-•"»"<< DOT. due'in November 1991;' . > v..-:
U ^more flexibility in meeting'statutory'.
requirements of .thrl977Ac:t.pne of ..
-these initiatives is the Emissions ) •".:.- • .^
• .Trading Policy Statement (ETPS) (51FR .
;43814..December"4.1988). The ETPS '•-;, '-
allows sourcVspetific' SIP revisions for .";;
sources to bade emissions reductions ".'
credits (ERCs) with" other sources to :-. •
meet some emission limitations. All;.'"~
ERC's must be permanent-real:-.-:;;.: . _iv
: "quantifiable, (federally) enforceable;'-rrv
'and surplus (Lencot btherwise""needed- - .
for an attainment strategy or other - ';-.~-
already"existing control requirements).--'.;
The ETPS also allows States" to develop: ^
; and adopt generic emission trading : ".-.-:
programs-into their SIP. To receive EPA •'
approval a generic emission trading . .:-.,-
.program must contain replicable .-..-;-,-t.-;;-'l
"procedures to'enau/e.that all ERC!s meet
'"the criteria above."'-»'\t-v.'iVj;-*'--:~ --;- ;
~ -As" discussed below," the CAAA •'.-. r ,:
' include several new economic incentive .
programs as well as changing'statutory ;
' language that may lead to modification "
-.to existing policies, including updating ..
of the ETPS. The EPA has started work
to inventory potential discrepancies
between the ETPS and the CAAA. If
warranted, EPA would issue a policy .
' interpretation of the ETPS that EPA will
' use when applying the ETPS for the SIP
' approval process. •
The 1990 CAAA encourage innovation
through the use of market-based
approaches, not only in the title IV acid
rain program, but also in title I SEP
provisions. The use of economic
incentives are explicitly allowed for in
the general SEP requirements (section
110(a)(2)), the general provisions for
nonattainment SIP'S (section 172(c}(6)),
and in the system of regulations for
controlling of emissions from consumer
• or commercial products (section
183(e){4)). . -.-:.-• - -
. Beyond these general allowances for
economic incentives, use or considering
the use of an option to implement -". •
economic incentives is mandated in ' • .
certain cases. These cases include State
failure to submit a compliance .• • -
,' demonstration or to meet applicable
-_• milestones for RFP for serious, severe.
• and extreme ozone nonattainment areas
; (sections. 182(g)(3] and 182(h)} and State -
. ^failureto"submita'milestone ij..-•.:-:.,, •'•.;.
'.'; demonstration," to-meet a required" • -~\-..
;'-' Section 182(g](4)(A) defines such a
State economic incentive program as '-
• one that is consistent with EPA rules. * •:
the publication of which is mandated by
November 15.-1992 (section 182(g](4)(B]).
According to section 182(g)(4](A), the • • •
; State program may include but is not'-' - -
limited to,'iystems of emissions'fees," '-. • -
••marketable permits, or StaVfees on .the .
.sale "or"manufacture'of products.' is'well '
. as mcentives andTequirements to -:~ •' ' .
reduce vehicle emissions"and.yMrs,'-'
including any of the TCWs in'section""
108(1). J\*^isi->^i;-":rt:-::'i.:--f :-*'."""
. .One suchTCM U" the accelerate'd
retirement of vehicles. It is estimated'
that in some 'areas of the. country,-as few '
as 20 percent of the^ehicles'prbdtnce^up '•
to 60 percent of the total yjhicle~r ••_ •.
emissions.^Because onessstringent'"'
emission'standards,' deterioratioa -' v."
tampering. malmainte"naiice,'old -•[-. •'".";
vehicles can emit at very high levels: An -
' accelerated retirement program •-_"-";
- encourages the'rempval and:'•";.':;:' "
- destniction/recycling of these older ' -
.' Vehicles by offering individuals money
of their "old" cars." An incentive is " ..* ,'
created for owners to voluntarily trade
. in these vehicles for new, lower emitting"
vehicles.: ;::; ".-.--. •• r.~"''""-.---;i •-
• The EPA believes that an accelerated
retirement program can be an important
. part of an attainment strategy by - ' '
providing greater flexibility to industry
in complying with emission standards..
By this notice. EPA is announcing the
availability of an information document
of the accelerated retirement of vehicles
. programs, as required under section
108(f). The document outlines the theory
behind accelerated vehicle retirement,
considers desirable elements of program
design, and discusses the experience of
a pilot program sponsored by UNOCAL
Corporation in Southern California.
States may include scrappage
programs in SEP submissions. Scrappage
emissions reductions will get full credit
toward SEP attainment demonstrations.
To the extent permissible by law. credits
generated through scrappage programs
may be used to meet air quality •
.limitations. - • - .
The EPA interprets 182(g)(4](A) as
. allowing a broad range of market-based
• strategies. The State program is to be
•' "nondiscriminatory" and consistent with
inter-State commerce laws (section " • •
.:182(g){4j(A)),. .. ....•.--'" -.: •"• •
•- The EPA's economic incentive rules
;jare to include model plan provisions'for •
-.'.permitted stationary sources,'area —.'-- -
-.-sources.'and mobile sources,:,as'well as -
-------
,13560. - . .Federal Register / -.Vbl 57, Na~74 -/--Thursday. April 16. 1992 / Proposed
" guidelines that specify how revenues .-.. -
genera ted by .the plan provisions-shall "-
be used (section 182(g)(4)fB)). These t-
rules will address issues such as setting •
• "baselines, banking provisions,:..».'.-=/ --r/^;; -
- administrative requirement! and .^w?\'. ;'-• •
; consistency With the title V Permitting -'•-..
•. Program, title YD Enhanced Monitoring :
.-.and .Compliance Certification Program, •-. • •
:. and other provisions discussed :rr ;tr :.yt.
. • elsewhere in this'noticevThe EPA- v x.-j vj.
> • currently views these rules as guidance :-'
•: that is'jntended to encourage early j.4- -.--.•:
:-'.». implementation .of appropriate .economic
'•••' incentive programs to potentially avoid ,y
•'-'. such failures in the future. The EPA •£&-..•'. ••
.. hopes that the rules will stimulate -v-'-r;: i
• I'.inhoyative,"market-based approaches,.-"-;
-where appropriate, in meeting long-term
.•.milestones and goals._The EPA also will .
:-:-giyejconsideration to using thesVrules :r*
..-•as'guidance fnVleyeloping Federal rules'. c:
and FTP strategies when necessitated by.;
-.-' State failures' in meeting RFP milestones..
. The EPA will solicit commentsi onitsi -;~..j
economicincratiyeprbgram roles atvthe .
time of proposal of that rulemaldng. -^.; :.x
. .The EPA encourages the development
. of economic incentive programs that 'v ;
tocrease flexibility and stimulate; thei use ;
\ of more cost-effective's'trategies, as well
--• as provide Incentives' for continuing' tb^ •
• developTind implement innovative ... '•
• emissions* reductions technology and •
strategies beyond those specifically
mandated through standards and ,.-•-•
regulations:' However, EPA believes that
--the implementation of economic
incentive programs must also'meet the .
standards of enforceability currently
found in traditional regulatory programs.
The" Agency wishes to 'clarify its .
position regarding mobile/stationary
source trading. The agency is very
supportive of efforts to trade emission .
reductions among mobile and stationary
sources to the extent such trades would
result in a less costly mix of measures to
attain the standards and would meet the
relevent Clean Air Act requirements.
EPA will work with states and
individual sources to highlight and
develop such trading opportunities and .
will be taking various steps to
encourage such trades. ••••':.'
In particular. EPA will clarify which
• Clean Air Act requirements can be met
by trading emission reductions among
mobile and stationary sources and how
such trading can be implemented,
through guidance it will issue as part of
the economic incentive rules and -
elsewhere as necessary.'This guidance
.will encourage states to consider such
•trades as they develop their state ;.:
• implementation plans. .,..-•••.--.;" ••_
• Mobile source programs which could
generate tradeable credits .include, but
•v • are not limited to: .^;-.-.•-.-«>•.'".•..•.: •"•;•'•..'---••- -'-
« An accelerated vehicle retirement ''
program, v." v?;-' -"•-- ••"-"«.• ;•- -i - •''.":--•
- • A program to convert cars or fleets
to cleaner fuels, and' 'v v-" '-••-""• •• W . "-'4
. • A program to expand the"--™'.:-?.- •' »'
geographic coverage .of inspection and ••-•'.'
maintenance programs."^-;>>._-. -:-: -...-. i
States can allow stationary sources to',
use these reductions' on an'indiyidual ;0
basis to meet certain emission reduction
requirements or to generate tradeable" /x
offsets to help .meet new'source review'-,*?
• — — J - — • _ *—<_ ^— _" _ — «. ^ V-*t_gfc._ 3 t__ •*1^
5. Section 172(c)(l) Requirement fo/AH:.-.;.
Reasonably'Available Control Measures
ra A rvn •>" • -''" s**"W •"'-~~~~- •:• ~ /.—. • =
-
-Section 172(c)(l) requires theplans for
all nonattainment areas'to provide for ' -
.the implementation of all RACM as '.'•'.:- •'.'.'<•
expeditiously as practicable'.The EPA"/'
interprets' this requirement to impose a ~
duty on all hqnattaiinment area's to~r,'-"•:
consider all available control measures '
and to adopt and implement such •- i •-" j
'measures as are reasonably available -"--
: for implementation in'the area as_':•:-"--: -
components of the area's attainment •(•'•
. demonstratibn.:I-';-:Vr.T.~;?<;". ;r.;r?" V--T/-"'
" The EPA has preyibusly'interpreted y
•the RACM provisions of the pre-"v? -:-'.~-'^
amended Act The EPA is today -"-'•. -• -.'
. changing its prior interpretation and v
adding specific interpretations with- -••
respect to PM-10. The following -.'• "• - -'
discussion explains the origins of EPA's
past interpretation and the rationale for
the current changes to that "• ""• - ' _j_
interpretationl •-.-•' "-•
. The EPA previously interpreted this -
- provision under the pre-amended Act in
its guidance at 44 FR 20372.20375 (April
4.1979). The EPA there indicated that
where measures that might in fact be
available for implementaton in the
nonattainment area could not be
implemented on a schedule that would
advance the date for attainment in the
area, EPA would not consider it
reasonable to require implementation of
such measures. The EPA continues to
take this interpretation of the RACM '
requirement -. ; . •
Also in the 1979 guidance. EPA
created a presumption-that all of the
' TCM's listed in section 108(f) were
- RACM for all areas, and required areas
to specifically justify a determination
that any measure was not reasonably •
available based on local circumstances.
The EPA reiterated that guidance at 48
FR 7182,7187 (January 22,'1981). • - -:' -
-. However, based on experience with •
implementing TCM's over the years,' •
EPA now believes that local:".:": -'' '•' :
" -circumstances vary to such a degree' "
• Ifrom ciry-to-dty that'it is-inappropriate";
:v;to presume that all section 108(0 •^'---''"
measures are reasonably available in all
areas. -It is more appropriate for States
to consider TCM's on an area-specific,
not national basis and to consider
groups of interacting measures, rather
Uhan individual measures:;'::' ••_ .^/y- '
•' The s"ecti6n'108(f) measures should be
'considered by States as'pqtential air .
:' quality control optionA-Turlher, the list ' -
-should hot be viewed as exhaustive, but '
.rather bdicatiye'of the types of .TCM's' -
•'"States' should cbns&eHn developing the
r'TCM portion' of thelr'contebl strategy. A ' .
': recent sToiiylfbT^EPAidmtified more Vl .
':than70individuVilmeasure.i within : " '•' "
broad TCM categbrie's that could be : ' • .
'•': considered as potential controls (SAI,- -':
•: IT, PES. 9^90). In addition, any measure •
.-- that a ,'cbnizaentef.£adicates ; during the ..-
• public.'comment period is reasonably .
i>avaQableforajgjven'areash6uldbe •'"- .
v-closely reviewed by'the'planhing agency
ftodetermn'eifitis^factreasohably : \-
.'• available for,implementation in the area
• -; 1n Hght' of local circumstances, -fr.- ~ ~ ; .-
''!' '• Local dreumst.ances relevant to.the .-. . .
. reasonableness of any potential control
//measure involve practical .v;:^;:-Vv.::-'- -
-• considerations that,cannot be made '- -•••"
.^through a national- presumFtion, Various
.TCM's must, be, locallywordihated to •• •.'. .
minimize contradictory results and •
:'. maximize mutually supportive -; "• •
-• outcome's. Feasibility of TCM v-. .' -.
,; implementation can thus be particula
: compb'cated, and EPA recognizes the
-.-. importance of assessing candidate
.. TCM's in the context of each particular
.. area's situation. . ..-. -i- . --.^ :.'
]\ Finallj, with respect to TCM's or any
. other control measures, EPA does not
believe that Congress intended the
RACM requirement to compel the
adoption of measures that are absurd,
unenforceable, or impracticable (see 55
FR 38328, September 18, 1990).
The EPA, therefore, concludes that it
is inappropriate to create a presumption
that all of the measures listed in section
108(f) are per se reasonably available •
for all nonattainment areas. All States
must, at a minimum, address the section
108(f) measures. The EPA believes that
' at least some of the measures will be
' • reasonably available for implementation
- in many nonattainment areas. Where a
- section 108(f) measure is reasonably
• available, section 172(c)(l) requires its "
implementation. " •'• ,."/ "_ " ' '• -. '
The Senate managers' explanation of
.; the new transportation control
-' provisions includes a statement •
'.•' endorsing EPA's 1979 guidance on
^ • RACM as recently construed by the
~" Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
' -Delaney v. EPA. 898 F. 2d 687 (1990). 138 "
'-•l-Cong.Rec. S16971 (daily.tid- Oct 27, •'-. - -'.'
-'^1990). In that case,1 the court held that "-;'-"•.
.
•!
-------
No! 74 •/Faraday.'; April i
EPA was bound 'to apply" its th"en-V'-'-^.-r-'- : States adopting'the LEV s'tandards". The ~; "joint for the RACM aaalysisioreach of
applicable 1979 RACM. guidance by its": -'VEPA plans to complete work on the " /V ri.thePMriOnonkttauiment areas in the
•1~
nVJ
£?i
However,thecouft did fibt hold that the '• . T^e'E^A has'recently been asked ; , .'"^ mobile BOtttces'do 'significantly * ..
statute required such an interpretation -& whether a State, which requires under v.>ycontribute to The' PM-rlO.air quality V .
; .of the RACM requirement nor that EPA ^V. section.177, that nwyehicles sold in the ^problem,' consistentjvith the statement...
could not in toe futuw revise'itel^
giddance/The EPA'reinains free to,alter;-?»to those .:'.V the Statelnust, at.a. mipiniffla'addres's "_' -,'
its past guidance'consistent With"ar^S'--* vehicleirnse the fuel or fuels apon/which -$. the" section 108(f) measuresT SimilirlyT it*
.•-...--vt-y-.-^^^«-_u».v.^^rJ^',^-y^^^jfig-jjii'iriiejfoj:the^'l-^follow«^Vwhereatecti6n"i08(f) > "
'f* V.P"*-•••"'.•'."•'.'j^.^j *. •**."" vm^i ^•-•!>V-s'V-^ - •*"1',C1TV*.-»r*"":*.«.*• |••.t* .'-*•.••««_;•-...•'.
^" V:-/reaspMble1nterpretitioriWsfetatpry^.-£^
;i • .* requirementsJn jight of bistbncal 'M*.f£* Califpraa'stj&aar
T -" * * ^fe<^>v»M»!«•»•>• A ijMMI^li'M^Ttrtl'WT 'JV^jLjf* *^i-•*j'.*""-T'i^ffj »*»»>J*«»4*« l«*«W «• -I«U«d«
* •« * •"<•»• «• « • •.»" ••-''•• •«_ t . ;-.—.,.
-• ureasooably available, v -^.-
~ + **r*r J\e**r' \ -!_Jl*_s ^•»**"\r-*~-i- * *
,v.-ER4i
..: Senate Con^ttee" bill for a requirenient'f.^
- : that all section 108(f) measures be'^V^'^ where mobile sources do'not";.*'"- 0r",:i'irV.^ Sectionip7(d](3) o£the Act'specifies -
- implemented in severe ozone'p -&zjy^:^ aignificantlyrcpntribute'to'the'T ..-.'.i : .'j"!/i"-the procedures and reqirements for I.'. /
.- nonattainment areas.'This positibhjivas • •••••_nonattainment prpblem,'in the'are'a! '"*£ f.^18??^?.!^ ^X* d---"--*-'--"-" -* ~ -' •
1 J.. ^V __'J_.I__ J s_ A!_ — f _.1 C^.*H.*Z.A. '«. .* o ij _ ' ««*\ •''t *L _" *• ' * 'L 1_• _!_*"* __ "1? * '_" ^ • "*• CnF^g^^^t^ijiM«»W'k,• ^ A^ I
-.V--
« .-. -.-,-.-j.-i AS•'aSditipiMl discussion"
v'l:"6f the'reqiTEmerits 'and sclieidules' is"; 1 '.
7 provide^ in~56FR i6^4{Apnl"22" 1991)
•'describing the'notification.pf States .that
- .:. FinaUyVE^A also notes'thaUtbeUeyes'-7cdnrjibutingto:n^ -
•'the court iii'Delane'yv:'EPA -;<-V^C!'v:."''£v-'* PM-10 standard and determine whether ,";.v^ony be'redeslg^iatei: "^r,.rji;-:2. ~.~.'. •'•
. '• mischaracterized EPA's guidance'im'brie^-additional'gmdan^ is:^-_';:?.*""r.': -?.e^°° ^WKSiKr^ecifieyjie'":..'/. .L '-
.- 'respect-The" court "stated that in u'ght of^-needed. Se'ctibni90 represents a.".V:o;^\;'.con'o"itions under which'.the^j;-;;7'^ ;-'! .: .
' the previo'us presumption that section ;<'.!?':Statutory expression of Uiosesources • '. '.^-Administrator may a'pprbve!_a ..-;",;,^T.^ . .
108(f) measures were reasonably" •'.'"?'- "generally'deemed to cbntiibute to the •[ ^Covernor's request [submitted in '
av'ailable. "a state can reject one of. :.*•_•-.-••/•PM-10 nonattainment problem and - ' ' "
these measures only by showing that the •-requires that EPA determine whether ...
measure either would not advance -:-•'«" --Bother sources contribute to the PM-10 . •
attainment'would cause substantial ;-•' ' 'nonattainment problem and, as ' ' • •
widespread and long-term adverse - ' ' necessary/issue RACM guidance for -;
impact or would take too long to '•" - ' - •'such sources. Thus, in the discussion •
implement".Delaney, at 692. In the case ' addressing PM-10 RACM. EPA takes the
position that the available control
before the court EPA had argued that
• certain measures would have '• ' •'' "
' substantial widespread and long-term
adverse impact However, EPA believes
that its revised RACM interpretation .'
would provide for the rejection of
control measures as not reasonably
available for various reasons related to
local conditions even where such costs
fell short of substantial widespread
impact This is especially true in the
absence of a presumption that any given
measure is per se reasonably available.
Section 177 permits a State to adopt
and enforce new motor vehicle emission
standards that are identical to those
-. adopted by California and for which a .-
waiver under section 209(a) has been -
- granted. The EPA is not able at this time
to specify the emissions reduction •
. credits that may be available to a State -
that adopts emissions standards
14
measures'EPA has identified in its .
guidance issued under section 190 are
the suggested starting point for
determining RACM. Accordingly, the
affected State should evaluate tiese
measures and other measures that a
comnenter demonstrates may well be
reasonably available in an area
considering their technological and
economic feasibility in the area to which
the SIP applies. .
.The EPA received comments .
requesting that additional control
measures, including the TCM*s
identified in section 108(f] of the
amended Act, be added to EPA's
guidance on control measures issued .--
under section 190. At this time, EPA has
....'accordance'with section lQ7(d)(3)[DJ] :
.'; for redesignating'an area'from .".".- -
nonattainment to. attainment/These.
. conditions'are as follows: .;"-".'.. ".
.- (1) The Administrator has 'determined
'that the NAAQS has been attained.
. (2J The Administrator has fully_..
approved the applicable implementation
plan under section 110(k). v . . -
(3J The Administrator has determined
that.the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting fron
implementing the applicable
implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations
and other permanent and enforceable
reductions.
(4) The Administrator has fully
approved the maintenance plan for the
area as specified in section 17SA.
• (5) The State has met all applicable '
requirements for the area under section
110 and part D. ' '• . •". ."
- The remainder of this discussion
describes how EPA will review a State
identical to California's so-called "Low : . problem in a sufficient number of areas
ssion Vehicle (LEV) program."-The • . in the nation such that section 190 . "
insufficient information to conclude that . request to redesignate an area from
the sources addressed by these . _ .' ' nonattainment to attainment, and what
' criteria EPA 'will use in determining ~
-whether the above conditions have been
met "' '"
-.•measure's contribute to.the PM-10
. . . . . ..
is presently developing the updated : guidance is necessary. Thus, EPA does" ' _- , (a) Requests 'submitted b'ej 'ore.- ' ;
Version of its mobile emissions' model — . -not presently believe that each of these ..['-enactment. Some States had submitted
ES-rwhich will include EPA's' ;} •> .-'.measures should be added to the list of -::-'requests for redesignation prior'to '" " ; '
es of the SIP .credits available to ".;. • measures which is the suggested starting '-"enactment of the 1990 CAAA 'that EPA
"'-""•- ' '
^
K*i
-------
13562. . Federal Register'/ Vol-57. No." 74 A Thursday,. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
'.; -. as required for an area before and/or
'after enactment of the 1990 CAAA : •
•;-. of no violations of the standard is based
...-.-. on the implementation of permanent and"
was unable to process before =.-•• ."•
enactment. The EPA plans to review - t _.„. __—___. _. rr- ., . •__ ____r,_______
these requests carefully to determine:.:.':;. (depending on the.particular area].'Even - enforceable regulations rather than
whether the above conditions (as. .::"• .'.'-.'„ though EPA has' found a range of nt.. :* ,..-_• "temporary1? reduction in emissions,'
." described further under ""Requests -r^V.: deficiencies in State'RACTrules and: ,-."r which may have resulted from a
Submitted After Enactment".], including"..; has notified many States that corrective * suspension of industrial production or
the maintenance plan requirement, have.': action is heeded,*1. EPA believes that .-:,.. other temporary change in the industrial
been essentially satisfied by the Slate's'; I the current "emphasis fortareas that had/.., or economic activity in the area..-.' >
:. actions under the provisions of the Act '•£*.• submitted a request for redesignatiori -f^ Reductions in emissions from v •. -.:-;U
'prior to'enactmeht of the 1990 CAAA.'? ":'" prior to enactment Aould.be on the":'.,.-." shutdowns are'considered permanent -•
-: The EPA will determine on a case^byf^Ti enforceaWB.rjof the roles to'place'at the ; and enforceable to the extent those'; •>.
, ''case basis what.additional information £• "time of enactmenL>Therefpre, for.theseV,-/shutdowns have been reflected in the
.. . •*««•* O "!-*• • * .1 *' "• * _*_*•*_ x %*1^ *" - — *-*« nm V P • n'ii n'li tttJL*fJtnl _i J'ITL i jt 'r_ j T*'*'* " '"" "" *V»T* ""_^l"_S *« !". _1« _^_l"_' "._ •• « "*
apprbpriate"maintenahce plan showing .'£ ensure tnat the roles are"and continue to %.:.. Dm^ the.pendency of these "-V-. .
. maintenance of the standard at least 10 . ; be fuDy enforceabje.^^;.^-.* .7; • ^ >> ^designation requests, EPA will not •-". r
years from the' time of EPA approval ,-^v.-. -As a matter of course, EPA win not. -; .'^."require these areas to adopt amended •--:
will'still be'needed before the request ;^.V-require the fun set of RACT corrections C/NSR program elements. However, these •
- for redesignation is considered. •--. •".. iV/i*. (e.g, tower aource size appbcabihty vr^.^areas must continue-to apply their -;•<•-,. :-
complete: •:: • ":;.£'."-.'.-:"..; .:".^ Vii^:-::*T!flires'i0JdsJ.ta are.a».lha.t had submitted ^1., existing NSR program or comply with ".
", The maintenance plan/equirement Is V?va redesignation request priorto ?:?'~."'^^ the NSR permitting requirements of 40. -
not applicable in the very jdairow U--;;;~ C;* enactment and that were not violating ";:^ CFR part 51, appendix S.-Prior to Vi.- -
'circumstarice where the amended Act fji^^^S-^-L^V^J^V^
-CO redesignation and the Green Bay'
V SOi radesignatibnl Because the States
had completed all necessary action; the ^ °
-Agency had done everything but prepare ':••
a final approval notice, and no adverse • -
comments were received, EPA'- -'.^ •'.;'-;•
- determined that the new redesignation ._./,
requirements were not applicable (see -
56 FR 37285 (August 6,1991); 57 FR 3013 .:
' . (January 27,1992))..': '' " ..":'•'•• :.-'
.States should consult with their EPA".
.Regional Offices to determine what ...
additional information is needed to • •
supplement their reqaests'for .'; •
redesignation, including information to
satisfy any new requirements under
section 110 or subpartl of part D of the -
19SO CAAA. For example, EPA plans to '
• assume that the operating permits
program requirements of title V - •
(including the requirement for permit
fees) that will be implemented in States
over the next few years will effectively
satisfy the section 110(a)(2)(L)
requirement for permit fees in the
. subject areas (Le., in areas for which
requests for redesignation were . .;
submitted prior to enactment of the Act).
- .States should consult with the Regional
Offices about other new requirements
under section 110 or subpart 1 of part D
in the Act, arid whether any additional.--.
... State actions will be needed to satisfy -.;
. those requirements.. ' --.v '.; '
The EPA believes that the language of
^section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) clearly requires '.
that the emission reductions .that were.
.achieved and enabled the area to attain
the standard must be linked to ., ,"..
enforceable^ regulations. Many of these
now that attainment has occurred, the
justification or"need for the margin of :
safety that might have been produced by
the RACT measures (adopted and .
implemented in a manner consistent
with EPA guidance and policies) is ;
lessened. However, to satisfy the goals
of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and to ensure
the soundness of the maintenance plan
(discussed below), these areas still must
ensure that their RACT rules are
consistent with any guidance or policies
concerning the enforceability of rules •
(e.g., adopting the most recent EPA test
methods and procedures available at the
time of the redesignation request). In
addition to ensuring that appropriate
RACT corrections have been made to
ensure that the rules are enforceable,
the S.tate must show that the emission
inventory that occurred during the time •
" The EPA Uf\wd SIP calls to a'stoaber of States
In ISM and 1888 requiring that they correct their ''
/•. RACT rule* as necessary, to b« consistent with EPA
- fia'dasc* and policies. In addition, new section'-: .- •
.-18^»](2] speciBcaQy r*quirti all ozone . ' .-
. nonattjunmsnt areas i»1th a marginal or above
. classification to comet or add RACT requirements
-• • for complying with the provision of prwnactment
section 172(b). . •••..-.: ''-._•.•••
" See Tswe« Relating to VOC Regulations, '.-
- CatpcicU, Dtfidcade*. and Deviation*,"
'.'• Environmental Protection Agency. Offics of Air
^ Quality Planning and Standards. All Quality '.=•
-regulations are rules representing RACT •• Management Division, May 25,1988. \-: :•.-• "•-
;.program to. ensure that new sources do '
.not "cause or contribute" to tin increase
„ ..in pollutant levels that would, take the
• area out of compliance. If the area's . •
._.•- redesignation request is rejected and the
. statutory deadlines for adopting - -
• - amended part D permitting rules for the
• pollutart in question have passed, EPA
•may impose a construction bin pursuant
.to. section 113(a)(5) until sucb time as the
area adopts a part D program satisfying
• the NSR requirements of the CAAA.
•The requirements of the applicable
SIP will continue in force and effect
even after the request has been
• approved and the area has been
redesignated to attainment except to the
extent the maintenance plan shows that
such measures are not necessary to
•maintain the standard. The requirement
• for new or modified control nesscres or
regulations for these areas is discussed
below under "Improvement in Air
Quality Results From Implementation of
the SIP." . ---.-..
(b) Requests submitted after
enactment. Any requests for
: redesignation from nonattaiiment to •
: attainment that are submitted to EPA
. after enactment of the 1990, CAAA must
•• satisfy the conditions in section
M07(d)(3)(E) that were listed at tie"
- beginning of this section (HLH.6).
. -.Certain"of these conditions (listed.
• .above) are further described below.
••„...; (1) Determining whether tl\e area has
:. attained the ambient standard. The "
-. -NAAQS for ozone and CO are "specified
-•. in 40 CFR NX9 and KX8, resp
-------
•Federal Register V^VbL 57. N;..
Air Quality Standards for Ozone) ..-..-- •
ilains the procedures for determining :
ether violab'ons.ofthe ozone ;.• •..'.;..,:.
standard have 'occurred. A recent EPA;~.
memorandum ?*.prbvidesi additional-~,'.'=5,
•guidance'ion. calculating "design values"._- '.
and attainment for ozone and CO.."-.'.. Z.
Any request for redesignation should ,1:.
be base'd on the'most recentiy available^.-
and quality-assured air quality ^^.'t^ I-'.-
monitoring rlataTcollected in accordance.
with me'req'uirements of 40 CFR part 58."'..
(2) Full approval of the applicable', *&^
implemention plan. Section 110(k)(3) !.c{;~;
allows the Administrator to approve or •.*
disapprove a plan revision in full or in . •
part Ahhough section lip(k)(4) provides
for conditional approval of a SIP ••ir.'V'i.v1.
revision in certain circumstance va*'-.-'--')'^*
conditionally-approved plan revision is " "
not to be treated aVsatisfyingthe v -'-• "--^
requirements of the Act until the entire"-' -
revision has been approved as satisfying'
the Act requirements. Therefore, inTrf '•'•".•
order for the request for redesignation of.
Ian area from'nonattainmeht to • • •;. ..- -..- :j
'attainment to be approved the State ;.:.:-4:-
must have satisfied all requirements of .:;;•
the Act that apply to the area. The .-,..•..".'
• requirements have not been met if a ..'. •_..-
revision has been only partially- '.-. .-".-•:
.as been partially • .-" •• - •
' (3) Improvement in air quality results .".
' from implementing the SIP. Section • •.- •
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that prior to
approving a request for redesignation of
an area from nonattainment to '
attainment the Administrator must
determine that the improvement in air
quality has resulted from permanent and
enforceable emission reductions
resulting from implementing the SIP and
applicable Federal measures and/or
from other permanent and enforceable
measures. Before it makes such a
determination. EPA .will require that
these measures satisfy EPA guidance or
requirements regarding enforceability,
and that the emission inventory for the
area during the time in which attainment
has been demonstrated is based on
permanent and enforceable regulations
or measures. '-.•-•"•
The EPA believes that the language of
section 107(d](3)(E)(iii) clearly requires
that the emission reductions that were
achieved and enabled the area to attain
the standard must be linked to ' • -"
" enforceable regulations in the SIP. The
. EPA will assume that all control - -
easures and regulations in the SIP for
". " "Oione and Carbon Monoxide Design Value ..
; Calculations.- William a Laxion. Director. • •• -
.--Technical Support Dwiaion. Office of Ait Quality :. .
^-.Planning and Slandarda, June IS. 1S60. -' : v-.' - --. „
an area contribute to attainment of the -. '
standard Therefore."any request for • ."•••
redesignation to attainment most show :.'
that permanent and enforceable rules •'•- -
are in place to implement these v -.'••'•'••''
requirements. This showing will also ' -
support the State's demonstration that itl
has met all requirements that apply to '"•
the areas wider' section 110 and part D -•
(discussed below under -"Meeting •- •••- '••
section 110 and part D Requirements"). •".-'
vln addition to showing that it has •>' -
developed enforceable rules and •"•'-••• --: -
measures implementing trie ^ji'-i^-'t;':'-^^''
requirements that apply to the area, the *
State must show that the'emission '•' "-*."
inventory that ocoired during the time n?
of nd violations of the standard is based •'
on the implementation of permanent and
enforceable regulations rather than a :-"- '••"
temporary reduction In emissions, which
may have resulted from a suspension of •'
'industrial production or other temporary •.
change in the industrial or economic '•'.•-••••'
activity in the area-'Reductions hi ~- •"'•';
emissions from shutdowns are '*•:>:- : -' si
considered permanent and enforceable »'
to the extent those shutdowns have _•• v.:
been reflected in the SIP and all .V .-^-:.'
applicable permits have been modified -•',
accordingly, r-^-rj:-'."!-^';--^--^:.*::.;-: <;-..:
. (4) A fully approvedmaintenance - •'
plan. The State must submit a - - •
maintenance plan in accordance with
section 17SA for any area the State • • •
requests be redesignated from • • ' - '
nonattainment to attainment This plan_
must provide for maintenance of the •
standard for at least 10 years from the -
anticipated date of redesignation. Eight -
years after the redesignation date, the
State will be required to revise its SIP to
provide for maintenance in the area for
an additional 10 years (beyond the first
10-year period).
The maintenance plan consists of
three basic components: An emission
inventory, a maintenance
demonstration, and contingency
measures. The inventory must include
the emissions that occurred during the
same period associated with attaining
the national standard The EPA plans to
issue additional guidance on preparing
these inventories and other components
(discussed below) of the maintenance
plan. •. •-.-.•
For the maintenance demonstration,
the State must either demonstrate that
the future emission inventory will not "
exceed the inventory that existed at the
time of the request for redesignation. or •
conduct an appropriate modeling •
. analysis consistent with EPA's .
•'Guidelines on Air Quality Models", that
.. shows that the future mix of sources and
.-. emission rates when combined with ••:'-.-.
,. control strategy for the area.-will not •:'• --
cause'any violations of the ambient
standard "Under either'alternative, the •.
State must identify the mechanism that
will be used to track the progress of the
maintenance plan.*Where the "~;";"~.- • •"•
maintenance demonstration is based on '
the inventory, the State may choose to
periodically update the emission
inventory or periodically review the .•; '
factors used to develop the inventory to
determine whether any significant .;./ •
.changes have occurred. Where the*- -..
demonstration Is based on modeling, the
State inay periodically'review the -. "- .
assumptions and input data for the ,-
modeling analysis. Such'reviews and/or '..
updates may typically be done every 3 -
years. The maintenance'plan must ... :.
contain any additional measures as
necessary to ensure that the standard
•will not be violated Any future' .. ;, v
measures must be implemented before
any violations might be'anticipated .-' '•
based on tracking of the emission "
invento'ry'(under the first alternative, .
above) or the modeling assumptions and
input data (under the second - ••:-••:: •••• •• -
altemativej.The maintenance plan must *
also include contingency measures to •: -
ensure that any violations can be •-.-.
quickly addressed should such :•,.; ..<. <•
violations occur after the area is • •;.". • ...
designated to attainment. The EPA will
review each request for redesignaticn on
~a case-by-case basis to determine what
contingency measures are needed for
possible violations. Section 175{d)
requires the maintenance plan to
contain,"at a minimum, a commitnert
for the implementation of all measures •
that were part of the control strategy.
(i.e.. the SIP) for the area prior to
redesignation should violations occur in
the future.39 The plan should provide for
prompt implementation of these
measures with minimal administrative
action on the part of the State or other
government agency responsible for its
implementation.
(5) Meeting section 110 and subpcrt 1
(of part D) requirements. In order to be
redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment an area must have met ail of
*• This provision impUe« that the State would
have removed of reduced the stringency of ceruin
• measures in the SIP after the area was redesiguted
to attainment The EPA it soliciting comment os the
circumstance* In which th« State may remove er
modify measures that are specifically required [e.j_
enhanced I/M) or are required ai part of the
. demonstration of attainment. Any approach wovJd
have to ensure that the maioteaance plan would
prevent future violation* either through a licit oc
overall emissions or a rigorous modeling analysis.
or some combination. EPA also soiicita corames! on
the emiuion Hmrt and modeling analysis thould be
• applied. For example, sboold a Hum on overall
emissions bo required at least for some period
beyond th« time the area la designated to —
-. attainment? • • . •..•.--•'• • =• ! •
US:
-------
13564
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 74 / .Thursday.:April .16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
the applicable requirements in section
.110 (regarding general provisions
needed in a SIP) and in part D
(regarding the requirements for
nonattainment plans). Part D contains
general provisions that apply.to all-5
nonattainment plans and certain
sections that apply to specific pollutants
(e.g., section 182 applies for ozone
nonattainment areas). •'Xs "..'" ' ' -.'""!":
• Subpart 1 of part D contains the
general requirements for nonattainment •'."
plans.' Section 172(c) describes the \'' '. •[
provisions required in'nonatteinment ";
. plans. The 'requirements ]of.~ fl )"'. ^ -.'.'/
subparagraphs (1) through' (9) of section .
172(c] must be satisfied before a request
for redesignation can be approved. In
addition, the conformity requirements of
section 176 must be met. The discussion
below describes further how EPA will
assess compliance with these . .
provisions.'. -•-.:.- ;-•;•' - '
(i) RFP. The requirements for RFP will
not apply in evaluating a request for
redesignation to attainment since, at a
tninirquTH, the air quality data for the " .
area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State
will make RFP towards attainment will, •
therefore, have no meaning at that point.
(ii) Emission inventory'. The emission
inventory requirements of section .
172(a){3) will be satisfied by the
inventory requirements of the
maintenance plan, as discussed above.
(iii) Identification of certain emission
increases. Section 172(c](4) requires an
area, in developing its plan for
attainment, to identify expected
emissions increases that will result from
new or modified major sources in a
"zone to which economic development
should be targeted" according to section
173(a)(l)(B). These provisions effectively
allow the State to provide a "growth
allowance" for sources in such an area
in lieu of the offset requirements under
section 173(a)(l)(A). Since this is an
optional alternative to requiring the
acquisition of offsets under section"
173(a)(l)(A), it is not a prerequisite to
redesignation. Moreover, once the area
is redesignated attainment, these
provisions will not apply since the PSD
requirements of part C will become
effective (see discussion in next
section].
(iv) NSR Permit program. Generally,
the requirements of the part D NSR
permitting nonattainment program will
be replaced by the PSD program once an
area is redesignated to attainment.40
40 See footnote* 8 and 18.
(The exception is in ozone transport
regions where the part D NSR .
requirements applicable to moderate
areas would continue to apply along -.
with PSD (part C] requirements.) . •
However, to ensure that the PSD -•:'-• •
program can become fully effective ' •
immediately, upon redesignation. EPA .
will require an area to make any needed
NSR corrections to their part C NSR . • ,
programs prior to redesignation.,' ..•. .- -
-• (v) Other measures to provide . • ••
attainment Since attainment will have . :
been reached, no additional measures . ••
are needed to provide for attainment - • .
The need for additional measures to
ensure that maintenance continues is •
addressed under the requirements for":
maintenance plans. Areas should
consider the need for offsets under the
part C program to ensure that new '
sources do not ."cause or contribute", to •
an increase in pollutant levels that .
would take the area out of compliance.
(vi) Compliance with section 110(a)(2).
In the requests for SIP redesignation, • •
States must show that their plans satisfy
the requirements under section 110.
These requirements specify that the ••••
plans must contain enforceable emission
limits, monitoring requirements; :
procedures to prevent interstate '
pollution problems, adequate resources
to cany out the control programs, and
other provisions related to the .
• development and administration of
effective air pollution control programs;
a more detailed discussion of these
provisions is located in section H. States
should consult with their EPA Regional
Offices if additional guidance is needed
with respect to section 110 requirements.
(vii) Equivalent techniques. The
provisions of section 172[c](8) allow the
State to use equivalent techniques for
modeling, inventorying, or other
planning activities unless EPA
determines that the techniques are less
effective. This allowance will continue
to apply with respect to the
requirements of the maintenance plan.
.. (viii) Contingency measures. The
section 172(c](9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained
the standard and is eligible for'
redesignation. Furthermore, section
175(A) for maintenance plans (discussed
above) provides specific requirements
for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements
of section 172(c)(9) for these areas.
(ix) Conformity. The State must show
that the section 176 requirements of
. • conformity have been met The SIP
conformity provisions must be '--; ' •'•
consistent with EPA guidance issued
pursuant to section 176{c)(4).
(6) Meeting other part D requires
For classified ozone areas, the
applicable'requirements of sections 1
184, and 185 must be me L For CO ar
the applicable requirements of section
187 must be satisfied. Satisfying these
requirements for redesignation purposes
is particularly important since the
contingency measures oi' the
maintenance plan will require, at a
minimum, that the measures" in place
just before redesignatioc. be
implemented if future'violations occur.
7. Transition Issues
(a) Phase II of SIP calls. Prior to .
enactment of the 1990 CAAA. the EPA
issued SIP calls under section '
110(a)(2)(H) of the Act to many areas .
based on a finding that tieir SIFs were
substantially inadequate to provide for
timely attainment of the ozone and/or
CO NAAQS. In these SIP calls, EPA \
.stated that States should respond in two
phases to produce SIFs that would be
adequate to attain and maintain the
standards. The EPA first required
States, in Phase I of their responses, to
update their emissions inventories and
make corrections in previously required
regulations imposing RACT on exisr'
stationary sources. Phase I respon
were due generally by September 30,
1989. • '
The EPA advised States that they
could delay submitting Phase n
responses which included a full
attainment demonstration and all
additional regulations necessary to
support such demonstrations, until EPA
completed its policy on post-1987
nonattainment planning. Sines .EPA did
not complete its post-198" ozone/CO
policy in anticipation of passage of the
1990 CAAA, EPA has neve: set a
generally applicable date for Phase II
SIP call responses. However, the basis
underlying the SIP call rerscir.s valid
even under the amended Act. The SEP's
for the affected areas are still
substantially inadequate to attain the
• relevant NAAQS. Since the date for
submitting Phase I SIP call responses
has already passed, and 'he amended
Act requires all marginal and above
ozone nonattainment areas subject to
the RACT-correction aspects of the SEP
calls to submit those corrections within
6 months of enactment, the requirement
for Phase I responses to the SIP c
remains in effect for thes'J arsas.
• these areas should have siubrnitted .
' RACT corrections by May 15,1991,
pursuant to section 182(aJ(2)(A) (see
Section m.A.2.(b)). - "•" ~ • ' •
-------
..'Federal Register'./'.V6L 57. No».74 /.Thursday, April 16. 1992./ Proposed Rulea^--.- 13565
However, as to Phase II SIP call ' .
responses, the amended Act alters both
the substantive requirements'and '. _
submission deadlines for full attainment
demonstrations and their component ''_'
control measures. Thus, although the
obligation to submit a SIP adequate to
attain and maintain the NAAQS' '
remains in all SIP call areas, both the .
necesfary elements of such plans and '
the tuning of the plan submissions is ; ;
now governed by the requirements of .i.'.
sections 182 and 187 of the amended ...:-
Act The EPA therefore will not require '.„
Phase n SIP call response submissions "".
on schedule different from the schedules '
established by those sections. States
should respond to Phase H of the SEP /
•call*by making the submissions ~ •
otherwise required by sections 182,184.
and 187, This new'Phase n schedule ' .
supersedes any schedule EPA may have
established for any area prior to " - .
enactment of the 1990 CAAA. •
It should be noted that section, 173(b)
of the Act restricts the use of growth
allowances by'all areas that received
SIP calls under the 1977 Act Since EPA
is keeping the"pre-1990.CAAA SIP calls
in effect, use of a growth allowance Is '
restricted in any area that received a "/ .-
SDP.call under the 1977 Act '
(b) Construction ban. The amended
,ct repeals the provisions found in
'section 110(a)(2)(I) of the 1977 Act
requiring EPA to impose a construction
ban in nonattainment areas that failed
to submit plans meeting all of the .
requirements of part D of the Act The
amended Act also contains a savings
clause in section 110(n)(3] that preserves
certain existing construction bans.
Construction bans remain in place only
where imposed by virtue of a finding
that the plan for the area did not contain
an adequate NSR permitting program as
required by section 172(b)(6) of the 1977
Act, or the plan failed to provide for
timely attainment of the SCk NAAQS.
Thus. EPA cannot impose or maintain
any previously imposed construction
ban that was based on a finding that the
plan for the area did not demonstrate
timely attainment and maintenance of
the ozone or CO NAAQS. The EPA is
developing a rule amending its
regulations at 40 CFR 52.24 to clarify the
limited applicability of the construction
ban and appealing the individual
sections of 40 CFR part 52 that imposed
the construction ban in each ozone or
CO nooattainment area where the ban
was imposed solely for failure to
provide for timely attainment Since the
amended Act no longer authorizes EPA
to impose bans on the above basis, EPA
interprets the enactment of the Apt's
amendments as repealing these bans'by
operation oflaw as of the date of . •'
enactment and treat those amendments
to part 52 as mere administrative
housekeeping responsibilities. The EPA
.will treat those areas previously subject
to the construction ban under these
circumstances as no longer being
subject to the ban after the date of
enactment ' : .' . . •
It should be noted that where
construction bans were imposed for
failure to demonstrate timely attainment
of a standard (other than for SOj) and •
also for failure to.contain an adequate
NSR program, the ban Will remain in
effect under the savings clause unless
and until the State has submitted and
EPA has approved such a permitting
program. However, where the ban was
originally imposed baaed only upon a -
finding that the plan did not provide for
timely attainment and maintenance,
event if the area in fact did not have an
approved new source permitting
program, the savings clause by its own
terms will not preserve the construction .
baru Such areas should of course
promptly submit adequate permitting
programs, but they will not be subject to
the section 110(a)C2)fTJ ban in the
interim. . .-..,-.
(c) NSR. The 1990 CAAA make
numerous changes to the part D NSR
permitting requirements for
nonattainment areas. The EPA intends
to propose rules by April 1992 to
implement the NSR related changes
mandated by the 1990 CAAA. In the
interim period between passage of the •
1990 CAAA and adoption of the
Agency's regulations, EPA expects that
numerous issues regarding the 19SO
CAAA will arise. A March 11.1SS1 EPA
memorandum signed by John S. Seitz.
Director of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, sets forth
EPA's position on the most important of
these transitional issues involving the
part D NSR program. Additional
transitional guidance will be provided
as needed.
8. Central Savings Clause.
New Act section 193 sets forth a
• "General Savings Clause" governing
retention of certain types of previously
enacted or mandated requirements.
Under section 193. any regulation,
standard, rule, notice, order and
guidance issued prior to November 15,
1990, shall remain in effect unless it is
inconsistent with any provision of the
1990 CAAA or is revised by the
Administrator. No control requirement
in effect, or required to be adooted by
. an order, settlement agreement, or plan
in effect prior to November 15,1990, In
any nonattainment area for any air
pollutant may be modified after
enactment in any way unless the .- :
modification will result in equivalent or
greater emissions reductions of that
pollutant . ... .. ... .. ....
IV. EPA Requirements ; . • "i • :
A. SIP Processing Requirements
1.Completeness"- ''"•/•'""' '
• Section 110(k)(l) required EPA to
promulgate by August IS, 1991 (within 9
months of enactment), minimum criteria
that any SIP submittal must meet The
EPA proposed an initial set of .,-.
completeness criteria at 56 FR 2362S
(May 24.1991) and finalized them at 56
FR 42218 (August 26/1991). Those -
notices describe the procedures for •
assessing whether a SIP submittal is
complete and. therefore, adequate to
trigger the Act requirement that EPA
review and take action on the submittaL
The completeness criteria provide a
procedure and criteria that enable .
States to prepare adequate SIP.. ;-
submittals and enable EPA:reviewers to
promptly screen SIP submittals, identify
those that are incomplete, and return
them to the State for corrective action
without having to go through •. -'
rulemaking. •' ••.:• •?.'-•'
The criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated into two categories:
. administrative information and
technical support information.
Administrative Information includes the
documentation necessary to -
demonstrate that the State has adhered
to basic administrative procedures
during the rule adoption process.
Technical support information includes
the documentation that adequately
identifies all of the required technical
components of the plan submissions.
When a submittal is determined to be
complete, EPA will inform the State by
letter of its determination. The EPA will
then begin the formal review for
approvability. If a submittal is
determined to be incomplete, it will be
returned to the State with a lettrr listing
the deficiencies. Consistent with section
110(k)(lp), EFA will attempt to make
completeness determinations within 60
days of receiving a submittaL However.
a submittal will be deemed complete if a
completeness determination is not made
by EPA within 6 months of EPA's receipt
of the submittaL
2. Partial Approvals
(a) Full, partial, and limited approve]
and disapproval The EPA has authority
to fully approve or disapprove a State
SIP submittal under section 110(k)(3).
However, in some instances a State's
submission of a SIP or SIP revision will
-------
include a provision that does net comply
with one or more applicable
requirements of the Act The Agency
must disapprove those portions of a SI?
submittal .that do not meet the
applicable requirements of the Act
(section 110(k)(3)]. Where the
disapproved portions of a SI? submittal
are separable {i.e, disapproval of a
provision will not affect the stringency
of other portions of the SIP], EPA will
partially approve the SIP and
disapprove those separate parts.
However, there may be instances where
inseparable portions of the SIP submittal
are disapproved. The EPA has
interpreted the Act to provide flexibility
in the instance where a submittal as a
whole serves to improve air quality by
providing progress toward attainment,
RFP, and/or RACT, yet fails to comply
with all of the Act's requirements. Such
an action, called a United approval, is
not considered a complete action on the
SIP submittal. To complete the action,
EPA must also issue a limited
disapproval whereby the Agency
disapproves the SIP revision request as
a whole for failing to meet one or more
requirements of the Act.
(b) Conditional approval. Under
section 110(k)(4). the Administrator may
approve a plan revision based on a
commitment of the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a
specified date but not later than 1 year
after the date of EPA approval of the
plan revision that incorporated that
commitment. If EPA finds thst the State
fails to meet the commitment within that
year, the conditional approval would
automatically convert into a
disapproval. Ths time periods
culminating in imposition of sanctions
ar.d/or FIP's do not begin to run until the
conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval.
3. Scr.ciicr.s and Ot~er Scfss'-crcs
I. Backgroiir.d Under 1377 CAAA
The 1977 CAAA provided for two
types cf sanctions: Cor.structicn bans
(i.e., a ban on construction or
modification of major sources under
section llO{a)(2](I). cf a ban on
permitting such sources under section
173(4)) and various forms of funding
restrictions. The construction bans
automatically applied when EPA
disapproved a SIP for failure to meet
Act requirements as specified under
section 110{a)(2)(I): the permitting bar.
applies when EPA found that a State
failed to implement a SIP provision as
specified under section 173(4). In
addition. EPA had discretionary
authority under section 113(a](5) to
impose a construction ban upon finding
that a State was not acting in
compliance with NSR permitting
requirements in nonattainment areas.
The EPA also had authority to apply the
restrictions on air grants or highway
funding under section 176 (a) and (b). or
sewage treatment works funding under
section 31S(b).
2. Available Measures Under 1990
CAAA
The 1SSO CAAA revised the law
concerning sanctions end related
measures. It sets forth specific criteria in
section 179(a] to determine when EPA
may apply two types of sanctions
specified under section 179(b): Highway
funding restrictions, and increased
emissions offset ratios for new and
modified sources. A third type of
sanction, restrictions on air grant
funding, is provided for under section
179(a). The construction ban provisions
of section 110(a)(2)(I) were largely
repealed (see section HI.G.l.). However,
several other provisions of the Act
provide for construction bans and other
sanctions to safeguard against increases
in air pollution due to SIP planning or
implementation failures.
Section 179(a) sets forth the four types
of findings, disapprovals, or
determinations (hereafter referred to as
"findings") which may lead to the
imposition of a sanction: That a State
has failed to submit a SIP or an element
cf a SIP, or that the SIP or SIP element
submitted fails to meet the completeness
criteria for section 110(k): that EPA
disapproves a SIP submission for a
r.cnattainment area based on its failure
to meet one or more plan elements
required by the Act: that the State has
not made any other submission required
by the Act that meets the completeness
criteria or had made a required
submission that is disapproved by EPA
fcr not meeting the Act's requirements;
cr that a requirement of an approved
piar. is not being implemented. -
(=} Highway funding ssnc'Jo.i.
Consistent with the procedures and
f:.-.c:ngs described below, the EPA may
(and in some cases must) prohibit
e'pprcval by the Secretary of
Transportation of projects or grants
(pursuant to title 23 of the U.S.C.) in the
affected nonattainment area except
where the Secretary has determined that
the purpose of the project or grant is to
improve a demonstrated safety problem.
In addition, the Act provides exemptions
for certain projects and grants that are
intended to minimize air pollution
problems (section 179(b)(l)).
(b) Emission offset sanction. The
emission offset sanction provision
(section 179(b)(2)) refers to the
application of the emission offset
requirements of section ;.73. This
sanction applies to new or —.edified
sources or emission uzib; fcr which - ~
permit is required under par. D cf th
amended Act Under this sarxdcn, the
ratio of emissions reductions that rr.u
be obtained to offset increased
emissions (caused by the new or
modified source) in'the sanctioned area
must be at least 2 to 1. The czcne pr=-
sanction ratio ranges between l to 1.5.
depending upon the classification cf the
area. The EPA plans to pronsdgate
Federal nonattainment rules ct 40 CFR
52.10, which could be used to apply this
sanction.
(c) Grant funding sanction. According
to section 179(a), the Administrator may
withhold all or part of the grants that
support air pollution planning and •
control programs that the Administrator
may award under section 105.
(d) Section 173(a)(4) penn:t'Jr,§ bar,.
Section 173 of the amended Act contains
the requirements that must be met to
issue a NSR construction permit for a
new or modified major source in a
nonattainment area. A prerequisite
contained in section 173(a}(4) for issuing
such permits is that the permit authority
must find that the Administrator has net
determined that the applicable
implementation plan is not beir.g
adequately implemented as required ' ...
part D. This means that isjiuir.g
construction pemits fcr major
stationary sources under secticr. 173 i
prohibited if the Administrator
determines that the approved SIP for
complying with the par. D
nor.attainment requirements is not being
adequately implemented for the
nonattainment area in whi:h ths r.ew
source wants to locate cr i:i which the
source wishing to modify ils fsciliry :s
located.
(e) Section 113(a)(5) ccw.'r.-c::b.i
prohibition. Section 112(aH5) authcrires
EPA to prohibit the constrjctirr. or
modification cf specific rr.ajcr staticr.Ery
sources in ail areas, including
attainment areas, and tc take ether
enforcement actions against individual
sources whenever the Adrni-isr=:cr
finds that a State is not acting ir.
compliance with any requirement cr
prohibition of the Act related to
constructing new sources or modifying
existing sources. The authority in
section 113(a){5) may also be used to
issue general construction bans. After
making a finding under section :i3(a;;.3;
the Administrator may issue an order
prohibiting the construction or
modifkation of any major s:atior.ary
source in any area to which such
requirement applies, issue an
administrative penalty order in
-------
.-v Federal Register./'-Vol. J57,.-No..74 / .-Thursday..- April 16, 1992 •/.Proposed 'Rules; . '-,-'. -13567
accordance .with .the requirements of-':"- "programs are discussed in,more;de tail in
section 113(d). or;bring"a. civil action -..-'-' -section DI.G.3. :~:-: '-'•-•:'"':-'• '-'..-.-*-••.- -V
undersection 113(b)I.Nothing in section ...;\ There may be areas where EPA has to
kt3(aK5rBbalLpreclude the United ^;.-':.? promulgate Federal NSR regulations. >"-.
Plate's from 'commencing, at any time. aT/.The EPA intends to adopt at 40. CFR • "•-
criminal action under section 113(c) for l':; 52.10 Federal nonattainment area ---":- • •--'.
any such violation! V- •?.*. *1.> '•...--.•.»'••'- '•'•- permitting rules that EPA can impose in •"-.
'• >•« A'.i _i? _'^.-^v.=i_J'-^-!'..-i.'-.-T- K-iir " . .Slates with deficient nonattainment >• .'--
?:••
'i--.
;£;>
•••».•••
-^
r*-
(f) Other sanction provisions..Section
;_ • _. «•. --.— • -•- TV"" t« - ~»v"'.-"T"<' ••""- ••• • *"a"uja-"'6 ««>i>jes.originally described ui .
'Aif1^•^|^-|^°°^fv-' '-'e •^•;"! "i:!;-V;^'ji:J-the title V rilemaldng preamble (56 FR -/•'•
. ..... ..-,.- •>-,;••.•—* .t •*•» v '• j *• '''.i_"~j!''~ 21712—-May 10,1991). The three main r;~-
concern^ a5tatefailure.Ias described -, ^^ ^,^,5 here -^hdW - -.;; ,-
h^]^«iA*l ««nrn va«¥\A^4 Trt a •^a^iTi^» 'Ml^'n • *- ^ ~ _ • . — .. ... _ . .» - * _ _ •
SEP.caU.underjecton^a. tne.:^Vv:tte extent to which EPA "will develop
A.^?ȣm^La?p/y ^
1 M™S? ??°t?-\s?°c5on» ?[!e.«*??.»^ EPA will approach marketable penni
on applied Will be chojse
.The approach taken here'begins with',-
$£•;•;
•• « v •,'4l'-4<-*«ffV-.-V._l|-.- .'-_•• ._*•'•- «JJlfc»-fc***W*Jt*AJ_H»**-( W^AJIliA f/A IWJU^ikf a V* *JJ WW *
be Admrnistrator finds a.lack of good /.,_: achjeved)..and tQ-provide a' control r'^'-
;.iaith on the. part ofthe State, or after 24 ,- strategy "that wiU achieve the necessary -
months if .the deficiencyjs not corrected . 'reductions and otherwise" meet the"'. •.--''
(within 6 mohths'after the first sanction .. requirements of the'Act;:-' - ••--•' '"' ':
The key questions are what ';-.--
rC Federal Implementation Plans (FlP's) : fundamental principles apply to SIP's,""
. . . • ••'.-..>..-.•-••.:-.'.: .- . -' and what features must SIP's and •
The Administrator is required to . . . permits have to implement SIP control -
promulgate a FlP.withra 2 years of- .
finding that a State has failed to make a
required submittal or that'a received ,.
submittal does not satisfy the minimum
completeness criteria established tinder
section 110(k)(l)(A) (see 56 FR 42216, .
August 28,1991), or .disapproving a SD?
submittal.in whole or in part. Section .. .
110(c)(l) mandates EPA promulgation of
a FTP if the Administrator has not yet .
approved a correction proposed by the
State before the time a final FTP is
required to be promulgated. "Within the
Act's general provisions, a FIP is defined
explicitly to allow for the inclusion of
"economic incentives, such as .
marketable permits or auctions of -
emissions allowances" (section 302(y)). .
The EPA .views the use of economic
incentives in the context of a FIP as ..
potentially appropriate, especially.in
cases of failure of ozone nonattainment
areas to meet the.RFP requirements. :.
Such incentives may focus particularly
on permitted sources. In developing FIP
ategies. that include economic. -, :.
entives', FJPA.will look to its economic
incentive program rules (section
strategies and to'satisfy these
principles? The fundamental SIP
principles will be" used as guiding •-
criteria for judging success in resolving
the issues described above. - - • ..- •
For a number of reasons explained - •'
below, certain elements must be
contained in a SIP so that it will satisfy
the identified principles and meet the
Act's requirements. Other elements
could be contained in permits, and still
other elements may be shared and/or
implemented in part by SIP's and in part
by permits.
Following the discussion of
fundamental SIP principles and
associated SEP and permit features, this
section proposes ways to answer the • -
questions raised in the title V proposal. •
2. Purposes of a SD? " . ' . :
One purpose of a SIP is to perform
demonstrations of how various goals '
. will be achieved. These goals are of -
three types: Attainment of the NAAQS,
maintenance of the NAAQS once • • . .-
attainment occurs, and prescribed rates' •
of progress. To satisfy.these purposes^ a'."
.
.".: 182(g)(4)) due to be published November -;• number of assumptions must be made in" .
.^15. 1992. .as guidance in developing those ". the SIP regarding baseline emissions II ,-.--.
' of the,FIP^.Econoinic iricen'tiye , -:and future growth in various sectors of.]""
• - -. - - •
the'economy. For these assumptions. SIP
planners often rely on projections of " -
population, motor vehicle travel or .
economic indicators made by other
government agencies; and projections - -
made by the .air pollution control agency
regarding the future effect of planned -
pollution control measures.;-; .-.•;-.•;--'• •
•.These assumptions, control strategies. ••
and measures are developed as X 7 - ' •
•necessary to meet the attainment..-. - -i- -
.'objectives for the area and the Act's •: V •
requirements (elg^RACTJJThfese " w. '
assumptions and me'asuwisjare/Tcey^-,> -
'components:of Ihe'SIP.-It is important to
"note that projections of the-effect of v. -
planned air pollution cpntrpl measures '••'
contained in the SIFs are not "merely '-
assumed but are enforced by regulations '•
Adopted as'part of the SIP.-ThereTore. if •
"•the control measures are not 1»:vi* x-. •:-';.
implemented sufficiently'tb result.in" •'-' -.
.required reductions; the Statew local;'
. agency, or EPA." can take action to'/'- -'•
- enforce implementation of the^V-K---;.-"-.
regulations. This provides a ineans of -: •''
achieving, at least in part, the"goals of "•" -
• attainment-and further progress required
'"in the Act-if-: v^'-'^-o^V^rV-.'-:.-:. •
;- For purpose's "of illustrating the";;.- 5-!>: .
principles and elements of SIFs "that •"•••'•
; apply to sources, the discussion below"
. concentrates more on elements'relevant
to implementing the'cqnfrpl strategies •
. part of a SIP, rather than'on those ." • '
relevant to'the demonstration. This •_
simplifies the discussion and reflects the
fact that the purpose of the'permit is to
implement measures, not perform ' •
; demonstrations, which is ' Y .'-•". '
unquestionably a purpose of the SI?..
' 3. Fundamental Principles for SIP's/-. -
Control Strategy • .
To develop an effective SIP control
strategy and to achieve the desired
. result, the SIP and any implementing
instruments, including permits, should
adhere to certain principles. These
principles help provide assurance that
the planned emissions reductions will be
- achieved. These principles are discussed
in EPA's policy on emissions trading
contained in 51 FR 43814 (December 4.
: 1988). ', •'•--.•.-."•:•:"
(a] First principle. The first principle
is that the baseline emissions from the.
- source and the control measures be
quantifiable (i.e.,'a specific amount of
emissions reductions can be ascribed to
the measures]. Baseline emissions must
be represented accurately in'the SIP in
order for the benefits of the measure to
'be properly quantified. Furthermore, the
emissions must be representative of the
r time period of the inventory-Likewise. .
-: the effect of the measure.must bel~-: -:-. •
• identified in "order' to'assess the 1- :'•'-.-'-
,
-------
13568
Federal Register / Vol. 57.-No. 74 / Thursday, April 16,1992 /.Proposed Rules
I
. contribution to the necessary emissions
reductions. The value for a measure's
effect can be'used as a limit in a - -• :••'
. regulation, or it may be used alone or in
combination with assumptions regarding
operating hoars or production," or as part
of the projections .in the demonstrations.
(b) Second principle.:The second
principle is that the measures be .• :' -
enforceable. Measures are enforceable .
when they are duly adopted, and specify
clear, unambiguous, and measurable ..
requirements. A legal means for .J ,• ;- •>-. -
•ensuring that sources are in compliance * •
with the control measure must also exist '•
in order/or a measure to be enforceable.'.
.This principle is well grounded in the .--..:
Act New section 110(aK2) of the Act -.'
requires that SIP1! include "enforceable.. -
emission limitations and other control •••-• •
measures" and "a program to provide •<
for-the enforcement of the measures"-in .
•the plan. Court decisions made clear . ..
that regulations must be enforceable in
practice. A regulatory limit is not :.-. .
enforceable if, for example, it is :-.=. •;
- impractical to determine compliance .-' .
with the published Emit. * - •'-. -. -.
. (c) Third principle. The third principle
is that the measures be replicable. This .
means that where a rule contains ;• - -
procedures for changing the rule,- •-' •--•
interpreting the rule, or determining.
compliance with the rule, the procedures
are sufficiently specific and
nonsubjective so that two independent
entities applying the procedures would
obtain the same result
(d] Fourth principle. The fourth .
. principle is that the control strategy be
accountable. This means, for example,
that source-specific limits should be
permanent and must reflect the
assumptions used in tHe SIP
demonstrations. It also means that the
SIP must contain means (such as
operating permits issued under title V)
to track emission changes at sources
. and provide for corrective action if
emissions reductions are not achieved
according to the plan. The Act provides
for this tracking and remedial action in
its requirements for meeting milestones
and for contingency measures in SIP's.
The EPA will use this principle to
explore options for tracking emissions
resulting from issuing permits or permit
amendments. , . .'
The principles of quantification,
enforceabiljty, replicabffity! and
accountability apply to all SIP's and
control strategies, including those
involving emissions trading, marketable
permits and allowances. The EPA's •
emissions trading policy provides that
only trades producing reductions that
are surplus, enforceable, permanent and
quantifiable can get credit and be . '. ;.
• banked or used in an emissions trade.'
4. Approaches To Ensure That Permits
Properly Support SIP's. .''•..•• .
The EPA has considered various ways
that permits and SIP's can be configured '
to complement each other and still meet
the principles discussed above. The
foUowing discussion covers some
approaches. • - '.'-. ....: .-.. " "- ' :
. The SIP remains the basis for ' ] .. •
demonstrating and ensuring attainment.'.
and maintenance of-the national •; '•
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The permit program collects and/. •'.- : -..
Implements the requirements contained .
in the SIP as applicable to the particular
permittee. Since permit must incorporate '
emission limitations and other ;: -'. -
. requirements of the SIP, all SEPl ' __ :'rl
provisions applicable to a particular' • •
source will be defined and collected into
a single document The applicable ';.1 -..'.
requirements'in the permit •would.-.. :;. '.=
include any recent SIP. changes,"whether"
as a result of a State or local SIP . ''
revision or of a FTP action by EPA. The '
EPA intends to'assist in'the ;.. "• "
implementation of the permit program '. •.
through the use of model permits for . '
numerous source categories.'. •"•••;. ." .
• As previously discussed, title V '.
affords significant operational •:
•flexibility. The relationship between •
title V permits and SIP's is a key factor
in determining the extent to which
operational flexibility is available to
sources, since each permit, in part, must
assure compliance with the applicable. .
implementation plan. The EPA
recognizes that it will take time to
complete the transition from a
regulatory system where SIFs are the
primary tool for implementing and
enforcing the Act to one where
operating permits ultimately assume
primary responsibility for
implementation and enforcement
The EPA is considering what means
will aid in ensuring a smooth transition
to increasingly general, and thus more
flexible, SIP's, which may allow permits
"rather than the SIFs to specify the
details of how SIP limits and objectives
apply to subject sources. In particular,
EPA will be seeking to develop
information in the following areas:
(1) The most efficient ways of
implementing requirements of SIP's
through permits, such as moving detail
from SIP's to permits; •'
(2) Flexible ways for sources to"
demonstrate compliance with
. reasonably available control technology
.(RACT) limits, such as through the use --
of protocols for defining equivalency or
.through the development of equivalency
. determinations in the permitting process
- (as discussed below); and "'-"-' "".: '•'""'
(3) Expanded use of emissions trading
and marketable permits to achieve SIP
objectives as well as providing a sta
.accountable mechanism for tracking;
enforcing emissions reductions at a
•source. . . • • • "'" - • .
' EPA.will be adopting provisions to .
facilitate the movement toward more
flexible SIP's in its-final roles to.
implement title V. EPA plans to include
provisions which specify that no permit
revision is required for emission trades
through economic incentives or
•marketable permit programs, provided
•that the permit contains a means or
process for implementing the program.
Thus, a SIP containing a generic trading
• rule and a replicable procedure for
. implementing the rule through a permit'
• may allow trading to occur without a .
•permit revision, provided the permit
• contains the replicable procedure. This
is similar, to the way in which permits
allow sources to shift' among alternate
: scenarios that were initially provided. / "
for in the permit It States 'choose to
implement trading in this matter, the
• provisions of the permit allowing the
.trades must incorporate all of the
, procedural protections contained in the
"underlying SIP.': ' - '
States may also elect to develop SEP* 8
that set forth trading and compliance
provisions that sources could use to
comply with SIP limits. The SIP would!
' have to include compliance •
requirements and procediires for the
. trade which are sufficiently specific to
demonstrate compliance. Such
provisions can prove useful to sources in
cases where permits do not already
provide for emission trades.
(a) Increasing flexibility in SIP's
through permits. In addition, a Slate
may choose to adopt a SI? provision
that would authorize sources to meet
either the SIP limit or an c.quivalent lirait
to be formulated in the peinit systen.
The permit must contain lie equivalency
.determination, as well as provisions that
assure that the resulting emission linit
is quantifiable, accountable,
enforceable, and, based upon replicable
procedures, is equivalent to the SIP
limit Consistent with these
requirements. States may do so for all
appropriate SIP requirements or only for
specific requirements for which the
State determines equivalency
determinations are appropriate. The
determination of what constitutes an
equivalent limit could take place eitiser_
during the permit issuance, or reu
process, or as a result of the signific
permit modification procedures. The
. State retains discretion, subject to EPA ..:
" veto, to decide if an alternative emission
•' -limit is Justified in any particular case. ••
-------
.Federal Register.'/.Vol 57/-No.:74// Thursday.:April. 16,' 1992 /.Proposed.Rules ----'.:' ' 13569
$>} Developing more RACT protocols;.- ] permit As long as the terms of the / :.,
In the title V preamble. the'EPA said. "fi^TJermit complied with the SIP rule, ;. >'••--..
that it would develop,more flexible.: X: --".dianges to the permit could be made • •
ways for sources to demonstrate'-."-" •"£=•;without a SIP.'revisioiL The'propoWd • •:'.
--impliance with RACT limits^ One way.;:-: title .V regulation, for example, would..;.
to use protocols 'defining'etjuiyalent f-:'"1',"not require a permit cbange.for emission
means of compliance. For exam'plevin ~-J. ;• trades authorized under.the Act if such.»
1980 EPA released the "Can Coating"' j^i- ^changes were implemented consistently;
'?=%
-'5?;
.•C&:
Wt
Y**'
t
I
3£
t&Z
*&-;
•§&-<
ipulg 8U.^."~—•> '-jf •• *.'*. -_• '. ., *\7fi". ':»<;~Pl.~ur*c.a.~aouaa.~~>P^rJ[IUT:*JJ,.-iTheEPA"does not believe that it has' ;."•:
daily arid monthly einlr'-"" "'
between cross-line
implementation of the Act on tribal •
lanoX'v;j_-.-'^;:>-..:.i>'5";-"-V.i::-v-:' ... •..
CSectionji^BRequirements^^.i ..!.
. A new section 179B, International '-
Border Areas," was added to the statute.
This'section applies tip ribnattainmeht •-
.areas Uiat are affected b'y'iemissidns' -
. emanating from outside' the United ;:"' '•.
States.'This section'requires EPA' to '".';
.approve a SIP if: The'SrJP.or&P revision '
..meets all of the"requifemen&applicable''.
.:to it undefthe '^ti^fceTtlian *":':£•-* " •
•requirement that it^emqnstratet;^;-:i£ -<:
.attainmentaridinaintenaace_orthe:"-:" '".
..relevant NAAQS by'the^appiicable'-'f^r-"
attainment'date: and .the'affected State
"establishes to EPAvs;satisfa"ction."that"- .:
..the SIP or revision would beladequate to
emissions. .."'_:>.?.. .. .. ^~ - ; , -- - -,. . .
•' (ii) Survey aerospace .and graphic arts ^preamble'regarding marketable permits,
sources'to collect eniissions data, ~
coating usage and VOC content on a ;' •
'asis. These data also will be - -
ed to determine the variability of
'emissions from day to day and line to ••",
line. . _ •. • • " ' . "•„-•;
1 (iii) Based on the above information,
• EPA will determine the appropriateness
' of developing procedures for time- ]
averaging and line-by-line compliance
- for-the graphic arts and aerospace
industries and issue these procedures as
appropriate. . . .
When EPA completes this process, it .
will then assess whether it is feasible
and desirable to develop procedures for
other source categories for which such
procedures may be appropriate.
(c) Exploring marketable permits/
cHowance trading. The EPA fully
expects that the use of emissions trading
and economic incentives such as
marketable permits or allowance trading
will increase as the Act is implemented.
In addition, EPA is committed to
exploring ways to reduce the cost or
burden to industry through the use of
innovative measures that use the
'. marketplace to reduce costs. And, as
mentioned in its title V preamble, the
EPA wants to find ways to achieve the
goals of the Act without requiring time-
ing SEP revisions for every
at a source.- . ' •
One way to minimize SIP revisions is
,'through the use of replicable SIP '• -. '" '
'procedures that are implemented by the".
"trading, and allowances! The EPA
•believes that, in resolving such '.. -.
questions, it should apply the same . '
principles mentioned above, namely,
that such measures should be ' "•
' quantifiable, accountable, enforceable "
and implemented according to
replicable procedures. •
•fi. Tribal Implementation Plans
• Section 107 of the 1990 CAAA adds -
several provisions to the statute that
create the first express authority for
EPA to treat Indian tribes as States for
certain Act purposes. Section 107 also
'allows a tribe that qualifies for
treatae.it as a State to develop and
subniit to EPA a tribal implementation
plan (TIP) for implementation of the
NAAQS on tribal lands (see Act
section I10(o) and 301(d)). Under
section 301(d)(2j, EPA is required to
promulgate regulations by May 15,1992
• for treating of tribes as States, Section
30lfd)(3] states that EPA may
promulgate regulations setting forth the '
elements of TTP's and procedures for
EPA action on them. In addition, section
301(d)(4) states that where EPA
determines that treatment of Indian
'tribes as identical to States is'not
appropriate, the Agency may by
regulation provide other means by
• which EPA will directly administer '
• these provisions. In the preambles to the
"proposed and finalrules, EPA will -_.-
.discuss other issues relating to . . .
f^AAQS by thei'applica^ie'aiteinment;.-.;
.-' date but for emissions emanating from : ^
youtside th'e-United StafesfFurtheri any.. -
'• ,StatJTthaUs'tiablishes" to tie'satisfaction •
; of EPA~with''respect"tojurozone/CO,''-"--'
• or PM-rlb nonattainmenfarea;io such a "
•/State^that the State would have * .'- •
£ attained the.relevaht NAAQS but for, ..;
^.emissions emanating from outside the" ::
United States.'shall not be"subject to'the .
following provisions: extension of the '
• ozone attainment dates pursuant to
section 181{a)(5), the fee provisions of •.
section 185, and the bump-up provisions
for failure to attain for ozone (section • •
181(b)(2).4.' CO (section 186(b](2), and/
or PM-10 (section 188(b)(2) NAAQS.42
41 Note that the statute contained an erroneous
reference to lection 181(a)(2) instead of 181(bK2'>-
41 As noted section irSB(d) states that PM-;0
areas deir.onstratinj attainment of the jtandardj
but for eoissions emanating from ouUide ti^e Uziied
States »ha!l not be subject to section iea(b)(2)
(redassificarion for failure to attain). By analogy to
tills provision and applying canons of statutory
consrrjcuon. EPA wi'.l not reciassir/ be.'ore the
applicable attainment date areas which can
demonstrate attainment of the PM-10 standards but
for emissions emacaring frora outside the Unitsd
States. See section 138(b)(i;. First. EPA believes
section 179(B)(d) e-.ir.ces a general co.-.grt3sicr_a!
intent not to penalize areas where errj'ssior.s
emanating from outside the cour.try are the but for
cause ol the PM-10 attainment problems. Further, i/
•EPA were to reciassify such areas before the
applicable attainment date. EPA. in effect would be
reading section 179(B)(d) out of the statute.
Specifically, if EPA proceeded to reclassiry be.'ort
• the applicable attainment date those areas
qualifying for treatment 'under section 179{3). an
area would never be subject to the provision in
tecrion 179(B)(d) which prohibits EPA from
reclassifying such areas after the applicable
attainment date. Canons of statutory conscruc^oa
couiuel against interpreting the law such that -
language is rendered mere surplusage, finally, note
that section 179(B)(d) contains a clearly erroneous
reference to carbon monoxide instead of PM-10 a:d
that this section contains other error*. See. e.g-' -
•ection 179{BKc) reference to section 186(b)(9). -' •
. which does not exist • -":•'.. • '.--
-------
13570
Federal Register / Vol. .57, No. 74 / Thursday. April 16, 1992 / Proposed Rules
3
;]
In demonstrating that an area could
attain the relevant NAAQS but for
emissions emanating from outside the
United States, approved EPA modeling
techniques should be used whenever
possible. An emission inventory
incorporating vehicle emissions .
occurring in the United States generated.
from vehicles registered in the adjacent
foreign country must be completed by
the State before modeling in the United
States' side only and attempting to.
demonstrate attainment. The EPA
recognizes that adequate data may not
be available in areas outside the United
States. Therefore, modeling (consistent
with EPA's "Guidance on Air Quality
Models, Revised"] may not be possible
in all cases. Because very few areas are
likely to be affected by this provision,
EPA will determine on a case-by-case .
basis whether the State has
satisfactorily made the required
demonstration. The State is encouraged
to consult with the EPA Regional Office
in developing any alternate
demonstration methods. Methods that .
. the State may want to consider include:
using ozone episodes that do not involve
international transport of emissions for
modeling (see guidance document
entitled "Criteria for Assessing Role of
Transported Ozone/Precursors in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas"), running the
model with boundary conditions that
reflect general background '
concentrations on the U.S. side..
analyzing monitoring data if a dense
network has been established, and using
receptor modeling for PM-10. States
should confer with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to'establish appropriate
technical requirements for these
analyses. .
VI. Other Requirements
A. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is""
required to judge whether an action is .
"major" and. therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. The Agency has "determined
that this action is exempt from
classification as "major" because it is a
compilation of interpretive rule and
general statements of policy as defined
in the Adminstrative Procedures Act
(APA). Nevertheless, this notice was
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB] for review.
I
A copy of the draft notice as
submitted to OMB. any documents
accompanying the draft a^y writte.
comments received from other agencie
(including OMB], and any written
responses to these comments have be'
included in the Docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility-Act
Whenever the Agency is required by
section 553 of the APA or any other law
to publish general notice and proposed
rulemaking for any proposed rule, the
Agency shall propose and pake
available for public commant an intial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The regulatory flexibility
requirements do not apply for the
General Preamble because it is not a
regulatory action in the context of the
APA or the Regulatory Flexibility Act .
• Nole; Appendices A through E will b«
published in a subsequent Federal Register.
Dated: March 27.1992.
William K.Reffly, •
Adaiftisifolor.
[FR-Doc. 92-7954 Filed 4-15--92; 8:45 an]
BSJJNG COCC tKO-M-W
-------
Tuesday
April 28, 1992
Part VI!
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 52
State Implementation Plans; Genera]
Preamble for the Implementation of Title
1 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990; Supplemental; Proposed Rule
-------
18070
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28, 1992 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(FRL-4127-1]
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; Supplemental
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). ' . .
ACTION: General Preamble for future
proposed rulemakings; Appendices.
SUMMARY: The EPA published a General
Preamble for the Implementation of title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 on April 16.1992 (57 ER13498). This
document describes EPA's preliminary
views on how EPA should interpret
various provisions of title 1 of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. primarily
those concerning State implementation
plan (SIP) revisions required for
nonattainment areas. It serves as
advance notice of how EPA generally
intends, in subsequent rulemakings. to
take action on SIP submissions.
The appendices to the General
Preamble were inadvertently omitted.
The appendices contain important
support materials that are referenced
throughout the General Preamble.
Therefore, this notice, containing the
aforementioned appendices, serves as a
supplement to the General Preamble and
should be considered as such.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Brock Nicholson. Chief. Policy
Development Section. Ozone/CO
Programs Branch (MD-15) at (919) 541-
5517, for issues related to ozone or
carbon monoxide; Mr. Eric Ginsburg at
(919) 541-0877. Sulfur Dioxide/
Particulate Matter Programs Branch
(MD-15). for issues related to sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, or lead; Mr.
Gary McCutchen at (919) 541-5592.
Permits Programs Branch (MD-15). for
issues related to new source review.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711; Ms. Paula Van Lare at (202) 260-
3450 for issues related to mobile
sources. 401 M Street. SW. Washington.
DC 20460.
ADDRESSES: The appendices are also in
Air Docket A-91-35. at 401 M Street.
SW. Washington. DC.
Dated: April 21,1992.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Acm.r.isL.-ator for Air and
Radiation.
Appendix A—Glossary
ACT=alternative control technique
AVO=average vehicle occupancy
BACM=best available control measures
BACT=best available control technology
CAA*> Clean Air Act
CAAA=Clean Air Act Amendments
CARS » California Air Resources Board
CEMS=continuous emission monitoring
system
CO *• carbon monoxide
CP.M-condensible paniculate matter
CTC=control technique guideline
OOI=Department of the Interior
DOT= Department of Transportation
EKMA=Empirical Kinetic Modeling
Approach
ERC=emission reduction credits
ETC=employer transportation coordinator
ETPS=Emission Trading Poli.-n Statement
FIP= Federal Implementation P:an
FMVCP=Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program
FR=Federal Register
GV~WR=Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HC=hydrocarbons
I/M=inspection and maintenance
1PP= inventory preparation plan
LAER=lowest achievable emission rate
MMS=Minerals Management Service
MSA/CMSA=metropolitan statistical area/
consolidated metropolitan statistical area
NAAQS=national ambient air quality
standards
NAS=National Academy of Sciences
NO;=Nitrogen dioxide
NO,=nitrogen oxides
NSPS=new source performance standard
NSR=New Source Review
OCS=outer continental sheif
PSD=prevention of significant deterioration
psimpounds per square inch
RACM = reasonably available control
measures -
R ACT=reasonably available control
technology
RFP=reasonable further progress
RTA = rural transport area
RVP=Reid vapor pressure
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality
Management District
SOi=sulfur dioxide
SIP = State implementation plan
TCM = transportation control measures
TSP=total suspended particulaie (matter)
VOC=volatile organic compound
VMT=vehicle miles traveled
' Appendix B—Bibliography and Cited
References
To obtain copies of OAQPS documents.
contact the EPA Library. (919} 541-5514;
(FTS) 629-5514. For QMS publications, please
contact Mark Wolcott. (313) 668-4219; (FTS)
374-8219.
SIP Inventory Guidance/Requirements
"Procedures for Preparing Emissions
Projections." EPA-450/4-91-O19. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research triangle Park. NC. July 1991.
"Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation. Volume IV: Mobile Sources."
EPA-450/4-81-026d. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Mobile Sources.
Ann Arbor. Ml. July 1991. (also listed below
under General Inventory Guidance).
"Procedures for the Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for Carbon Monoxk
and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I". EPA-
450/4-91-Oia US. Environmental Protectic?
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC Mav
1991.
"Procedures (or the Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for Carbon Monoxide
and Precursors of Ozone. Volume II: Emission
Inventory Requirements for Photochemical
Air Quality Simulation Models." EPA-150/4-
91-014. US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research TriangJe Park. NC May
1991.
"Emission Inventory Requirements for
Ozone State Implementation Plans." EPA-
450/4-91-010. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC.
March 1991.
"Emission Inventory Requirements for
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
Plans." EPA-J50/4-91-011. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC March 1991.
"SIP Air Pollutant Inventory Management
System (SAMS) Version 4.0 and SAMS User's
Manual." US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina. March 1991.
"Example Emission Inventory
Documentation for Post-1987 Ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs)," EPA-450/
018. U.S. Environmental Prelection Agency.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC October 1989.
"Procedures for Estimating and Applying
Rule Effectiveness in Post-1987 Base Year
Emission Inventories for Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide State Implementation Plans." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research triangle Park. NC. June 1989.
Quality Assurance/Inventory Review-
Guidance
"Quality Review Guidelines for Post-I95r
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Base Year
Emission Inventories (Draft)." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC. February 1990.
(Final version to be completed in August
1991.)
"Guidance for the Preparation of Quality
Assurance Plans for Oj/CO SIP Emission
Inventories." EPA-450/4-88-023. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standard*.
Research Triangle Park. NC. December 19S3.
General Inventory Guidance
"Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation." U.S. Environmental Protec
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning i
Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC:
a. "Volume I: Emission Inventory
Fundamentals." EPA-450/4-Bl-o:5a.
September 1981.
b. "Volume 11: Point Sourass." EPA-450/
81-026b. September 1981.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules 18071
c. "Volume Ht Area Sources." EPA-450/4-
8:-028c. September tttt.
d. -Vofam IV: Mobile Sources." EPA-450/
4-81-026d (Relied). July 1981.
«,-Volume V: Bibliography." EPA-*SO/4-
81-026e. September 1981.
Emission Factors/Models .
"Personal Computer Version of the - •
Biogenic Emission* Inventory System (PC-
BE1S] With Utert Guided EPA-ISO/4-W-
017. US. Environmental Protection Agency...
Office of Ak Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC July 1991.
"User'« Guide to MOBILE! (Mobile Source
Emission Factor Model).- EPA-AA-TEB-69-
01. US. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Mobile Sources. Ann Arbor. ML
February .1989. (Revised version of MOB1LE4
and documentation to be completed in July
199L) . ..-..-
"Surface Impoundment Modeling System
(SIMS) Version iJO User1* Manual" EPA-450/
4-90r019a. US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC
September 1990. . •
"Background Document for Surface
Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS)
Version 2A EPA-*50/4-*MJ19b." US.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC September 1990.
"AIRS Facility Subsystem Source
Classification Codes (SCCs) and Emission
Factor Listing for Criteria Pollutants." U-S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC September 1989.
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Volumes I and II and its
supplements. Fourth Edition." AP-42, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC September 1985.
Citations and Guidance for SIP Corrections
"Guidance Document for Correction of Part
D SIFs for Nonattainmer.t Areas." EPA.
Office of Air Quality Planning ar.d Standards.
Research Triangle Park. NC January 27.1984.
Citations and Guidance for PM-10
"Assessment of the Controllability of
Condensibie Particulate Matter." EPA-600/6-
90-75. October 1990.
"Procedures for Estimating Probability of
Nonattainraent of a PM-10 NAAQS Using
Total Suspended Particulate of PM-10 Data."
EPA-450/4-36-017. December 1986.
"PM-10 SIP Development Guideline." June
1SS7.
"Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources."
EPA-430/3-S8-008, September 1988.
"Guidance Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Emission Control Measures."
EPA-450/2-89-015. September 1989.
"Prescribed Fire Smoke Management
Guide." NFES No. 1279. February 1985.
"Prescribed Tire Plan Guide." NFES No.
1539. August 1986. .
Citations and Guidance for SO;
"SO- Guideline." EPA-450/2-89-019.
. "SO: Guideline Appendices." EPA-450/2-
89-019. October 1989.
"Letter from William Reilly to
Representative John DingelL m Response to
question! and CAO report" April 10.1991.
Citations and Guidance for Lead
"Updated information on Approval and
Promulgation of Lead Implementation Plans."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC July 1983.
"Guideline Series. Development of an
Example Control Strategy for Lead." EPA-
450/Z-79-002. April 1979, .
. "Guideline Series, Supplementary
Guideline for Lead Implementation Plans."
EPA-4SO/2-7S-038. August 1978.
Modeling Guidance
"UAM Applications Guidance." May 1991.
"User's Guide for the Urban Airshed
Model Vol 4." EPA-450/4-90-007D. June
1990. •
"Guidance on Air Quality Models
(Revised)"EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1986.
"Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air
Quality Models: Experience with
Implementation." EPA 450/4-85-006. July •
1985.
New Source Review Guidance
"Naw Source Review Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and NonatlainmenV
Area Guidance Notebook." January 1988.
"Draft Workshop Manual for New Source
Review (NSR) Programs." December 1990.
Miscellaneous Guidance
"Criteria for Assessing the Role of
Transport of Ozone/Precursors in O=cne
Nonattainment Areas." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
NC EPA-450/4-fll-O15).
"Enforcement Guidance for Stage 11
Vehicle Refueling Control Programs."
December 1991.
"Getting Started on Title 1." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS.
Research Triangle Park. NC. April 19S1.
"Issues Relating to VOC Regulations.
Outpoints. Deficiencies, and Deviations."
Clarification to Appendix D of Noveraber 24.
1987 FR (Blue Book, revised January 11.1990).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
AQMD. May 25.1988.
"Protocols: Can Coalers. 45FR (December
8.1988) + Topccaters." EPA-450/3-33-018
(December 1938).
"Technical Guidance—Stage 11 Vapo;
-Recovery System for Control of Vehicle
Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities." Volume 1. November 1091.
Memoranda
Memorandum from William Laxton.
Director. Technical Support Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors. "Guidance
for Determining Significant Stationary
Sources of Carbon Monoxide." May 13.1991.
Memorandum from John Seirz. OAQPS to
Air Division Director. Regions 1-X. "New
Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional
Guidance." March 11.1991.
Memorandum from John Calcagni and
William Laxton. "Interim'Guidance on
Emission Limits and Stack Test Methods for
Inclusion in PM-10 SIPV December 24.1990.
Memorandam from Robert Bauman and
Rich Biondi toi Air Branch Chiefs. "SO: SIP
Deficiency Checklist.".November'28.1990.
Memorandum from Joseph Tikvart asd
Robert Bauman concerning modeling
guidelines addressing PM-10. dated July 15.
1990.
Memorandum from William Laxton.
Director. Technical Support Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors. "Ozone and
Carbon Dioxide Design Value Calculaucas."
June 18.1990. ......
Memorandum from Craig J. Potter. "Interim
Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions."
April 22.1988.
Memorandum from Gerald A. Emison.
Director. OAQPS. to Regional Air Division
Directors. "Transmitta! of Reissued OAQPS
CEMS Policy." March 31.1988.
Memorandum from John Seitz. Director.
Stationary Source Compliance Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors.
"Implementation of Rule Effectiveness
Studies." March 31.1988.
Memorandum from Craig Potter. Thomas
Adams, and Francis Blake to Regional Air
Division Directors. "Review of State
Implementation Pians and Revisions for
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency."
September 23.1987.
Memorandum from Gerald Emison.
Director^ OAQPS. to David Kee, Director. Air
Management Division. Region V. "Need fora
Short-Term BACT Analysis for the Proposed
William A. Zimmer Power Plant." November
24.1986.
Memorandum from Richard Rhoads.
Director CPDD. to Division Directors. Regions
I-X. "Growth Restrictions in Secondary
NAAQS Nonattainment Areas." October 28.
1980.
Memorandum from R. Strelow to RA's
Region I-X "Guidance for Determining
Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-
Attainment Areas," December 9.1976.
Federal Register Citations
44 FR 20372. April 4.1979.
44 FR 20375. April 4.1979.
44 FR 53732. September 17.1979.
44 FR 53789. September 17.1979.
44 FR 53791. September 17.1979.
45 FR 52678. August 7.1980.
46 FR 7182. January 21.1981.
46 FR 7187. January 22.1381.
51 FR 43812. December 4.1SS6.
51 FR 43311. December 4.19Sa
51 FR 43832. December 4.1986.
52 FR 29383. August 7.1937.
52 FR 45044. November 24.1987.
53 FR 34SOQ. September 7.1983.
54 FR 612. January 9.1989.
55 FR 30973. July 30.19SO.
55 FR 41548. October 12.1990.
55 FR 41SW. October 12.1990.
55 FR 45799. October 31.19SO
56 FR 54SO. February 11.1991.
56 FR 111C1. March 15.1991.
56 FR 16274. April 12,1991.
56 FR 23826. May 24.1991.
56 FR 27257. June 13.1991.
56 FR 27603. June 14.1991.
56 FR 31151. July 9.1991.
• 56 FR 31154. July 19.1991.
56 FR 37654. August 8,1991.
56 FR 43593. September 3.1991-
56 FR 54554. October 22.1991.
56 FR 56694. November 6.1991.
56 FR SE656. November 21.1991- -
-------
18072
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules
Code of Federal Regulations Citations
40CFR50.8.
40 CFR 5O9 Appendix H.
40CFRSO9.
40CFRPart51.
40 CFR Part 51 Appendix M
40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S.
40 CFR 51.100(0).
40CFR51J10(c)(l).
40 CFR 51.117.
40 CFR 51.165.
40CFRS1.166.
40 CFR 51 MO (Subpart R).
40 CFR Part 52.
40 CFR 52.10. '
40 CFR 5^21.
40 CFR 52^4.
40 CFR Part 55.
40 CFR Part 58.
40 CFR Part 60.
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da.
40 CFR Part 81.
Appellate Court Citations
Alabama Paver Company v. Cast!e. 638
F.2d 323. 360-61,404-05 (D.C. Cir. 1980). -
NRDC v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 1224. (D.C. Cir.
1988). Cert denied, 109 S.Ct 219 (1988).
Delaney v. EPA. 898 Fid 687.138 Cong.
Rec. S16971 (October 27.1990).
House of Representatives Reports .
H.R. Rep. No. 4SO, 101st Congress. 2nd
Session. pt 1 at 204. 239.242,257.258. 267.
268. and 381.
Appendix Cl—Available Fugitive Dust
Control Measures
Background
The available control measures listed
below apply to all fugitive dust sources
except those to which only available control
technology is applicable (i.e., process fugitive
dust associated with stationary sources).
Fugitive dust is particulate matter suspended
in the air either by mechanical disturbance of
the surface material or by wind action
blowing across the surface. Mechanical
disturbance includes resuspension of
particles from vehicles traveling over
road-.vays, parking lots, and other open areas.
Wind action includes dust blown off
inadequately stabilized open areas. The
quantity of fugitive dust emissions is
dependent upon several factors such as the
si:e of the source, emission rale, and control
efficiency. The Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) policy is to reduce fugitive
dust emissions, with an emphasis on
preventing, rather than mitigating, them. For
example, past efforts to control emissions
from paved roads have usually relied on
street cleaning to reduce silt loading. The
new approach would put a higher priority on
measures to prevent silt from getting on the
road surface. Mitigative measures should be
reserved for those areas/situations where
prevention is not feasible. Technical guidance
on fugitive dust control measures is found in
Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-
450/3-68-008 September. 1988).
List of Available Control Measures
1. Pave, vegetate, or chemically stabilize
access points where unpaved traffic surfaces
adjoin paved roads.
2. Require dust control plans for
construction or land clearing projects.
3. Require haul trucks
-------
Federal Register /.Vol.. 57. No. 82 /Tuesday.. April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules
18073
guidance. The objective is to establish smoke '
management (SM) programs In these areas
which constitute reasonably available control
measures (RACMJ. and reduce population
exposure to tmoKe from prescribed burning.
while assuring that resource management
goals are met '• : • - •
States should address emissions from
prescribed burning in a manner that balances .
natural resource! agricultural, and other .... '.
burning objectives with air quality goals and _
objectives, by utilizing' a smoke management
program as described in the NWCG*s w ..:• :'.;
Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide
(NFES No. 1279. Tebniary 1985) and the .
Prescribed Fire Plan Guide (NFES No. 1939.
August 1980). publications of the Boise .....
(Idaho) Interagehcy Fire Center. :-. - * , ..-•
The scope of a SM program should reflect
the specific conditions and requirements of a
. local area. Existing programs may be
• adequate in many cases and in other cases
may provide a basis for developing a refined
program.' Smoke management should,.- •• --•
encourage the'cooperative efforts of local
State. Federal and private jand managers. • •
Emphasis should be on conducting burns
under an established planning process.
For the purpose of PM-10 SIP development
the term prescribed burning includes all open
burning of vegetative matter. This includes. ;
both planned ignition and prescribed natural .
Tire. Nothing in a SM program constituting
RACM is intended to influence vegetation
management or flee suppression practices so
as to increase the potential for wildfire to the
point that natural resources or public safety
are compromised.
The EPA believes it is reasonable that a
SM program apply in those moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas where it has been .
• shown, through monitoring, modeling, or
other analysis, that prescribed burning can or
does contribute to violations of the PM-10
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The SM program should also apply
to areas outside of the nonattainment area if
it is shown that prescribed burning outside of
the nonattainment area can or does
contribute to NAAQS violations. The
prescribed burning control measures
reasonably may be limited only to the
season(s) when high ambient PM-10
concentrations occur, if it can be shown'that
the annual PM-10 NAAQS is not violated.
See H.R. Rep. No. 490,101st Cong, 2d Sess.
288-269 (1990).
Source categories (e.g.. burning of
fenceiines. ditch banks, small brush piles.
small prescribed natural burns, garden plots)
may not be reasonably controlled where their
impact is de minimis based on consideration
of their collective influence on PM-10
emissions, their duration, season, and
proximity to potentially affected populations.'
An SM program should consist of at least
the following components:
Smoke Dispersion Evaluation
As a minimum, the program should use
National Weather Service forecasts or other
meteorological analyses to determine when
meteorological conditions are favorable or
unfavorable for dispersion and transport of
smoke (i.e.. "burn days." "no burn days").
Burn Planning, Authorization, and
Administration •-••'••.
The. smoke management program should
provide a process (e^, telephone call-in) for
receiving bum requests, evaluating requests
and granting approval for bums. Approval of
a bum should be based on an evaluation of
the airshed's capacity/capability to disperse
emissions on allowable bum days so that the
•cumulative emissions'from all bums and ..
other sources in the airshed will hot cause or
contribute to violations of the PM-10 .^
NAAQS. The approval to. bum on a bum day
should be equitably divided among all'. ,,-. -'
categories'of burners requesting approval to •
bum while accommodating the "incentives" ..
specified elsewhere in this policy. • - '
Requirements for Ensuring Burner '•- -•'•' '•- ••
Qualifications '- "•"•.•-.-*• . ' ••.'•""
Voluntary training in. smoke management
techniques should be reasonably available
for all burners.' The program should include
incentives for burners who complete the
voluntary training (e.g., priority for approval
to bum on "bum days")." .'.'..
Public Education and Awareness '• •
Information programs on the nature of and
reasons for smoke management should be
periodically presented to the public (e.g..
public service announcements, newspaper .' ~
articles). ' ' - - ' •
Surveillance and Enforcement .
The SM program should rely on routine
PM-10 monitoring, and/or modeling
supplemented by periodic visual assessments
of the effectiveness of the dispersion
evaluation program. The existing PM-10
monitoring network should be evaluated for
its ability to provide information on the
effectiveness of the SM program as applied to
burning conducted in and near the
nonattainment area. The network should be
modified as appropriate. The program should
also provide a process for documenting and
following up on public complaints and should
provide for and levy fines against burners
who violate any of its mandatory
requirements.
Emission Inventories and Emission Efforts
States should develop and maintain an
emission inventory for prescribed burning
and ail bums should be categorized as to
their, purpose. Documentation of the size.
date, purpose, and emission reduction
measures used should be submitted following
each large burn. Emission reduction
techniques (e.g.. mass ignition, rapid mop-up)
should be encouraged and incentives (e.g..
priority for approval to burn on "bum days")
should be offered for demonstrated emission
reduction efforts, including the use of •
alternatives to burning, provided that such
incentives can be utilized without
compromising resource management
objectives.
State Oversight
The relationship of the State air pollution
agency with other State agencies to which
management of the SM program may have
been delegated will need to be determined on
. a State-by-State basis. Nevertheless. State
rules and regulations should be'enacted in
such a manner that all provisions of the SM
program are enforceable by the State through
its State implementation plan. Generally. '
memorandum* of understanding should be
utilized to deariy specify working
relationships among agencies. • . .
Appendix C4—RACT Determinations for
Stationary Sources •.-.?
..-..... . . . .-
Congress has for the second time in
amending the Clean Air Act (Act) specifically
• required that reasonable available control
technology (RACT) be applied to existing '
stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In
section 172(b)(3) of the Act as amended in -
1977. Congress specified that nonattainment
area plans were to'^require. * * *. • "
'reasonable further progress *•* -'.including
such reduction in emissions from existing
sources In the area as may be obtained
through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology."
Thus. RACT was required in SIFs developed
for areas that were designated nonattainment
for total suspended particulate matter. Now,
in section 172(c)(i) of the Clean Air Act as
amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (Nonattainment Plan Provisions—In
General}. Congress again requires that •
nonattainment area plans provide for "* * '
such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the (nonattainment) area as may
• be obtained through the adoption, at a •
minimum, of reasonably available control
technology." Thus. RACT is now required for
PM-10 nonattainment area SIFs. '
The EPA recommends that the RACT for a
particular source continues to be determined
on a case-by-case basis considering the
technological and economic feasibility of
reducing emissions from that source (through
process changes or add-on control
technology). The following technological and
economic parameters should be considered in
determining RACT for a particular source.
Technological Feasibility
The technological feasibility of applying an
emission reduction method to a particular
source should consider the source's process
and operating procedures, raw materials.
physical plant layout, and any other
environmental impacts such as water
pollution, waste disposal, and energy
requirements. The process, operating
procedures, and raw materials used by a
source can affect the feasibility of
implementing process changes that reduce
emissions and the selection of add-on
' emission control equipment. The operation of
and longevity of control equipment can be
significantly influenced by the raw materials
used and the process to which it is applied.
The feasibility of modifying processes or
applying control equipment is also influenced
by the physical layout of the particular plant.
The space available in which to implement
such changes may limit the choices and will
also affect the costs of control. .
Reducing air emissions may not justify
adversely affecting other resources by
increasing pollution of bodies of water.
creating additional solid waste disposal
-------
1S074
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules
problems or creating excessive energy
demands. (An otherwise available PM-10
control technology may not be reasonable if
these other environmental Impacts cannot
reasonably be mitigated) For analytic
purposes, a State may consider a PM-10
control measure technologically infeasible If.
considering the availability (and cost) of
miligative advene impacts of that control on
other pollution media, the control would not,
in the Slate'.* reasoned judgment provide a
ne; environmental benefit. In many Instances,
however. PM-10 control technologies have
known energy penalties and adverse effects
on other media, but such effects and the cost
of their mitigation are also known and have ~
been borne by owners of existing sources in
numerous cases. Such well-established
adverse effects and their costs are normal
and assumed to be reasonable and should
not. in sr.ost cases, justify nonuse of the PM-
10 control technology. The costs of preventing
adverse water, solid waste and energy
impacts will also influence the economic
feasibility of the PM-10 control technology.
Alternative approaches to reducing
emissions of particulate matter including PM-
10 are discussed in Control Techniques for
Paniculate Emissions from Stationary
Sources—Volume 1 (EPA-»50/3-01-005a) and
Volume II (EPA-«0/3-ei-005b), September
1962. The design, operation and maintenance
of general particulate matter control systems
such as mechanical collectors, electrostatic
prscipitators. fabric filters, and wet scrubbers
are discussed in Volume 1. The collection
efficiency of each system is discussed as a
function of particle size. Information is also
presented regarding energy and
environmental considerations and procedures
for estimating costs of particulate mailer
control equipment. The emission
characteristics and control technologies
applicable to specific source categories are
discussed in Volume IL Secondary
environmental impacts are also discussed.
Additional sources of information on
control technology are background
ir.forrnatiori documents for new source
performance standards and Identification.
Assessment, and Control of Fugitive
Particula',3 Emissions, EPA-eoO/8-30-Cr3,
August 1S38.
In sorr.a instances, control technologies
more modem or mere advanced than those
described in the documents referenced may
exist. Irs such cases, the S.-jte's RACT
analysis for a source should consider such
available technology.
Economic Feasibility
Economic feasibility considers the cost of
reducing emissions and the difference in
costs between the particular source and other
similar sources that have implemented
emission reduction. As discussed above. EPA
presumes that it is reasonable for similar
sources to bear similar costs of emission
reductions. Economic feasibility rests very
little on the ability of a particular source !o
"afford" to reduce emissions to the level of
similar sources. Less elficient sources would
be rewarded by having to bear lower
emission reduction costs if aJTordability were
given high consideration. Rather, economic
feasibility for RACT purposes is largely
determined by evidence that other sources in
a source category have in fact applied the
control technology in question.
The capita! costs, annualized costs, and
cost effectiveness of an emission reduction •
technology should be considered in
determining its economic feasibility. The
OAOPS Control Cost Manual. Fourth Edition.
EPA-450/^-€0-008. January 1990, describes
procedures for determining these costs. The
above costs should be determined for all
technologically feasible emission reduction
options.
States may give substantial weight to cost •
effectiveness in evaluating the economic
feasibility of an emission reduction
technology. The cost effectiveness of a
technology is its annualized cost (S/year)
divided by die amount of PM-10 emission
reduction (i.e.. tons/year) which yields a cost
per amount of emission reduction (S/tonJ.
Cost effectiveness provides a value for each
emission reduction option that is comparable
with other options and other facilities.
if a company contends that it cannot afford
the technology that appears to be RACT for
that source or group of sources, the claim
should be supported with such information as
the Impact on:
1. Fixed and variable production costs (Si
unit],
2. Product supply and demand elasticity, "
3. Product prices (cost absorption vi. cos:
pass-through).
4. Expected costs Incurred by competitors.
5. Company profits, and
6. Employment
If a company contends that available
control technology is not affordable and
would lead to closing the facility, the costs of
closure should be considered. Closure may
Incur costs for demolition, relocation.
severance pay. etc.
Appendix D
United States Environments! Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quaiiiy Planning and
Standards, Research Triangla Park. North
Carolina 27711.
March 11,1991.
Memorandum
Subject: New Source Review ISSR) Program
Transitional Guidance.
From: John S- Seitz. Director. Office of Air
Q-jaiity Planning and Standards |MD-
10).
To: Addressees.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(1990 Amendments) make numerous changes
to the NSR requirements of the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and
nonatlainment area programs. The 1990
Amendments create new and expanded
nonattainment areas, extend PSD coverage to
current Class I area boundaries, and mandate
a PSD exemption for certain hazardous air
pol'.utanls. The Environment Protection
Agency (EPA) intends to propose by
September of this year a regulatory package
that will implement these and other changes
to the NSR provisions. Final adoption of
these revised regulations is projected fcr
August 1992. In the interim period between
passage of the 1990 Amendments and
adoption of the Agency's final regulations.
EPA expects that numerous issues regarding
the 1990 Amendments will arise. This
memorandum sets forth the Agency's positi<
on the most important of these transitional
issues involving the NSR program.
This guidance document does not
supersede existing State regulations or
approved State implementation plans.
However, in some cases, it calls upon States
to implement their NSR programs in a manner
consistent with provisions of the 1990
Amendments that are applicable immediately
and with the requirements that Row directly
from these provisions. Nonetheless, the
policies set out In this transition
memorandum are intended solely as guidance
and do not represent final Agency action.
They are not ripe for judicial review for this
reason. Moreover, they are not intended, r.or
can they be relied upon, to create ar.y rig's '-i
enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United Slates. The EPA officials may
decide to follow the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the
guidance, based on an analysts of specific
circumstances. The Agency also day chcr.se
this guidance at any time without public
notice.
The Regional Offices should send this
guidance document to their States. Questions
from States and applicants concerning
specific issues and cases should be directed
to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. If
you have any general questions, please
contact Mr. Michael S«w«U o!' the New
Source Review Section at FTSi K9-C373 or
(919) 541-0873.
Attachment
Addressees
Director. Air. Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, Regions L IV, ar.d
VI
Director, Air and Waste Man;vgement
Division. Region II
Director. Air Management Division. Regior.i
III and IX
Director, Air ar.d Radiation Division. Re-^on
V
Director. Air and Tcxic3 Division. Regions
Vll. VIIL and X
). Calcagni
R. Campbell
W. Laxtcn
E. Uliis
|. Rasnic
L Wegman
). Wei-old
NSR Contacts
Corrections to Original Document: Two
errors in the document as issued cs March :i.
1991 have been corrected in this copy. On
pase 2 on '.he last line, "CFC 112" is changed
to correctly read "CFC 113". On page 3 :n
item 4. the cite "Section 172(1-)" is changed :o
corrac'.ly read "Section 173(b|".
New Source Review (NSR) Transitional
Guidance
Toxics and national Emissions Siar.dcrds _
Hazardous Air Pollutants INESH.1PS} Issues
1. Section 112 Hazardous Air Pnll'jtsr.'.s sr-;
No Longer Considered Regulii'ed Pollutants
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules
18075
Under Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), but NESHAPS Still Apply.
Under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act (Act) and regulations issued
thereunder, the PSD requirements of the Act
apply to all "major" new sources and "major"
'modifications, i-e, those exceeding certain
annual tonnage thresholds (see 40 CFR
SZ21(b)(l)(i) and (b)(2)(i)J. Typically, new
sources and modifications become subject to
PSD because they exceed the specified
tonnage threshold for • criteria pollutant i.e..
a pollutant for which a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) has been
established under section 109 of the Act
Once a new source or modification is subject
to PSD. the PSD requirements apply to every
pollutant subject to regulation under the Act
that is emitted in "significant" quantities (or.
in the case of a major modification, for which
there is a significant net emissions increase)
(see 40 CFR 5i21(b)(23) and (i)(2)J. Under the
1977 Amendments, best available control
technology (BACT) and other PSD
requirements apply not only to emissions of
criteria pollutants but also to emissions of
pollutants regulated under other provisions of
the Act. such as section 111 or 112. This
regulatory structure was altered by the 1990
Amendments.
Title III of the 1990 Amendments added a
new section 112(b)(6) that excludes the
hazardous air pollutants listed in section
112(b)(l) of the revised Act (as well as any
pollutants that may be added to the list) from
the PSD (and other) requirements of Part C.
Thus, because they are on the initial Title II!
hazardous air pollutants list, the following
pollutants, which had been regulated under
PSD because they were covered by the
section 112 NESHAFS or section 111 new
source performance standards (NSPS)
program, are now exempt from Federal PSD
applicability:
• Arsenic
• Asbestos
• Benzene (Including benzene from gasoline)
• Beryllium
• Hydrogen sulfide (H:S)
• Mercury
• Radionuclides (including radon and
polonium)
• Vinyl chloride
The Title 111 exemption applies to final
Federal PSD permits (i.e.. those issued in fin-al
form and for which administrative appeals, if
any. under 40 CFR 124.19 have been
exhausted) issued on or after 'he date of
enactment of the 1S90 Amendments
(November IS, 1990). For Federal PSD permit
applications now under review by either an
EPA Regional Office or a delegated State.
PSD permit requirements do not apply to the
pollutants exempted by Title III. For Federal
PSD permits containing PSD requirements for
the pollutants exempted by Title III issued on
or after November 15.1990. the permittee
may request a revision (e.g., removal of a
BACT limit for benzene) to their PSD permit
to reflect the Title III exemption from Federal
.PSD applicability.
Note that pursuant to section 116 and the
preservation clause in section 112{d)(7) of the
amended Act. States with an approved PSD
program may continue to regulate the Title 111
hazardous air pollutants now exempted from
Federal PSD by section 112(b)(6) if the Slate
PSD regulations provide an independent
basis to do so. These State rules would
remain in effect unless a State revised them
to provide-similar exemptions. Additionally.
the Title III pollutants continue to be subject
to any other applicable State and Federal
rules: the exclusion is only for Part C rules.
Finally, section 112(q) retains existing
NESHAPS regulations by specifying that any
standard under section 112 in effect prior to •
the date of enactment of the 1990
Amendments shall remain in force and effect
after such date unless modified as provided
in the amended section. Therefore, the
requirements of 40 CFR 61.05 to 61.08.
including preconstruction permitting
requirements, for new and modified sources
subject to existing NESHAPS regulations are
still applicable.
In summary ..the pollutants currently
regulated under the Act as of March 1991 that
are still subject to Federal PSD review and
permitting requirements are:
* Carbon monoxide
• Nitrogen oxides
• Sulfur dioxide
• Paniculate matter and PH-10
• Ozone (volatile organic compounds)
• Lead (elemental)
• Fluorides
• Sulfuric acid mist
• Total reduced sulfur compounds (including
H,S)
• CFCs 11.12.113.114.115
« Halons 1211.1301. 2402
• Municipal waste combustor (M\VC) acid
gases. MWC metals and MWC organics
2. Hazardous Air Pollutants that are
Regulated as One Component of a More
General Pollutant Under Other Provisions of
the Clean Air Act are Still Regulated.
Any hazardous air pollutants hsted in
section H2(b)(l) which are regulated as
constituents of a more general pollutant listed
under section 108 of the Act are s;ii! subject
to PSD as part of the more general pollutant.
despite the exemption in Title III. For
example, volatile organic compounds (VOC's)
(a term which includes benzene, vinyl
chloride, methanol. toluene, methyl eihvI
ketonc. arid thousands of other compounds)
are stil! regulated as VOCs (but not as
individual pollutants such as benzene, etc.)
under the PSD regulations because these
pollutants are ozone precursors, not because
they are air toxics. Also, panicuiates
(iacluding lead compounds and asbestos) are
still regulated as particulates (bc'.h PM-10
and paniculate matter) under the PSD
regulations. Lead compounds are exempt
from Federal PSD by Title 111. but the
elemental lead portion of lead compounds (as
tested for in 40 CFR part 60. appendix A.
Method 12) is still considered a criteria
pollutant subject to the lead NAAQS and still
regulated under PSD.
3. Toxic Effect of Unregulated Pollutants
Still Considered in BACT Analysis.
Based on the remand decision on June 3.
1986 by the EPA Administrator in .VortA
County Resource Recovery Associates (PSD
Appeal No. 85-2). the impact on emissions of
other pollutants, including unregulated
pollutants, must be taken into account in
determining BACT for a regulated pollutant.
When evaluating control technologies and
their associated emissions limits, combustion
practices, and related permit terms and
conditions in a BACT proposal the applicant
must consider Ike environmental impacts of
all pollutants not regulated by PSD. Once a
project is subject to BACT due to the
emission of nonexempted pollutants, the
BACT analysis should therefore consider all
pollutants, including Title III hazardous air
pollutants previously subject to PSD. in
determining which control strategy is best.
PSD Class I Boundary Issues
1. PSD Applicability Coverage Changes as
Class I Area Boundaries Change
Sections 162(a) and I64(a) of the amended
Act specify that the boundaries of areas
designated as Class I must now conform to
all boundary changes at such parks and
wilderness areas made since August 7.1977
and any changes that may occur in the future.
The EPA does not believe that Congress
intended to create the turmoil which would
occur if this redesignation required the
modification of permits issued between
August 7.1977 and November 15.1990. or the
resubmission and revaluation of complete
permit applications submitted prior to
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Thus, for
this reason, applications considered complete
prior to November 15.1990 should be
processed as submitted without regard to the
new Class 1 area boundaries. Exceptions to
this general policy are in the area of
increment consumption and air quality
related values (including visibility), as
discussed below.
For an applicant who submitted a complete
PSD application prior to November 15.1990. if
all other PSD requirements are met. a permit
may be issued based on the Class I analysis
as submitted in the application, unless the
reviewing authority finds, on a case-by-case
basis, that additional analysis is needed frcrrt
the applicant to address suspected adverse
impacts or increment consumption problems
due to the expanded boundaries of the Class
I areas. Any existing increment violations in
the new boundaries of Class I areas must be
remedied throuah a SIP revision pursuant to
40 CFR 51.166(a)(3).
The PSD applications no! consicersd
complete before November 15.19SO rr.-si
consider the impact of both existing sources
and the new or modified source or. :.-.e Class i
areas as defined by the 1990 Amend—ents.
Thus, the complete application must consider
the impacts on the entire Class I area based
upon the boundaries in existence of '.he date
of submittal of a complete application: as
before, if a Class 1 boundary changes before
the permit is issued, the reviewing authority
may find, on a case-by-case basis, that
additional analysis is needed from the
applicant to address suspected adverse
impacts or increment consumption problems
due to expanded Class I Area boundaries.
i\SR Nor.attainment Issues
1. NSR Construction Permit Require.~e.its in
Nonattainmenl Areas
In many States, the existing approved Part
D permit program by its terms covers all
designate-d r.onattainment areas in the State.
-------
18076 Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 82-/ Tuesday. April 28. 1S92 J Proposed Rules -
so a Part D permit program will automatically
apply to the new and expanded
nonattainraent areas which are established
under provisions of Title I of the 1990
Amendments. Thus, until new rules are
adopted for these new or expanded
nonattainment areas. States should apply the '
requirements of their existing approved Part
D permit program. However, in other States.
a Part D program may be limited to specified
areas and does not apply to new or expanded .
areas. In these cases. States must implement
a transitional permitting program until their
existing Part D programs are revised to meet .
the requirements of the 1S90 Amendments ' •
end expanded lo cover all nonattainment.
areas in the State. Otherwise, both the goals
of part O 'and Congress' intent in creating " .
new or expanded-nonaltainment areas will
be frustrated:" ••• - - • • .
The EPA regulations already provide for
these new or expanded designated
nonattainment areas because the Emission
Offset Interpretations Ruling (40 CFR part 51.
appendix S) governs permits to construct
between the date of designation and the date
an approved Part D plan is made applicable
to the new nonattainment area (see 40 CFR
52J4(k)J. Until a State's new Part 0 plan is
approved by EPA. if a State wishes to issue a
permit for a major stationary source or major
modification in a new or expanded
designated nonattainment area, the State . •'
should comply with the requirements of
appendix S. Among other things, appendix S
requires a major source seeking to locate In a
nonattainment area to (1) meet the lowest
achievable emission rate for such source, (2)
provide offsets from existing sources in the
area', and [S) show that the offsets will
.' provide a positive net air quality benefit (see
40 CFR part 51. appendix S. section IV-A).
. The EPA believes that in order to carry out
the intent of appendix S. offsets should be
required for sources in all categories and in
all Instances should be calculated on a tons
per year basis (see 40 CFR part 51, appendix
S. section IV.C).
Of course, neither appendix S nor the
existing NSR rules incorporate the NSR
changes mandated by TVJe 1 of the 1990
Amendments such as lower source .
applicability thresholds, increased emissions
offset ratios, new definition of major
stationary source, and (for ozone
no.-.3t(ainment areas) requirements for
nitrogen oxides (NOx) control and NOx
emissions offsets. However, the 1990
Amendments require Slates to submit to EPA
new NSR permit program rules for ozone
nonattainment areas by November 15.1992;
for PM-10 nonattainment areas by June 30.
1992; and for most carbon monoxide (CO)
nonattainment areas no later than 3 years
from the date of the nonattainment
designation. The EPA interprets this as an
expression of congressional intent not to
'mandate that States adhere to the more
stringent Title I NSR requirements in
nonattainment areas during the time provided
for State implementation plan (SIP)
development Thus, for NSR permitting
purposes in nonattainment areas, the new
NSR requirements in Title I are not in effect
until the States, as required by the Act. adopt
NSR permit program rules Jo implement the
Title I provisions. In addition. EPA
encourages any Slate having adequate
authority for early implementation of the NSR
changes to do so as soon as possible.
If States fail to submit to EPA the new NSR
permit program rule* for nonattainment areas
by the deadlines in the amended Act EPA
intends to impose in these nonattainment
areas a Federal implementation plan (FTP)
embodying such requirements. Currently. :
EPA intends to propose revised NSR
regulations at 40 CFR part 52 that would
Implement the new Title I NSR requirements
under .a FIP in a State if that State's revised .
NSR rules to Implement Title 1 are not
submitted in approvable form to EPA and • *
made effective within the State by the •
'deadlines established by the 1990 •'•_•"•' "
Amendments.- ••-"•.••• •"' - -•
The area designation in effect on the date
of permit issuance by the reviewing agency'-
determines which regulations (Part C or Part
D) apply to'that'permit In other words, the
PSD permit regulations apply to pollutants for
which the area is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable, and the NSR nonattainment
permit regulations apply to pollutants for
which the area is designated nonattainraent "
(see 40 CFR 51J68(i) (3) and (5): and 40 CFR
S2_2l(i) (3) and (5)]. Under these regulations, a
PSD permit for a pollutant cannot be issued
in an area that is designated nonattainment
for that pollutant For the situation where a
source receives a PSD or other permit prior to -
the date the area is designated as
ncnattainment the permit remains in effect
as long as the source commences
construction within 18 months after the date
of nonattainment designation of the area.
does not discontinue construction for more
than 18 months, and completes construction
within a reasonable time (see 40 CFR 52-24 (g)
and (k)J. Although the PSD regulations
provide for extension of these deadlines, no
extension would be appropriate where the
area has been designated as nonattainment
following perrp.it issuance. Accordingly, if any
of these construction provisions are no! met,
the PSD permit or other permit will noJ be
extended, and the source (If subject to the
nonaHainment provisions) must obtain a
r.or.attainment permit prior to ccnur.er.cing
(or continuing) construction.
The 1990 Amendments create seme new
and expanded nonattainmer.t areas by
operation of law. Other nonattainment area
changes are expected as the States and EPA
complete the designation process prescribed
in amended section 107(c). Because of these
provisions, the dates areas switch from
attainment to nonattainment for NSR
purposes vary by pollutant However, except
for the two instances where the Amendments
create changes by operation of law. the new
designations and expanded boundaries will
not be effective for NSR purposes until EPA
promulgates the changes. The promulgations
will be announced in the Federal Register.
Congress created new PM-10
nonattainment areas through designations
that became effective upon enactment of the
1990 Amendments on November 15,1990 (see
section l07(d)(4)(B)). Specifically, Congress
designated Group I areas and areas where
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS had
occurred prior to January 1.1989 as
nonattainment The EPA published a list of
these PM-10 areas in a Federal Register
notice (see 55 FR 45799. October 31.1990: s*
also 52 FR 29383, August 7.1987). The EPA
plans to publish a notice in the Federal
Register listing these areas as nonattainmeni
in the near future, but they are already
.considered nonattainment areas as of
November 15.1990... .......
Similarly, the 1990 Amendments expand by
operation of tow some CO and ozooe ..
nonattainmeni areas. However, these •
changes did not become effective with
passage but rather on December 30,1990. The
specifics are as follows: ,>.--..,
Section io7(dK4KAKiv) of the amended
Act provides that with the exception
explained below ozone and CO -
nonattainment areas located within
metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) and
.consolidated metropolitan statistical areas
(CMSA) which are classified as serious.
- severe, or extreme for ozone or as serious
for CO are automaticalryexpanded to
include the entire MSA or CMSA. This '
• expansion became effective by operation of
law 45 days after enactment unless the
Governor submitted a notice by this
deadline of the State's intent to seek a
.modification of the expanded boundaries
pursuant to the procedures set forth in
section 107(d)(4)(A)(v). So if a State did not
provide this notice, the nonattainment
boundaries of all serious, severe, and
extreme ozone nonattainment areas in the
State and all serious CO areas b she Slat
expanded to include the entire MSA cr
CMSA on December 30,1990. If a State di
provide timely notice, the Administrator
has up to 14 months from eiiactnaat to
resolve the Slate's challenge. Until EPA
promulgates a resolution oi the State's
challenge, the old boundaries recain in
effect.
Except for these two cases where sew or
expanded boundaries have been created by
operation of law, nonattainment area
changes will not be considered effective tin;U
the changes are promulgated by (he EPA. As
to most new areas or expansions of
previously-designated nonattainmer.t areas.
this will occur 240 days after enactment (see
section 107(d){4)(A) (i) and (ii)). Newly-
created ozone and CO ncnatlaincer.t are.= 5
will be considered part of a designated
nonattainment area for NSR purposes at th*
time of promulgation.
2. Status of Construction Ban.!
Pursuant to section 110(n)(::). an existing
construction ban that was imposed due tc the
absence of approved Part D NSR rules
remains in effect until a revised NSR SIP i;
approved. Existing construction bans
imposed due to disapproval el primary sulfur
dioxide NAAQS attainment plans also
remain in effect A Federal Register notice
will be published soon announcing the status
of construction bans in general and also
lifting specific bans where appropriate.
Should a construction ban be lifted in any'
area designated as nonattainment arid the
area lacks an approved Part D NSR rule, the
State should meet the requirements of 40 CFS
part 51. appendix S. in issuing permits to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 82 / Tuesday. April 28. 1992 / Proposed Rules 18077
major new sources or major modifications
prior to the adoption of NSR rules meeting
the requirements of the 1990 Amendments.
3. Federal Implementation Plans Remain in
Effect
The NSR permitting program in an existing
F1P remains in effect until a SIP is approved
or a revised FIP is adopted.
s
4. Use of Previously-Approved Growth
Allowances Is Prohibited
Section 173(bj invalidates growth
allowances in existing SIFs in areas that
received a SIP call prior to enactment of the
1990 Amendments, or that receive one
thereafter. For NSR permits issued on or after
November IS, 1990. previously-approved
growth allowances cannot be used in these
areas. Construction permits cannot be issued
in SIP-call areas under existing EPA-
approved Part D programs to the extent that
such permits rely on previously-approved
growth allowances. Case-by-case emission
offsets must be obtained for any such
permits, and other existing Part D
requirements must be met.
S. Existing NSR Permitting Rules Continue To
Apply in the Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (NOTR)
The 1990 Amendments establish a single
ozone transport region comprised of the
Slates of Connecticut. Delaware, Maine.
Maryland. Massachusetts. New Hampshire.
New Jersey. New York. Pennsylvania. Rhode
Island. Vermont, and the CMSA that includes
the District of Columbia and part of the State
of Virginia. For this transport region.
including all attainment areas within its
boundaries, new section 164(b)(2) specifies
that any stationery source that emits or has
the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year
of VOCs shall be considered a major
stationary source and subject to the
requirements which would be applicable to
major stationary sources if the area were
classified as a moderate ozone
nonatiainment area. For NSR purposes, the
requirements of section 134{b)(2) are not in
effect in a State until the State submits a new
or revised SIP that includes the requirements
(or EPA Imposes a FIP implementing those
requirements). A State in the NOTR has until
November 15.1992 to submit to EPA the new
or revised NSR rules addressing (he new
requirements.
Appendix E
1.In'.reduction
The EPA is issuing this CTC document
under section 182(fa) of the Clean Air Act. as
amended. Under section 182(b). States must
develop RACT rules for sources "covered by
a CTC document issued by the Administrator
between November 15.1S90 and the date of
attainment" The State must submit these
RACT rules "within the period set forth by
the Administrator in issuing the relevant CTC
document." One type of "CTG document" is a
CTG: a CTG is a technical document that sets
forth a presumptive level of RACT controls
for a source category. The Act provides that
EPA must issue eleven CTG's by November
15.1993. In addition, the Act specifically
requires the Agency to prepare CTG's for
aerospace coatings and ship building and
repair within the same timeframe.
This document is not a technical CTG. but
rather a second type of CTG document—a
document that lists the eleven CTG's EPA
anticipates publishing in accordance with
section I83(a) and establishes lime tables for
submittal of RACT rales for sources that are
not ultimately covered by a CTG issued by
November 15.1993. The EPA believes that it
is necessary to issue this document at this
time so that States will be able to determine
which sources and source categories fit
within the RACT rule submittal requirement
for sources that EPA expects to be covered
by a post-enactment CTC.
If. List of Eleven CTC's
The EPA plans to issue the following CTC's
in accordance with section 183(a).
1. Synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillation:
2. SOCMI reactors;
3. Wood furniture:
4. Plastic parts coating (business machines):
5. Plastic parts coating (other):
6. Offset lithography:
7. Industrial wastewaten
8. Autobody refinishing:
9. SOCMI batch processing:
10. Volatile organic liquid storage
and
11. Clean up solvents.
///. Authority
Under section 182(b}(2). Stales tr.ust adopt
RACT rules for three general groups of
sources: (A) Those covered by a pcst-
enactT.er.t CTG document: (b) those covered
by a pre-enactment CTG: {c) "all other major
stationary sources of VOC's." Section
132(b)(2) also establishes the timing for State
submittai and source implementation of
RACT rules for these three groups. For
sources covered by a post-enactment CTG
document the Stale must subtr.it RACT rules
within the period established in the relevant
CTC document For the other two groups, the
Ac! provides specific dales for submittal,
November 15. JS92. and implementation, no
later than May 31.1995.
Alone, subparagraphs (A). (S) and (C) seem
to se! forth three distinct groups of sources.
However, the submittal dates under the
second portion of the provision potentially
could blur the line between these three
groups if EPA does not issue before
November 15.1992. a CTC document
covering all sources for which il plans to
issue a CTG under section 183(a). At that
time. States would need to submit RACT
rules for all other major stationary sources—
those for which neither a pre-enact-nent CTC
nor a post-enactment CTG document had
been issued.
The EPA's obligation to issue the eleven
CTG's does not ripen until Noveaber 15.
1993. and EPA does not anticipate issuing all
of these CTG's before November IS, 1992.
Therefore, to the extent EPA does cot issue a
CTG document before November IS. 1992.
States would be required to submit non-CTG
RACT rules for sources that could in the
future be covered by a CTG. In addition, at
the time the CTG document was issued, the
State could then be required to submit a new
rule, consistent with the CTG document
thereby duplicating its earlier effort
In order to relieve the Slates from being
required to duplicate rules and to relieve
sources from potentially being subject to two
different requirements within a short period.
EPA is issuing this CTG document to retain
the sharp distinction between the three
different groups in subparagraphs (A). (B).
and (C). If a State believes that one of the
eleven CTC's listed in Section II will cover a
particular major source, the State should
follow the timing provisions of Section IV.
below for submittal of a rule applicable to
that source. The Slate should identify those
sources in its November 15,1992 RACT
submittal.
IV. Time Table
The EPA is establishing the following
general time table for States to submit RACT
rules for sources that it identifies in a
November 15.1992 submittal as being a
source covered by a post-enactment CTG
document.
(1) on November 15.1992, the Slate must
submit a list of major stationary sources that
it anticipates will be subject to or.e of the
CTC's listed in Section II. which E?A plans to
issue by November 15,1993.
(2) For those najor sources on the list
submitted by the State in the :992 subiruiial
that are not covered by a CTG that EPA has
issued by November 15.1993. the Stale must
submit a RACT rule by November 35.1994
that requires implementation of RACT by
May 15,199S.
(3) For sources covered by a CTC issued
under section 183(a) and for which the State
has not by the date of such issuance.
adopted an apprcvabie RACT rale, the State
must submit a RACT rule in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in the relevant
CTG.
(4) For sources subject to a RACT rule thai
the State adopted and EPA approved under
section 182(bj(2) prior to EPA's issuance of en
applicable CTC. EPA will work with the
State to determine whether the existing rule
should be revised once a CTC has been
issued that would apply to that source.
[FR Doc. 92-9366 Filed 4-27-92: 8:45 as]
BIUUNC CODE 65SO-SC-U
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
JUL 91992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Processing of State Implementation Elan/(SIP)
Submittals / •' / /
FROM: John Calcagni, Director •'- v£*"""
Air Quality Management Division,
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics '
Management Division," Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides guidance concerning the processing
of SIP submittals. In general, there are three situations that
can occur related to each required submittal: the State may fail
to submit the required plan, the State nay make a submittal that
is not complete, or the State may make a complete submittal.
Once a State submits a SIP and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has determined that the submittal is complete, EPA
must either approve or disapprove the submittal within a
specified time period. However, if the State fails to make a
required submittal or makes a submittal that is determined to be
incomplete, the sanctions and Federal implementation plan (FIP)
provisions of sections 179 and 110(c), respectively, will be
triggered. In addition, disapproval of a submittal also triggers
the sanctions and FIP provisions. These provisions are discussed
in further detail in this memorandum.
There are, however, three alternatives to full approval or
full disapproval of a complete SIP submittal: partial approval,
limited approval, and conditional approval. Each of these is
discussed in more detail below along with some guidance as to
when each might be used. In addition, Attachment 1 to this
-------
memorandum contains several examples of how these may be used.
Attachment 2 to this memorandum is a table that summarizes the
requirements discussed below.
partial Approval/Disapproval
Section 110(k)(3) of the amended Clean Air Act (Act)
addresses the situation in which an entire submittal, or a
separable portion of a subraittal, meets all applicable
requirements of the Act. Where the entire submittal meets all
the requirements of the Act, EPA will fully approve the entire
submittal. In the case where a separable portion of the
submittal meets all of the applicable requirements, partial
approval may be used to approve that part of the submittal and
disapprove the remainder. It is important that the two parts of
the submittal be separable. By separable, EPA means that the
action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved
rule(s) being more stringent than the State anticipated. See
gethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuchf 742 F. 2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984);
Indiana and Michigan Elec. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 733 F. 2d 489 (7th
Cir. 1984). For example, EPA cannot approve part of a submittal
that specifies control measures and disapprove the part that
specifies the test methods associated with those control
measures. The EPA has frequently taken a partial approval
approach in the past to process groups of rules that are
submitted together. The EPA can approve some of the rules and
disapprove the rest as long as the rules that are disapproved do
not affect those that are approved. The disapproval of any part
•'of a required SIP submittal starts the clocks discussed above for
sanctions and FIP's.
Limited Approval/Disapproval
In some cases, a submittal may contain certain provisions
'that meet the applicable requirements of the Act along with ether
provisions that do not meet the requirements, and the provisions
are not separable. Although the submittal may not meet all of
the applicable requirements, EPA may want to consider whether the
submittal as a whole has a strengthening effect on the SIP. If
that is the case, limited approval may be used to approve a rule
that strengthens the existing SIP as representing an improvement
over what is currently in the SIP and as meeting some of the
applicable requirements of the Act.
The Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals.
Rather, EPA is using its "gap-filling" authority under section
301(a) of the Act in conjunction with the section 110(k)(3)
approval provision to interpret the Act to provide for this type
of approval action.
-------
Through a limited approval, EPA would concurrently, or
within a reasonable time thereafter, disapprove the rule, under
the relevant provision(s) of Part D, for not meeting all of the
applicable requirements of the Act. As with the limited approval
action the limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is
subject to notice and comment. Under section 110(k), EPA must
take final rulemaking action on SIP submittals within 12 months
of the date EPA determines the submittal is complete-or the
submittal is automatically deemed to be complete if EPA fails to
make a completeness determination. As a general matter, although
the statute directs EPA to act within that timeframe, EPA's
failure to finalize the disapproval portion of the action within
that 12-month timeframe will not affect the validity of any prior
or subsequent limited approval or limited disapproval.1 The
EPA's failure to take action prior to the expiration of the 12-
month period could, however, subject EPA to a lawsuit to compel
such an action.
A key distinction between the limited approval and a partial
approval is that under a limited approval EPA's approval action
goes to the entire rule. In other words, although portions of a
rule prevent EPA from finding that the rule meets a certain
requirement of the Act, EPA believes that the rule,-/ as a whole,
strengthens the SIP. Therefore, EPA approves the entire rule—
even those portions that prohibit full approval. Likewise, when
EPA issues the limited disapproval, the disapproval-applies to
the entire rule as failing to meet a specific requirement of the
Act. The rule remains a part of the SIP, however, under the
limited disapproval, because the rule strengthens the SIP. The
disapproval only applies to whether the submittal meets a
specific requirement of the Act and does not affect incorporation
of the rule into the approved, federally enforceable SIP.
The primary advantage to using the limited approval approach
is to make the State subraittal federally enforceable and to
increase the SIP's potential to achieve additional reductions.
Therefore, limited approval should not be used to approve any
rule that is unenforceable for all situations—for example, a
rule that lacks a test method. These rules and any other rules
that do not have an overall strengthening effect on the SIP
should be disapproved. Limited approval can be used, however,
1 The March 22, 1991 memorandum from John Calcagni
discussed the potential impact of Abramowit2 v. U.S. E.P.A.f 832,
F. 2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988), on EPA's decision to split the
approval and disapproval portions of a limited approval. After
reevaluating that case, we believe it may have a narrower impact
than initially described and, therefore, generally would not
impact the timing of limited approval/disapproval actions.
-------
where the rule is unenforceable for some limited number of
situations but? is enforceable for the majority of situations, if
the rule, as a whole, strengthens the SIP.
The disapproval coinciding with (or following) the limited
approval also starts the sanctions and FIP clocks discussed
above. With the limited approval EPA may or may not have a
commitment from the State to correct the deficiency.- The EPA may
choose to use the limited approval approach (instead of
conditional approval) in the case where the State has submitted a
commitment as part of a rule but EPA has reason to believe that
the State will not be able to meet the commitment (as discussed
below). Where a limited approval/disapproval approach is taken,
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) should clearly identify
which requirements have not been met and what action would be
required on the part of the State to meet those requirements.
Conditional Approval
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act EPA may conditionally
approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures within 1 year from the date of
approval. If the State fails to meet its commitment within the
1-year period, the approval is treated as a disapproval. We
expect that conditional approvals will be used only in rare
situations that merit special consideration. We will evaluate
specific types of SIP subraittals [e.g., reasonably available
control technology (RACT) catch-ups, particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10) SIP's] to determine whether certain elements
of that type of submittal, or that type of submittal as a whole,
merit conditional approval. For this reason and to ensure
consistency, Regions should not use conditional approvals without
input from Headquarters as to whether such an approach is
appropriate. Furthermore, as any statutory deadline approaches,
we may issue guidance regarding the appropriate use of
conditional approval with respect to that specific requirement.
Once a determination has been made that a specific type of
submittal can be considered for conditional approval, Regions
must make a determination of whether an individual State
submittal should be conditionally approved. The first
consideration should be whether the State has made (or agrees to
make) a commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures within
1 year of EPA approval. The commitment must be made in writing
-------
by the party responsible for adopting the specified measures
before the plan is conditionally approved, and the commitment
must be submitted by the State.2
In addition, to the extent that the commitment materially
alters the existing rule (in respects that the public could not
reasonably have anticipated would result from the public review
of the existing rule), or is a commitment to adopt an entire rule
or set of rules, the commitment must be a SIP revision submittal
by the State. In many cases, the determination of whether the
commitment materially alters the underlying rule may be based on
whether a similar issue was raised during the earlier State
proceedings on the submitted rule. In general, each commitment
will need to be examined to determine whether it materially
alters the submitted rule. As with any SIP revision, in order
for EPA to accept the commitment as a SIP revision, the State
must have provided notice and public hearing on the submitted
commitment. However, EPA has the discretion to parallel process
commitments and in limited circumstances may propose conditional
approval of the commitment and allow the State process to proceed
on a parallel track.
As a general matter, the greater the extent to which a
submittal is lacking in important plan elements, the less
appropriate the use of conditional approval may be. It should be
noted, however, that there may be circumstances under which EPA
would accept a SIP revision consisting of a commitment only
(without specifically adopted rules) as a candidate for
conditional approval. In such cases, the commitment should also
be accompanied by a work plan detailing any specific measures to
be adopted, the steps that will be taken to adopt the measures,
and the schedule for adoption of those measures. As stated
earlier, a submittal that consists entirely of a commitment will
be considered a SIP revision that is subject to the State process
for submitting SIP revisions, e.g., notice and a public hearing.
Where the submittal contains specifically adopted rules that
need some revisions or corrections to be fully-approvable, the
commitment may not need to be as comprehensive. The commitment
should, however, be as explicit as possible concerning the
measures that will be adopted, the steps that will be taken to
adopt the measures, and the schedule for adoption of those
measures.
2 Although the commitment must identify the measures to
be adopted and contain a schedule for adopting such measures, it
is not necessary for the commitment itself to be enforceable in a
State court.
-------
Because the conditional approval relies on a commitment from
the State, EPA would need some level of confidence that the State
would be able to meet such a commitment. In making a
determination as to whether a State could reasonably be expected
to meet its commitment, EPA would need to consider a number of
factors such as:
the amount of technical work necessary for-the measures
to be adopted;
whether adoption of the measures is expected to be
controversial;
the average length of the State adoption process;
how far along in the process the State is; and
the State's past track record.
It should be noted that these are only some of the factors that
should be considered. Each Region, in making a determination
regarding the credibility of the State's commitment, may have to
look at a number of other factors. The Region should clearly
explain, either in the NPR or in a technical support document,
the rationale for these determinations.
In addition to the determination of whether the State's
commitment is credible, the Region must make a determination as
to whether it is appropriate to conditionally approve a revision
on the merits of that revision. Conditional approval might
typically be used in the same types of situations as the limited
approval. As with the limited approval, one of the main
advantages of the conditional approval approach is to make the:
State subraittal (where the submittal contains control
requirements and not just a commitment to adopt enforceable
measures) federally enforceable and to increase its potential to
achieve additional reductions. Because the conditionally
approved submittal will become a part of the SIP, the Region
should be certain that the approval of the commitment will not
weaken the existing SIP. The Region may also want to consider
when the plan (or plan element) that has been submitted was due.
The NPR for a conditional approval should clearly identify
which requirements are the subject of the commitment and,
therefore, have not been met. In addition, both the NPR and the
State's commitment should clearly identify what action is
required on the part of the State. Unlike the limited
approval/disapproval, the conditional approval does not
immediately start the sanctions and FIP clocks. These clocks
start if and when the approval is converted to a disapproval.
There are at least two ways that the conditional approval
-------
may be converted to a disapproval.3 First/ if the State fails
to adopt and submit the specified measures by the end of 1 year
(from the final conditional approval), or fails to submit
anything at all, EPA will have to issue a finding of disapproval
but will not have to propose the disapproval. That is because in
the original proposed and final conditional approval/ EPA will
have provided notice and an opportunity for comment on the fact
that EPA would directly make the finding of disapproval (by
letter) if the State failed to submit anything.4 Therefore, at
the end of 1 year from the conditional approval, the Regional
Administrator (RA) will send a letter to the State finding that
it had failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal
is disapproved. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the
2-year clock for a FIP start as of the date of the letter.
Subsequently, a notice to that effect will be published in the
Federal Register, and appropriate language will be inserted in
the Code of Federal Regulations. Similarly, if EPA receives a
submittal addressing the commitment but determines that the
submittal is incomplete, the RA will send a letter to the State
making such a finding. As with the failure to submit, the
sanctions and FIP clocks will begin as of the date of the finding
letter.
Second, where the State does make a complete submittal by
the end of the 1-year period, EPA will have to evaluate that
submittal to determine if it may be approved and take final
action on the submittal within 12 months after the Hate EPA
determines the submittal is complete. If the submittal does not
adequately address the deficiencies that were the subject of the
conditional approval, and is therefore not approvable, EPA will
have to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to disapprove
the submittal. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the 2-year
clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval. If
EPA determines that the rule is approvable, EPA will propose
approval of the rule. In either instance, whether EPA finally
approves or disapproves the rule, the conditional approval
remains in effect until EPA takes its final action.
3 It should be noted that this disapproval can be a
limited approval/disapproval. In some cases, the Regions may
want to use such an approach to retain the enforceability of
control measures. The NPR should indicate if this approach is
planned.
* To provide for this contingency, in the final
conditional approval, EPA would need to provide, for example, "If
the State fails to make a submittal or makes only an incomplete
submittal during the time period for subraittal of the rule, EPA
will issue a letter to the State which converts the conditional
approval to a disapproval."
-------
8
It should be noted that EPA will conditionally approve a
certain rule only once. Subsequent submittals of the same rule
that attempt to correct the same specifically identified problems
will not be eligible for conditional approval.
Sanctions and FTP Requirements
Actions that Trigger the Sanctions and FIP Requirements
The actions EPA has the authority to take under the
sanctions and FIP provisions of the Act correspond to the
different steps EPA must follow as it reviews and processes SIP
submittals. As discussed previously, the Act in section 179s
requires EPA to impose sanctions based on four types of actions
(findings*) provided in section 179(a):
(1) a finding that a State has failed to submit a SIP, a
SIP element,7 or has submitted a SIP or SIP element
that does not satisfy the completeness criteria;
(2) that EPA disapproval of a SIP submission for a
nonattainment area based on its failure to meet one or
more elements required by the Act;
(3) a determination that the State has not made any other
submission, has made an inadequate submission (as
required by the Act), or that EPA disapproves such a
submission; or
(4) a finding that a requirement of an approved plan is not
being implemented.
5 section 110(m) grants EPA broad authority to apply
either sanction listed in section 179(b) "... at any time (or
at any time after) a finding ..." under section 179(a) with
respect to any portion of the State, with certain exceptions.
This memorandum is intended to address the application of
sanctions under section 179. The section 179 sanctions apply
only to the area for which a finding has been made.
Although subsections (l)-(4) refer to findings,
determinations and disapprovals, for simplicity these four
actions will be referred to as "findings."
7 Since EPA does not intend to issue a list of such
elements per se, to ensure that such findings are consistently
applied, findings of failure to submit SIP elements should be
decided on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with Headquarters
The basis for the finding should be clear and well-supported.
-------
Under section 110(c)(l), EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
based on two types of findings:*
(1) a finding that a State has failed to make a required
submittal or that a submittal does not satisfy the
minimum completeness criteria established under section
llo(k)(D(A), or
(2) the EPA disapproval of a SIP submittal in whole or in
part.
The Sanctions and FIP Clocks
Although EPA may make any of the findings discussed above to
trigger the 179(a) sanctions and 110(c)(l) FIP requirements/
these findings do not require the immediate imposition of
sanctions or promulgation of a FIP. Instead the Act provides a
"clock" for sanctions and FIP's. For plan submittals required
under Part D or in response to a SIP call, section 179(a) allows
for up to 18 months for the state to correct the deficiency that
is the subject of a finding or disapproval before EPA is required
to impose sanctions. Section 110(c)(l) provides for up to
2 years for the State to correct the deficiency and for EPA to
approve a new submittal before EPA is obligated to promulgate a
FIP.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to make
findings of failure to submit to the RA's. The findings are made
via letters from the RA's to State governors or other State
officers to whom authority has been delegated. The letter itself
triggers the sanctions and FIP clocks. For disapprovals, the
Federal Register notice in which EPA takes final action triggers
the sanctions and FIP clocks. Findings of nonimplementation have
traditionally been processed as rulemaking actions through
Headquarters. The sanctions clock will start when EPA makes a
finding of nonimplementation in the Federal Register after
soliciting comment on the proposal (the FIP clock is not
triggered by such a finding). Although the findings of failure
to submit and SIP disapproval start both the sanctions and FIP
clocks, what is required to stop the clocks differs; therefore,
they are discussed separately. Note that in some cases the
sanctions clock may be stopped while EPA remains under an
obligation to promulgate a FIP.
Since the deficiency is a failure to implement after a state
has submitted a plan and EPA has approved it, it is unnecessary
for this finding to trigger a requirement that EPA develop the
required rule (i.e., prepare a FIP) and section 110(c)(l) does
not require it.
-------
10
Sanctions Clock
•
Under section 179(3), in order to stop the sanctions clock,
the State must correct the "deficiency" prompting the finding.
The EPA must apply one of the two sanctions available under
section 179 (b) within 18 months after the date of the finding and
both sanctions at 24 months, unless the deficiency has been
corrected. Section 179(a) also requires EPA to apply both
sanctions after 18 months if EPA finds a lack of good faith on
the part of the State.
Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios illustrating how the
sanctions clock operates, including examples of what constitutes
a deficiency correction (and hence a stopping of the clock).
In brief, for purposes of the sanctions clock, findings of
failure to submit plans or complete plans are corrected when EPA
finds the submittal complete* [although the FIP clock is still
running (see FIP clock discussion)] and disapprovals are
corrected when EPA takes final rulemaking action approving the
plan. In addition, findings of nonimplementation are corrected
when EPA makes a finding in the Federal Register that the State
is now implementing that provision.
FIP Clock
Under the FIP provisions, either a SIP must be approved or a
FIP must promulgated within 2 years of one of the two findings;
discussed above. In other words, EPA must approve the State
submittal in order to stop the FIP clock. Where the sanctions
and FIP clocks were started by EPA disapproval of a plan, the
clocks will run concurrently. In this case, to correct the
deficiency for purposes of the sanctions clock, the State must
make a submittal which EPA finds approvable. Such a
determination is not made until EPA issues a final approval of
the plan. Final approval of a plan is also what is needed to
stop the FIP clock. Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios of how
the FIP clock operates.
9 Where EPA made a finding of failure to submit and
subsequently finds that the State has made a complete submittal
for the plan or plan element that was the subject of the finding,
the letter that makes the finding of completeness will notify the
State that the sanctions clock is stopped as of the date of that
letter. The Region should periodically announce any such
findings that represent corrections of failure to submit in the
Federal Register.
-------
11
Available Sanctions
•
For plan submittals required under Part D or in response to
a SIP call/ if the state does not correct the specific deficiency
within the 18-month period allowed under section I79(a), EPA must
apply at least one of the two sanctions available under section
179(b)10 as described:
(1) Highway funding sanctions. The EPA may impose a
prohibition on the approval by the Secretary of
Transportation of certain projects, or the awarding of
certain grants.
(2) Offset sanctions. A ratio of at least 2-to-l will be
required for emissions reductions within the
nonattainment area to offset emissions from new or
modified major facilities (as required under section
173).
Regions should determine which of the sanctions will be applied
at the 18- and 24-month milestones on a case-by-case basis. As
discussed previously, EPA must apply both sanctions at the
18-month mark if it finds there is a lack of good faith effort.
Such a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with Headquarters. In addition, once one of the
sanctions has been imposed, EPA must impose the second sanctions
if the deficiency has not been corrected within 6 months
(regardless of the State's efforts). Headquarters will issue a
proposal of the sanctions and the Regional Office will issue the
final rule imposing sanctions.
Conclusion
General comments on this memorandum should be directed to
Pam Johnson of the Regional Operations Branch at (919) 541-5270.
Comments related specifically to ozone or carbon monoxide should
be directed to Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. Comments related
to particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or lead should be directed
to Chris Stoneman at (919) 541-0823.
cc: Regional Air Counsels, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Jane Armstrong, OMS (Ann Arbor)
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Denise Devoe, OAQPS (ANR-443)
10 In addition, section 179(a) provides for an air
pollution grant sanction that applies to grants EPA may award
under section 105. However, since it is not a sanction provided
under section 179(b), it is not one of the sanctions EPA must
impose after the 18-month period.
-------
12
Tom Helms, AQMD (MD-15)
Bill Laxton, TSD (MD-14)
Ed Lillis, AQMD (MD-15)
Rich Ossias, OGC (LE-132A)
Joe Paisie, AQMD (MD-15)
John Rasnic, SSCD (EN-341W)
John Seitz, OAQPS (MD-10)
Paula Van Lare, QMS (ANR-445)
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS (MD-10)
-------
• Attachment l
Example 1
A State submits a SIP revision containing four rules: (1)
control requirements for bulk gasoline plants, (2) control
requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities (Stage I), (3)
leak detection requirements for gasoline tanks trucks, and (4)
test methods that apply to these three rules. The EPA review of
the rules shows that all of the rules except the Stage I rule
meet the applicable requirements of the Act. The Stage I rule
fails to require submerged fill loading for all storage tanks.
This is inconsistent with EPA's RACT guidance and the State has
failed to propose an alternative that it has demonstrated is RACT
for the applicable sources.
Partial Approval
Under the partial approval option, EPA can approve the rules
for bulk terminals and tank truck leaks, approve the test
methods, and disapprove the Stage I rule. These rules are
separable from the Stage I rule. Disapproval of the stage I rule
does not affect the stringency of the other three rules.
Therefore, the other three rules may be approved under this
provision. However, the submittal as a whole would only be
partially approved.
Limited Approval, of ...stage I Rule
Under the limited approval approach, EPA could approve the
Stage I rule as being an improvement over what is currently in
the SIP and, at the same time or within a reasonable time after
the approval (but no later than 12 months after the submittal is
complete), disapprove the rule because it does not represent
RACT. The sanctions and FIP clocks would start upon the final
disapproval of the rule.
Conditional Approval
Alternatively, EPA could conditionally approve the Stage I
rule if the State committed to revise the rule, within 1 year of
the conditional approval, to require submerged fill loading. If
the State then failed to make such a revision, EPA would issue a
finding converting the conditional approval to a disapproval.
Example 2
If in example 1 the first three rules (containing control
requirements) are all approvable but the fourth (containing the
test methods) is either deficient or has not been submitted, then
the submittal would have to be handled differently. Because a
test method is critical in determining the stringency of a
control requirement and is needed for the requirements to be
enforceable, these rules cannot be considered separable and,
therefore, partial approval would not be an option. In addition,
because the control requirements will not be enforceable without'
a test method,'it would not be appropriate to use either the
limited or conditional approval approach.
-------
Example 3
A State submits a SIP revision that contains four PM-10
rules, two for controlling emissions of fugitive dust and two for
the control of.residential wood combustion. The rules represent
reasonable available control measures (RACM) and include (1)
paving or stabilizing unpaved roads, (2) developing a traffic
reduction plan for unpaved roads, (3) a mandatory episode
curtailment program for residential wood combustion, and (4)
encouraging changeover to new source .performance standards and
wood stoves. The third rule is deficient in that it .does not
provide a communication strategy on which the curtailment program
is dependent.
Partial Approval
The EPA may approve the three rules which satisfy RACM but
disapprove the episode curtailment program as failing to meet the
RACM requirement. These rules are separable because disapproval
of the curtailment program will not have any effect on the
stringency or enforceability of the remaining rules.
Limited Approval
The EPA may approve the episode curtailment plan as
strengthening the SIP by providing enforceable measures in a SIP
which currently has no curtailment program. At the same time or
within a reasonable time after the approval (but no later than 12
months after the submittal is complete), EPA must disapprove the
rule as not representing RACM. Final disapproval of the rule
would start the sanctions and FIP clocks.
Conditional Approval
The EPA may conditionally approve the rule if the State
submits a commitment to submit a revised rule within 1 year of
the approval. If the State then failed to make such a revision,
EPA would, issue a finding converting the conditional approval to
a disapproval.
-------
CJ
4J
C
(D
e
JC
o
rtj
4J
tp
c
•H
C
41
ft
43
C
4)
CU fc
W 4J
CO 03
in
4J
c
4)
• 0
Jj
•rH
3
4J cr
U 4)
«<«
4J
C
01
g
4J
•H
£2
e
o
o
>1
-H
,—)
•H
X!
j.4
(0
a
CO
•H
0
a
a,
O>H
o c to
4J 14 4)
^4 Oj lj G)
<0 Qcj-) jC
£Ji 40 tQ 4-J
CO
4J
4) 4) C
XI 4J iH 4)
•04) XI g
O 4) 4) (04)
4J > E O Vi
O -H -H
4J M 4J «H 3
Vi a. w «-H G< cr
C
£ r-l 4)
4-1 XI £
O O (04)
C4J O fc
•H -H
WO) -H 3
4) > r-Hi a cr
O 10 rHJ O< 4)
TD JC i
*H J~(
£ (0
£ W
O W
O <1J
U
O 0)
c c
o
W rH
<*-! (0
4-J O r-H ^
C (0 rtJ
a) c 4J a
-H O 4J 0)
O -H -H W
-H 4J E
*W V-j jQ ^J
(0 U
3 C
»H e 4)
«J JC
4J 4) 4J CU
4J rH CT>H
•H O C W
ex: 4)
3 i * Xi
(0 «0 (0 4-1
4-> U
O 4->
41 4) C
£ rH 01
4j XI E
O O (04)
C4J 0 fc
•H -H
WO) r-13
4) > r-d a cr
O (0 *"H| Of C)
*O jft rt3| (0 fa
c
•H
_r;
4J
4J -H
W O 3
3 4J
g 4J
4J O J-i
4) -H 01 (0
4-1 E 5-( 0
(0 £ >-< >i
4J O O
CO O U H
0)
W r-l
«t-l 'H "TO
4J O r-l fc
C (0 (C
a> c 4J a
•H O 4-J QJ
O "H -H W
-H 4-> e
O O D O
rH
(0
c
0
•H
4-)
-H
n
c
o
u
-------
Attachment 3: Sanctions and FIP Clocks Scenarios
Scenario 1; The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete
.prior to the statutory due date of the SIP.
Although a finding that the State submitted an incomplete
SIP is one of the section 179(a) findings, the sanctions and FIP
clocks will not begin to run until after a submittal is due.
This is because the finding must be based on the failure to
submit a complete required SIP or SIP element and the submittal
is not required until it is due under the statute. If a SIP
"submitted prior to a due date is still incomplete by the due
date, then EPA will notify the State by letter that the plan
remains incomplete and that the 18-month sanctions clock and the
2-year FIP clock have started.
Scenario 2: The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete on
or after the statutory due date of the SIP.
If EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete pursuant to
section 110(k) on or after the statutory due date of the SIP,
then, as in scenario 1, the State has failed to make a complete
submittal under section 179(a). The EPA will notify the State by
letter that the plan is incomplete and that the 18-month
sanctions clock and the 2-year FIP clock have started.
Scenario 3: The EPA receives no submittal at the due date.
If EPA receives no subraittal from a State to meet a
statutory due date, then it may make a finding of failure to
submit under section 179(a)(l), triggering the 18-month sanctions
clock and the 2-year FIP clock.
Scenario 4: After the due date, EPA receives a SIP for which
it originally made a finding of failure to submit.
Upon receiving the plan, the sanctions clock will continue
to run during the completeness review and be stopped if EPA finds
the plan complete and continue if EPA finds the plan incomplete.
If the 18 months elapse during the time EPA is doing its
completeness review, EPA will not impose sanctions unless it
determines the plan incomplete. If sanctions have been imposed
prior to the State's submittal, the sanctions will remain in
place until EPA determines the submittal complete.
The FIP clock continues to run while EPA makes its
completeness determination.
Scenario 5: The EPA originally makes a finding of failure to
submit, then receives a SIP, finds it complete,
but disapproves it in final rulemaking.
Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State
corrects the deficiency that prompted the finding of nonsubmittal
and the sanctions clock stops. A new sanctions clock will start
-------
upon the final SIP disapproval rulemaking. The new sanctions
clock will not stop until EPA has taken final action to approve
the revised SIP submittal.
Even after the submittal is determined to be complete, EPA
remains under obligation to promulgate a FIP. Therefore, the
disapproval of the SIP does not start a new FIP clock.
Scenario 6: The EPA originally makes a finding of failure to
submit, then receives a SIP, finds it complete,
and approves it in final rulemaking. •
Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State
corrects the deficiency prompting the finding of nonsubmittal and
the sanctions clock stops. The EPA remains under obligation to
promulgate a FIP until EPA takes final rulemaking action to
approve the SIP.
scenario 7; The EPA finds that a State has failed to implement
a SIP or SIP provision.
The EPA will make a finding of nonimplementation in the
Federal Register after soliciting comment on the proposal. The
sanctions clock will start upon EPA taking final action and stop
when EPA makes a finding in the Federal Register after notice-
and-comment rulemaking that the State has corrected-the
deficiency that prompted the finding. A finding of
nonimplementation does not start a FIP clock. •?
-------
Document Referenced in "PM-10 Guideline Document"
But Too Lengthy to Include in Appendix A
Document: 57 Federal Register 32,250 (July 21, 1992), Operating Permit Program
April 1993
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
-3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Source Review (NSR) Program Supplemental
Transitional Guidance on Applicability^ of New Part D
NSR Permit Requirements
FROM: John S. Seitz, Directo
Office of Air Quality
TO: Addressees
ning and Standards (MD-10)
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 CAAA) made
numerous changes to the NSR requirements in the Clean Air Act
(Act). To address some immediate concerns generated by the
1990 CAAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an
initial NSR transitional memorandum on March 11, 1991, entitled
HNew Source Review Program Transitional Guidance." This
memorandum supplements that effort by clarifying EPA guidance
regarding the permitting of new or modified sources in situations.
where a State does not submit a State implementation pIan"~"(S"lP)"
revision implementing the augmented'Part D NSR provisions of the
1990 CAAA by" the applicable statutory deadline." The statutory
deadlines "f6r""submission of revised NSR SIP's are listed in the
attacliment. Moreover, as more fully set forth in the March 11,
1991 transitional memorandum, this supplemental memorandum sets
?"orth nonbinding guidance that does not create any rights or
otherwise predetermine the outcome of any procedures. Also, many
of EPA's interpretations of the new Part D NSR requirements are
in the "General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (General Preamble) (see
57 FR 13498, 13552-556, April 16, 1992). These interpretations
are not affected by this memorandum.
Title I of the 1990 CAAA requires that States with
nonattainment areas or areas in the Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (NOTR) submit to EPA, by specified deadlines, augmented
new source permit rules which meet the amended requirements of
Part D of Title I of the Act. For example, for NSR permit
-------
programs in most ozone nonattainment areas and the NOTR,
section 182 of the Act specifies increased offset ratios, lower
source applicability thresholds, and presumptive treatment of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) as ozone (O3) precursors. For ozone, the
1990 CAAA require that States submit SIP's meeting the amended
Part D NSR requirements by November 15, 1992.
Where States do not submit the Part D NSR SIP by the
applicable statutory deadline (and for purp^sjes_of_determining
the approvability of revised NSR SIP's),rsources that Have•""
submitted complete permit applications"'(as determined by the ~.
reviewing authority) by the submittal deadline may receive f inaX-
permits under existing State NSR rules._.\In €hTs" situation," such
sources" will be considered" by EPA to be in compliance with the
Act without meeting the amended Part D NSR provisions of the 1990
CAAA, provided they meet the following conditions:
1. The State and source move expeditiously towards final
permit issuance.
2. construction begins no later than 18 months from the
date of permit issuance unless an earlier time is required under
the applicable SIP.
3. Construction is not discontinued for a period of
18 months or more.
4. Construction is completed within a reasonable time.
States may not grant permit extensions beyond these time periods
unless the permittee is required in a federally-enforceable-.
manner to meet the new Part D NSR provisions.
Sources approved for construction in distinct phases require
additional clarification. Individual phases of a construction
project are considered either as "mutually dependent" or
"mutually independent" from the other phases. Mutually-dependent
phases are those where construction of one phase necessitates the
construction of the other in order to complete a given project or
provide a different type (not level) of service. An example of a
project with possible mutually-dependent phases is a kraft pulp
mill, where all phases of construction are needed to complete the
project and produce paper. On the other hand, an example of a
project with possible independent phases is a three-boiler,
electric power plant, where each boiler could be a mutually-
independent phase providing different levels of electrical power.
-------
For phased construction projects with complete permit
applications submitted by the Part D NSR statutory deadline for
SIP submittal , '. EPA will grandfather individual phases from
meeting the new Part D NSR requirements , provided:
1. For mutually-dependent phases, if one of the facilities
has met the construction conditions of this guidance (e.g.,
begins construction within 18 months of permit issuance) , then
all dependent phases specifically permitted at the same time will
hold such status.
2. For mutually-independent phases , each phase that meets
the construction conditions of this guidance (e.g., begins
construction of that phase within 18 months of initial permit
issuance) will hold such status.
Also, under today's guidance, where States miss the statutory
deadline for Part D NSR SIP submittal, for -sources that have not
submitted complete permit applications by the SIP submittal
deadline, VEPA"wiir™also "consider the source to be in compliance
,with"~the'~Act where the source obtains from the State a permit
that- is consistent with the substantive new NSR Part D provisions
^' substantive new provisions are the new ~
_
applicability thresholds, the new offset ratios, the offset
requirements of section 173, and the NOX requirements of section
182 (f) for most 03 nonattainment areas and the '^
The State, of course, must be sure that all permits contain
the minimum requirements for a Part D NSR permit as required by
the current SIP or, where applicable, the Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling [40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S (Offset
Ruling) ] . l
Please note that the Act allows States to implement the new
Part D NSR provisions prior to the statutory deadlines and in a
manner more stringent than EPA guidance or rules. Thus, today's
guidance does not apply in any State to the extent that the
State's own rules or transitional guidance is more stringent.
1 The Act, as amended, requires offsets for all source
categories, and emissions reductions are on a tons-per-year
basis. To the extent Appendix S is incompatible with these
statutory provisions, it must be considered superseded by the
1990 CAAA.
-------
The Regional Offices should send this memorandum to their
States. Questions concerning specific issues and cases should be
directed to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. If you have any
general questions, please contact Mr. Michael Sewell of the New
Source Review Section at (919)_541-0873.
^"*^•*™—^^—•
Attachment
Addressees
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Regions I, IV, and VI
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and "'
-------
ATTACHMENT
As required by the clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the
statutory deadlines for States to submit new Part D new source
review (NSR) rules to the Environmental Protection Agency are:
• May 15, 1992 for sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment
areas without approved S02 SIP's prior to enactment
[see section 191(b) ];
• November 15, 1993 for all other SO2 nonattainment areas
designated prior to enactment [see section 172(b)];
• May 15, 1992 for nitrogen dioxide (N02) nonattainment
areas [see section 191(b)];
• July 6, 1993 for lead nonattainment areas designated on
January 6, 1992 [see section 191(a)];
j T June 30, 1992 for particulate matter (PM-10)
i
nonattainment areas [see section 189(a)(2)(A)];
~~~~* November 15, 1992 for ozone nonattainment areas and
transport regions [see section 182(a)(2)(C) ];
• November 15, 1992 for carbon monoxide (CO)
nonattainment areas with a design value above 12.7
parts per million (ppm) [see section 187(a)(7)]; and
• November 15, 1993 for CO nonattainment areas with a
design value of 12.7 ppm or less [see section 172(b)].
For future nonattainment designations, Part D NSR rules are
due within 18 months from redesignation for all S02/ NO2, PM-10,
and lead nonattainment areas [see sections 189(a)(2)(B) and
191(a)], and within 2 years of redesignation for ozone [see
section 181(b)(l)] and many CO nonattainment areas (within
3 years for CO nonattainment areas with design values less than
12.7 ppm) [see section I86(b)(l)].
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 SEP 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Processing Requests to^edesignate Areas
to Attainment
FROM:
TO:
John Calcagni, Directo
Air Quality Managementxfivisio
Director, Air, PesticXJjes and Toxics
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Wasts Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Aiv and Toxics Division,
Regions VI7., VIII, IX, and X
nt
purpose
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
expects that a number of redesignation requests will be submitted
in the near future. Thus, Regions will need to have guidance on
the applicable procedures for handling these requests, including
maintenance plan provisions. This memorandum, therefore,
consolidates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
guidance regarding the processing of requests for redesignation
of nonattainment areas to attainment for ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (S02),
nitrogen dioxide (N02), and lead (Pb). Regions should use this
guidance as a general framework for drafting Federal Register
notices pertaining to redesignation requests. Special concerns
for areas seeking redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment
will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Background
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
states that an area can be redesignated to attainment if the
following conditions are met:
-------
1. The EPA has determined that the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) have been attained.
2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully
approved by EPA under section 110(k).
3. The EPA has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the
area under section 110 and Part D.
5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs. Particular attention is given to
maintenance plan provisions at the end of this document since
maintenance plans constitute a new requirement under the amended
Clean Air Act. Exceptions to the guidance will be considered on
a case-by-case basis.
1. Attainment of the Standard -
The State must show that the area is attaining the
applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making
this demonstration which should be considered interdependently.
The first component relies upon ambient air quality data. The
data that are used to demonstrate attainment should be the
product of ambient monitoring that is representative of the area
of highest concentration. These monitors should remain at the
same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58 and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it. to
be available to the public for review. For purposes of
redesignation, the Regional Office should verify that the
integrity of the air quality monitoring network has been
preserved.
For PM-10, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS if
the number of expected exceedances per year, according to 40 CFR
50.6, is less than or equal to 1.0. For O3, the area must show
that the average annual number of expected exceedances, according
to 40 CFR 50.9, is less than or equal to 1.0 based on data from
all monitoring sites in the area or its affected downwind
environs. In making this showing, both PM-10 and 03 must rely on
3 complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data, collected in accordance with 40 CFR 50,
Appendices H and K. For CO, an area may be considered attaining
the NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance
-------
with 40 CFR 50.8, based on 2 complete, consecutive calendar years
of quality-assured monitoring data. For S02, according to 40 CFR
50.4, an area must show no more than one exceedance annually and
for Pb, according to section 50.12, an area may show no
exceedances on a quarterly basis.
The second component relies upon supplemental EPA-approved
air quality modeling. No such supplemental modeling is required
for O3 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation. Modeling may
. be necessary to determine the representativeness of the monitored
data. For pollutants such as SO2 and CO, a small number of
monitors typically is not representative of areawide air quality
or areas of highest concentration. When dealing with S02, Pb,
PM-10 (except for a limited number of initial moderate
nonattainment areas), and CO (except moderate areas with design
values of 12.7 parts per million or lower at the time of passage
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990), dispersion modeling
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively sources'
impacts and to determine the areas of expected high
concentrations based upon current conditions. Areas which were
designated nonattainment based on modeling will generally not be
redesignated to attainment unless an acceptable modeling analysis
indicates attainment. Regions should consult with OAQPS for
further guidance addressing the need for modeling in specific
circumstances .
2. State Implementation Plan fSIP^ Approval •—
The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section
llO(k),1 and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the
\ area. It should be noted that approval action on SIP elements
and the redesignation request may occur simultaneously. An area
cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan is the
subject of a disapproval; a finding of failure to submit or to
implement the SIP; or partial, conditional, or limited approval.
However, this does not mean that earlier issues with regard to
the SIP will be reopened. Regions should not reconsider those
things that have already been approved and for which the Clean
Air Act Amendments did not alter what is required. In contrast,
to the extent the Amendments add a requirement or alter an
existing requirement so that it adds something more, Regions
should consider those issues. In addition, requests from areas
known to be affected by dispersion techniques which are
inconsistent with EPA guidance will continue to be considered
unapprovable under section 110 and will not qualify for
redesignation .
•^Section 110(k) contains the requirements for EPA action on
plan submissions. It addresses completeness, deadlines, full and
partial approval, conditional approval, and disapproval.
-------
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality
The State* must be able to reasonably attribute the
improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are
permanent and enforceable. Attainment resulting from temporary
reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or
shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or
unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an air
quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
In making this showing, the State should estimate the
percent reduction (from the year that was used to determine the
design value for designation and classification) achieved from
Federal measures such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program and fuel volatility rules as well as control measures
that have been adopted and implemented by the state. This
estimate should consider emission rates, production capacities,
and other related information to clearly show that the air
quality improvements are the result of implemented controls. The
analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted
levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented
that such an assumption is unrealistic.
4. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
For the purposes of redesignation, a State must meet all
requirements of section 110 and Part D that were applicable prior
to submittal of the complete redesignation request. When
evaluating a redesignation request, Regions should not consider
whether the State has met requirements that come due under the
Act after submittal of a complete redesignation request.3
2This is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
redesignations as stated in an April 21, 1983 memorandum titled
"Section 107 Designation Policy Summary.11 This memorandum states
that in order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the
State must show that "actual enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement." This
element of the policy retains its validity under the amended Act
pursuant to section 193. [Note: other aspects of the April 21,
1983 memorandum have since been superseded by subsequent
memorandums; interested parties should consult with OAQPS before
relying on these aspects, e.g. those relating to required years
of air quality data.]
3Under section 175A(c), however, the requirements of Part D
remain in force and effect for the area until such time as it is
redesignated. Upon redesignation to attainment, the requirements
that became due under section 175A(c) after submittal of the
complete redesignation request would no longer be applicable.
-------
However, any requirements that came due prior to submittal of the
redesignation request must be fully approved into the plan at or
before the time EPA redesignates the area.
To avoid confusion concerning what requirements will be
applicable for purposes of redesignation, Regions should
encourage states to work closely with the appropriate Regional
Office early in the process. This will help to ensure that a
redesignation request submitted by the State has a high
likelihood of being approved by EPA. Regions should advise
States of the practical planning consequences if EPA disapproves
the redesignation request or if the request is invalidated
because of violations recorded during EPA's review. Under such
circumstances, EPA does not have the discretion to adjust
schedules for implementing SIP requirements. As a result, an
area may risk sanctions and/or Federal implementation plan
implementation that could result from failure to meet SIP
submittal or implementation requirements.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. Most of the provisions of this section are
the same as those contained in the pre-amended Act. We will
provide guidance on these requirements as needed.4 .._
b. part D Requirements .—
Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all
areas which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of
the NAAQS. The general requirements are followed by a series of
subparts specific to each pollutant. The general requirements
appear in subpart 1. The requirements relating to 03, CO, PM-10,
S02, N02, and Pb appear in subparts 2 through 5. In those
instances where an area is subject to both the general
nonattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as one of the
pollutant-specific subparts, the general provisions may be
subsumed within, or superseded by, the more specific requirements
of subparts 2 through 5.
If an area was not classified under section 181 for 03, or
section 186 for CO, then that area is only subject to the
provisions of subpart I, "Nonattainment Areas in General." In
addition to relevant provisions in subpart 1, an O3 and CO area,
which is classified, must meet all applicable requirements in
subpart 2, "Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,"
and subpart 3, "Additional Provisions for Carbon Monoxide
4General guidance regarding the requirements for SIP'S may
be found in the "General Preamble to Title I of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments," 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
-------
Nonattainment Areas," respectively, before the area may be
redesignated to attainment. All PM-10 nonattainment areas
(whether classified as moderate or serious) must similarly meet
the applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific
PM-10 provisions in subpart 4, "Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas." Likewise, S02, NO,, and
Pb nonattainment areas are subject to the applicable general
nonattainment provisions in subpart l as well as the more
specific requirements in subpart 5, "Additional Provisions for
.Areas Designated Nonattainment for Sulfur Oxides, 'Nitrogen
Dioxide, and Lead."
i. Section 172fc) Requirements
This section contains general requirements for nonattainment
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found
in the General Preamble to Title I [57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992)]. The EPA anticipates that areas will already have met
most or all of these requirements to the extent that they are not
superseded by more specific Part D requirements. The
requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of
certain emissions increases, and other measures needed for
attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only
have meaning for areas not attaining the standard. The
requirements for an emission inventory will be satisfied by the
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan. The requirements
of the Part D new source review program will be replaced by the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program once the
area has been redesignated. However, in order to ensure that the
PSD program will become fully effective immediately upon
redesignation, either the State must be delegated the Federal PSD
program or the State must make any needed modifications to its
rules to have the approved PSD program apply to the affected area
upon redesignation,
ii. Conformity
The State must work with EPA to show that its SIP
provisions are consistent with section 176(c)(4) conformity
requirements. The redesignation request should include
conformity procedures, if the State already has these procedures
in place. Additionally, we currently interpret the conformity
requirement to apply to attainment areas. However, EPA has not
yet issued its conformity regulations specifying what areas are
subject to the conformity requirement. Therefore, if a State
does not have conformity procedures in place at the time that it
submits a redesignation request, the State must commit to follow
EPA's conformity regulation upon issuance, as applicable. If the
State submits the redesignation request subsequent to EPA's
issuance of the conformity regulations, and the conformity
requirement became applicable to the area prior to submission,
-------
the State must adopt the applicable conformity requirements
before EPA can redesignate the area.
5. Maintenance Plans
Ik
V Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the amended Act stipulates that for
an area to be redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance
plan which meets the requirements of section 175A. A State may
submit both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan at
the same time and rulemaking on both may proceed on a parallel
track. Maintenance plans may, of course, be submitted and
approved by EPA before a redesignation is requested. However,
according, to section 175A(c)f pending approval of the maintenance
plan and redesignation request, all applicable nonattainment area
requirements shall remain in place.
Section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance
plan. The maintenance plan will constitute a SIP revision and
must provide for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area
for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section 175A further
states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, if
any, as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. Because the
Act requires a demonstration of maintenance for 10 years after an
area is redesignated (not 10 years after submittal of a
redesignation request), the State should plan for some lead time
for EPA action on the request. In other words, the-maintenance
demonstration should project maintenance for 10 years, beginning
from a date which factors in the time necessary for-EPA review
and approval action on the redesignation request. In determining
the amount of lead time to allow, States should consider that
section 107(d)(3)(D) grants the Administrator up to 18 months
from receipt of a complete submittal to process a redesignation
request. The statute also requires the State to submit a
revision of the SIP 8 years after the original redesignation
request is approved to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for
an additional 10 years following the first 10-year period [see
section 175A(b)].
In addition, the maintenance plan shall contain such
contingency measures as the Administrator deems necessary to
ensure prompt correction of any violation of the NAAQS [see
section 175A(d)]. The Act provides that, at a minimum, the
contingency measures must include a requirement that the State
will implement all measures contained in the nonattainment SIP
prior to redesignation. Failure to maintain the NAAQS and
triggering of the contingency plan will not necessitate a
revision of the SIP unless required by the Administrator, as
stated in section 175A(d).
The following is a list of core provisions that we
anticipate will be necessary to ensure maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation from
-------
8
nonattainment to attainment. We therefore recommend that States
seeking redesignation of a nonattainment area consider these
provisions. However, any final EPA determination regarding the
adequacy of a maintenance plan will be made following review of
the plan submittal in light of the particular circumstances
facing the area proposed for redesignation and based on all
relevant information available at the time.
a. Attainment Inventory
The State should develop an attainment emissions inventory
to identify the level of emissions in the area which is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should be
consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission
inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and
should include the emissions during the time period associated
with the monitoring data showing attainment.6
Source size thresholds are 100 tons/year for SO2, N02/ and
PM-10 areas, and 5 tons/year for Pb based upon 40 CFK 5l.IOO(k)
and 51.322, as well as established practice for AIRS data. The
source size threshold for serious PM-10 areas is 70 tons/year
5Where the State has made an adequate demonstration that air
quality has improved as a result of the SIP (as discussed
previously), the attainment inventory will generally be the
actual inventory at the time the area attained the standard.
6The EPA's current guidance on the preparation of emission
inventories for O^ and CO nonattainment areas is contained in the
following documents: "Procedures for the Preparation of Emission
Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume
I" (EPA-450/4-91-016), "Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone:
Volume II" (EPA-450/4-91-014), "Emission Inventory Requirements
for Ozone State Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-010),
"Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide
Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-011), "Guideline for
Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model" (EPA-450/4-91-
013), "Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation: Volume IV,
Mobile Sources" (EPA-450/4-81-026d), and "Procedures for
Preparing Emission Inventory Projections" (EPA-450/4-91-019).
The EPA does not currently have specific guidance on attainment
emissions inventories for S02. In lieu thereof, States are
referred to the guidance on emissions data to be used as input to
modeling demonstrations, contained in Table 9.1 of EPA's
"Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)" (EPA-450/2-78-027R),
July 1987, which is generally applicable to all criteria
pollutants. Emission inventory procedures and requirements
documents are currently being prepared by OAQPS for PM-10 and Pb;
these documents are due for release by summer 1992.
-------
according to Clean Air Act section 189(b)(3). However, the
inventory should include sources below these size thresholds if
these smaller sources were included in the SIP attainment
demonstration. Where sources below the 100, 70, and 5 tons/year-
size thresholds (e.g., areas with smaller source size
definitions) are subject to a State's minor source permit
program, these sources need only be addressed in the aggregate to
the extent that they result in areawide growth.
For O3 nonattainment areas, the inventory should be based on
actual "typical summer day" emissions of-O3 precursors (volatile
organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) during the attainment
year. This will generally correspond to one of the periodic
inventories required for nonattainment areas to reconcile
milestones. For CO nonattainment areas, the inventory should be
based on actual "typical CO season day" emissions for the
attainment year. This will generally correspond to one of the
periodic inventories required for nonattainment areas.
b. Maintenance Demonstration
A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS
by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory,
or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS." Under
the Clean Air Act, many areas are required to submit modeled
attainment demonstrations to show that proposed reductions in
emissions will be sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS. For
these areas, the maintenance demonstration should be based upon
the same level of modeling. In areas where no such mode lin<3* was
required, the State should be able to rely on the attainment
inventory approach. In both instances, the demonstration should
be for a period of 10 years following the redesignation.
Where modeling is relied upon to demonstrate maintenance,
each plan should contain a summary of the air quality
concentrations expected to result from application of the control
strategy. In the process, the plan should identify and describe
the dispersion model or pther air quality model used to project
ambient concentrations (see 40 CFR 51,46).
In either case, to satisfy the demonstration requirement the
State should project emissions for the 10-year period following
redesignation, either for the purpose of showing that emissions
will not increase over the attainment inventory or for conducting
modeling. The projected inventory should consider future
growth, including population and industry, should be consistent
^Guidance for projecting emissions may be found in the
emissions inventory guidance cited in footnote 6.
-------
10
with the attainment inventory, and should document data inputs
and assumptions. All elements of the demonstration (e.g.,
emission projections, new source growth, and modeling) should be
consistent with current EPA modeling guidance.8 For O3 and CO,
the projected emissions should reflect the expected actual
emissions based on enforceable emission rates and typical
production rates.
For CO, a State should address the areawide component of the
maintenance demonstration either by showing that future CO
emissions will not increase or by conducting areawide modeling.
Preferably, the State should carry out hot-spot modeling that is
consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), in
order to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. In particular, if
the nonattainment problem is related to a pattern of hot-spots
then hot-spot modeling should generally be conducted. However,
hot-spot modeling is not automatically required. For example, if
the nonattainment problem was related solely to stationary point
sources, or if highway improvements have been implemented and the
associated emission reductions and travel characteristics can be
qualitatively documented, then hot-spot modeling is not required.
In such cases, adequate documentation as well as the concurrence
of Headquarters is needed.
Any assumptions concerning emission rates must reflect
permanent, enforceable measures. In other.words, a State
generally cannot take credit'in the maintenance demonstration for
reductions unless there are regulations in place requiring those
reductions or the reductions are otherwise shown to be permanent.
Therefore, the State will be expected to maintain its implemented
control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such
measures are shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or are
replaced with measures that achieve equivalent reductions (see
additional discussion under "Contingency Plan"). Emission
reductions from source shutdowns can be considered permanent and
enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns have been
reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been
modified accordingly.
Modeling used to demonstrate attainment may be relied upon
in the maintenance demonstration where the modeling conforms to
current EPA guidance and where the State has projected no
significant changes in the modeling inputs during the intervening
time. Where the original attainment demonstration may no longer
be relied upon, States will be expected to remodel using current
8The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the
following documents: "Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)," OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA-450/2-78-027R), July 1986; and
"PM-10 SIP Development Guideline," OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA-450/2-86-
001), June 1987.
-------
11
EPA referenced techniques.9 This may be necessary where/ for
example, there.has been a change in emissions or a change in the
siting of new sources or modifications such that air quality may
no longer be accurately represented by the existing modeling.
c. Monitoring Network
Once an area has been redesignated, the State should
continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the
attainment status of the area. The maintenance plan should
contain provisions for continued operation of air quality
monitors .that will provide such verification. In cases where
measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled
congestion) have changed over time, the State may also need to
perform a saturation monitoring study to determine the need for,
and location of, additional permanent monitors.
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
Each State should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to
maintain the NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (F) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, and regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
51.110(k), suggest that one such measure is.the acquisition of
ambient and source emission data to demonstrate attainment and
maintenance. -^-
Regardless of whether the maintenance demonstration is based
on a showing that future emission inventories will not exceed the
attainment inventory or on modeling, the State submittal should
indicate how the State will track the progress of the maintenance
plan. This is necessary due to the fact that the emission
projections made for the maintenance demonstration depend on
assumptions of point and area source growth.
One option for tracking the progress of the maintenance
demonstration, provided here as an example, would be for the
State to periodically update the emissions inventory. In this
case, the maintenance plan should specify the frequency of any
planned inventory updates. Such an update could be based, in
part, on the annual AIRS update and could indicate new source
growth and other changes from the attainment inventory (e.g.,
changes in vehicle miles travelled or in traffic patterns). As
an alternative to a complete update of the inventory, the State
may choose to do a comprehensive review of the factors that were
used in developing the attainment inventory to show no
significant change. If this review does show a significant
change, the State should then perform an update of the inventory.
5See references for modeling guidance cited in footnote 8.
-------
12
Where the demonstration is based on modeling, an option for
tracking progress would be for the State to periodically
(typically every 3 years) reevaluate the modeling assumptions and
input data. In any event, the State should monitor the
indicators for triggering contingency measures (as discussed
below).
e. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the Act also requires that a'maintenance
plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. These contingency measures are
distinguished from those generally required for nonattainment
areas under section 172(c)(9) and those specifically required for
O3 and CO nonattainment areas under sections 182(c)(9) and
I87(a)(3), respectively. For the purposes of section 175A, a
State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures
that will take effect without further action by the State in
order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the
contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the
SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted
expediently once they are triggered. The plan should clearly
identify the measures-to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action
by the State. As a necessary part of the plan, the State should
also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be
implemented.
Where the maintenance demonstration is based on the
inventory, the State may, for example, identify an "action level"
of emissions as the indicator. If later inventory updates show
that the inventory has exceeded the action level, the State would
take the necessary steps to implement the contingency measures.
The indicators would allow a State to take early action to
address potential violations of the NAAQS before they occur. By
taking early action, States may be able to prevent any actual
violations of the NAAQS and, therefore, eliminate the need on the
part of EPA to redesignate an area to nonattainment.
Other indicators to consider include monitored or modeled
violations of the NAAQS (due to the inadequacy of monitoring data
in some situations). It is important to note that air quality
data in excess of the NAAQS will not automatically necessitate a
revision of the SIP where implementation of contingency measures
is adequate to address the cause of the violation. The need for
a SIP revision is subject to the Administrator's discretion.
The EPA will review what constitutes a contingency plan on a
case-by-case basis. At a minimum, it must require that the State
will implement all measures contained in the Part D nonattainment
-------
13
plan for the area prior to redesignation [see section 175A(d)].
This language suggests that a State may submit a SIP revision at
the time of its redesignation request to remove or reduce the
stringency of control measures. Such a revision can be approved
by EPA if it provides for compensating equivalent reductions. A
demonstration that measures are equivalent would have to include
appropriate modeling or an adequate justification. Alterna-
tively, a State might be able to demonstrate (through
EPA-approved modeling) that the measures are not necessary for
maintenance of the standard. In either case, the contingency
plan would have to provide for implementation of any measures
that were reduced or removed after redesignation of the area.
Summary
As stated previously, this memorandum consolidates EPA's
redesignation and maintenance plan guidance and Regions should
rely upon it as a general framework in drafting Federal Register
notices. It is strongly suggested that the Regional Offices
share this document with the appropriate States. This should
give the States a better understanding of what is expected from a
redesignation request and maintenance plan under existing policy.
Any necessary changes to existing Agency policy will be made
through our action on specific redesignation requests and the
review of section 175A maintenance plans for these particular
areas, both of which are subject to notice and comment rulemaking
procedures. Thus, in applying this memorandum to specific
circumstances in a rulemaking, Regions should consider the
applicability of the underlying policies to the particular facts
and to comments submitted by any person. If your staff members
have questions which require clarification, they may contact
Sharon Reinders at (919) 541-5284 for 03~ and CO-related issues,
and Eric Ginsburg at (919) 541-0877 for S02~, PM-10-, and
Pb-related issues.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss, QMS
Denise Devoe, OAQPS
Bill Laxton, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John Rasnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Mike Shapiro, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPENDIUM OF INFORMATION SOURCES ON PM-10
POLICY AND GUIDANCE
User note: Appendix B contains a compendium of sources of information on PM-10
policy and guidance. It consists of a list of PM-10 policy and guidance and a
table indicating what subjects the policy and guidance covers. The list includes
items that are not specifically referenced in the chapters of the guideline.
These materials are intended to supplement the materials referenced in the
guideline with additional information as needed. The table indicates which
policy and guidance items are referenced in the guideline document and which
are not.
April 1993
-------
PM-10 POLICY AND GUIDANCE
1. Memorandum. James, M.A., Attorney, Air Quality and Radiation Division, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. EPA, to Conrad Simon, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Region II,
U.S. EPA. Attainment of National Standards in Open Air Parking Lots. September 27,
1972.
2. Memorandum. Wilson, R.D., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X. Non-Discretionary Enforcement
Duties - Issuance of Notices of Violation. November 5, 1975. PN-113-75-11-05-001.
Federal Enforcement.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume I - Principles. EPA-600/9-76-005. Washington., DC.
September 1976
4. Memorandum. Wilson, R.D., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Enforcement ofNSPS
Requirements. May 3, 1976. PN-lll(e)-76-05-03-001. New Source Performance
Standards Enforcement
5. Memorandum. Legro, S.W., Office of Enforcement, U.S. EPA, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Documentation of Violation Extending 30 Days
Beyond Notice of Violation Under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. June 25, 1976. PN-
113-76-06-25-002. Federal Enforcement.
6. Memorandum. Legro, S.W., Office of Enforcement, U.S. EPA, to Enforcement Division
Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Enforcement of SIP's Undergoing Revision.
August 12, 1976. PN-113-76-08-12-003. Federal Enforcement.
7. Memorandum. Legro, S.W., Office of Enforcement, U.S. EPA, to Enforcement Division
Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. "Reviewability" of EPA Determinations in SIP
Enforcement Actions. August 13, 1976. PN-113-76-08-13-004. Federal Enforcement.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II - Ambient Air Specific Methods. EPA-600/4-77-()27a.
Washington, DC. April 1977.
9. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X and others, U.S. EPA. Guidance
for Section II 4(d) of the CAA. December 2, 1977. PN-114-77-12-02-001 A. Inspection,
Monitoring, and Entry.
-------
10. Memorandum. Barber, W.C., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to D.G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator, Air and Waste Management, U.S.
EPA. Accounting for Pollution Across International Boundaries. January 31, 1978. PN-
115-78-01 -31 -001. International Air Pollution.
11. Memorandum. The Administrator, Office of Air and Waste Management, U.S. EPA, to
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions. February 24, 1978. PN-110-78-02-24-002. Implementation Plans.
12. Memorandum. Rhoads, Director, Control Programs Development Division, U.S. EPA,
to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, IH-X, and Environmental
Programs Division, Region II, U.S. EPA. Out-of-State Sources Effect on Implementation
Plan Revision. March 3, 1978. PN-126-78-03-16-001. Interstate Pollution Abatement.
13. Memorandum. Hawkins, D.G., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Harrison, A., Regional Administrator, Region VI, U.S. EPA.
International Pollution (El Paso/Juarez). March 20, 1978. PN-115-78-03-20-002.
International Air Pollution.
14. Memorandum. Durning, M.B., Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrators and Regional Enforcement Directors. Enforcement
Under Clean Air Act Amendments - Orders Under Section 113(a) and 113(d). July 27,
1978. PN-113-78-07-27-005. Federal Enforcement.
15. Memorandum. Barber, W.C., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, ffl-X, and
Environmental Programs Division, Region II. U.S. EPA Implementing Section 124 of the
Clean Air Act. July 31, 1978. PN-124-78-07-31-001. Assurance of Adequacy of State
Plans.
16. Memorandum. Barber, W.C., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
BACTInformation for Coal-Fired Power Plants. December 22, 1978. PN-165-78-12-22-
001. Preconstruction Requirements.
17. 44 Federal Register 20,372-80, (April 4, 1979), State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for .Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas. PN-110-79-04-04-015. Implementation Plans.
18. 44 Federal Register 35,176, (June 18,1979), Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans. PN-110-79-06-18-066. Implementation Plans.
-------
19. 44 Federal Register (July 2, 1979) State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas -
Supplement (on Public Comment and Conditional Approval). PN-110-79-07-02-017.
Implementation Plans.
20. 44 Federal Register 53,761, (September 17, 1979), State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas - Supplement (on Control Techniques Guidelines). PN-110-79-09-17-020.
Implementation Plans.
21. Memorandum. Miller, J.G., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement; and
Hawkins, D.G., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, U.S. EPA,
to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Alternate Procedure for Section
110(f) Relief in Localized, Short Term Energy Emergencies. January 10, 1980. PN-110-
80-01-10-023A. Implementation Plans.
22. Memorandum. Hawkins, D.G., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Emission
Offset Requirements in Secondary Standard Total Suspended Paniculate Plans. March
10,1980. PN-110-80-03-10-030. Implementation Plans.
23. Memorandum. Wilson, R.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Interim
Paniculate Controls. March 11, 1980. PN-113-80-03-11-006. Federal Enforcement.
24. Memorandum. Rhoads, R.G., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-V and VIII, U.S. EPA.
Information Required in Federal Register Packages. June 12, 1980.
25. Memorandum. Wilson, R.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Delayed
Compliance Orders Requiring SIP Compliance Through Temporary Control Measures -
Amended Guidance. May 27, 1980. PN-113-80-05-27-007. Federal Enforcement,
26. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Priorities for Issuing
Notices of Noncompliance. September 12, 1980. PN-120-80-09-12-001. NoncompLiance
Penalty.
-------
27. Memorandum. Rhoads, R.G., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Growth Restrictions in Secondary NAAQS.
October 23, 1980. PN-110-80-10-23-044. Implementation Plans.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment.
EPA-450/4-87-031. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC. November 1980.
29. Memorandum. Rhoads, R.G., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Alexandra Smith, Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, Region X, U.S. EPA. Interpretation of "Significant
Contribution". December 16, 1980. PN-165-80-12-16-007. Preconstruction
Requirements.
30. Letter. Costle, D.M., U.S. EPA, to J. Randolph, Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Reply to letter of October 23,
expressing continued interest in the Agency's definition of "ambient air." December 19,
1980. PN-123-80-12-19-001. Stack Heights.
31. Memorandum. Barber, W.C., Acting Administrator, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Implementation ofNoncompliance Penalty Program Under Section 120 of the Clean Air
Act. February 12, 1981. PN-120-81-02-12-003. Noncompliance Penalty.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume I:
Overview of Receptor Model Application to Paniculate Source Apportionment. EPA-
450/4-8 l-016a. Washington, DC. April 1981.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume II:
Chemical Mass Balance. EPA-450/4-81-016b. April 1981.
34. Memorandum. Wilson, R.D., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S.
EPA. Settlement ofNoncompliance Penalty Assessments Under Section 120 of the Clean
Air Act, as Amended (the Act). April 2, 1981. PN-120-81-04-02-004. Noncompliance
Penalty.
35. Letter. Tuerk, E.F., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, to R.E. Dickenson, Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
Interior, Washington, D.C. Response to letter of February 26, 1981 outlining concerns
over the limited time that the National Park Service has to review prevention of
significant deterioration permit applications for facilities which may impact Class I areas.
April 3, 1981. PN-165-81-04-03-006. Preconstruction Requirements.
-------
36. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to S.S. Gardebring, Director, Enforcement Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Issuance
of Notices ofNoncompliance Under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act to Seasonal Sources.
April 30, 1981. PN-120-81-04-30-005. Noncompliance Penalty.
37. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, U.S.
EPA, to Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, and others, U.S. EPA. Regional
Office Criteria for Neutral Inspections of Stationary Sources - Amended Guidance.
May 13, 1981. PN-114-81-05-13-002. Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good Engineering Stack Height. EPA-450/4-81-003. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1981
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume I:
Overview of Receptor Model Application to Paniculate Source Apportionment. EPA-
450/4-81-016a. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
NC. July 1981.
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume II:
Chemical Mass Balance. EPA-450/4-81-0165. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1981.
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric
Diffusion. EPA-600/8-81-009. Environmental Science Research Laboratory. August
1981.
42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation -
Volume I: Emission Inventory Fundamentals. EPA-450/4-8 l-026a. Research Triangle
Park, NC. September 1981.
43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation -
Volume II: Point Sources. EPA-450/4-8l-026b. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1981.
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation -
Volume III: Area Sources. EPA-450/4-8l-026c. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1981.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation -
Volume V: Bibliography. EPA-450/4-8 l-026c. Research Triangle Park, NC. September
1981.
46. 47 Federal Register 5,865, (February 8, 1982).
-------
47. Memorandum. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Guidance on
Policy for Enforcement of VE Violations Against Sources Which are Meeting an
Applicable Mass Emission Standard. May 4, 1982. PN-113-82-05-04-013. Federal
Enforcement
48. Memorandum. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions, Regions I-IV,
VI-VIII, X; and to Directors, Air Management Divisions, Regions V and DC, U.S.EPA.
Restatement of Guidance on Emissions Associated with Soot-Blowing. May 7, 1982. PN-
lll(e)-82-05-07-002. New Source Performance Standards Enforcement.
49. Memorandum from Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise, and
Radition, U.S. EPA, to Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions and Air
Management Divisions, Regions I - X, U.S. EPA. Definition of "Continuous Compliance
and Enforcement ofO&M Violations." June 21, 1982.
50. Memorandum. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions, Regions II-IV,
VI-VIII, and X, and Directors, Air Management Divisions, Regions I, V, and K, U.S.
EPA. Guidance Concerning EPA's Use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Data.
August 12, 1982. PN-113-82-08-12-014. Federal Enforcement.
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for Paniculate Emissions
from Stationary Sources - Volume I. EPA 450/3-8 l-005a. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1982.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for Paniculate Emissions
from Stationary Sources - Volume II. EPA 450/3-8 l-005b. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1982.
53. Memorandum. Meyers, S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air Management Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Milwaukee
SO2 Nonattainment Designation. September 16, 1982. PN-107-82-09-16-007. Area
Designations.
54. Memorandum from Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions.
September 28, 1982. (PN 113-83-02-15-017).
-------
55. Memorandum. Meyers, S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air Management Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. SIP Actions
and Toxic Pollutants. November 24, 1982. PN-110-82-11-24-061. Implementation
Plans.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological Measurements. EPA-600/4-82-060.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC.
February 1983
57. Memorandum. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions.
February 15, 1983. PN-113-83-02-15-017. Federal Enforcement.
58. Letter. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to H.H. Hovey, Jr. P.E., Director, Division of Air, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Response to letter on January 11, regarding EPA policy
with regard to ambient air and the associated requirements of a SIP demonstration.
March 18, 1983. PN-110-83-03-18-063. Implementation Plans.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Determination of Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height - A Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a Power Plant. EPA-
600/3-83-024. Environmental Science Research Laboratory. April 1983
60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume III:
Users Manual for Chemical Mass Balance Model. EPA-450/4-83-014. April 1983
61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume IV:
Summary of Particle Identification Techniques. EPA-450/4-83-018. April 1983
62. Letter. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to R.R. Wahler, President, WAHLCO, Inc., Santa Ana, CA. Response to letter on
February 22, requesting that EPA reviews its policy on March 1980, entitled
"Enforcement Policy on Interim Paniculate Controls". April 12, 1983. PN-113-83-04-
12-019. Federal Enforcement.
63. Memorandum. Meyers, S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to Director, Air and Waste Management Division Regions II-IV, VI-VIE, X; and
Director, Air Management Division Regions I, V, IX, U.S. EPA. Section 107 Designation
Policy Summary. April 21, 1983. PN-107-83-04-21-008. Area Designations.
-------
64. Memorandum. Bennett, K.M., Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation; and
Price, C.M., Acting Associate Administrator and General Counsel, U.S. EPA, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X; and Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Procedures
for Review of Federal Register Publications of Delayed Compliance Orders Under Section
113(d) of the Clean Air Act. April 26, 1983. PN-113-83-04-26-020. Federal
Enforcement
65. Memorandum from Tyler, D.D., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to A.
Davis, Region VI, U.S. EPA. Definition of Ambient Air for Lead. May 26, 1983. PN-
110-83-05-26-068. Implementation Plans.
66. Memorandum. Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, to
Gary L. O'Neal, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region X. Summary of
NAAQS Interpretation. May 27, 1983. PN-110-83-05-27-064. Implementation Plans.
67. Memorandum. Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air; and Reich, E.E.,
Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, U.S. EPA, to Regional Counsels,
Regions I-X, and others, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Enforcement of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Requirements Under the Clean Air Act. December 14, 1983.
PN-167-83-12-14-001. PSD Enforcement.
68. Memorandum. Cannon, J.A., Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Office Directors and Regional Administrators,
U.S. EPA. Execution of Confidentiality Agreements Under Section 114 of the Clean Air
Act. December 15, 1983. PN-114-83-12-15-003. Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry.
69. Memorandum from Helms, G.T., Chief, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Section 107 Questions and
Answers. December 23, 1983.
70. Memorandum. Cannon, J.A., Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S. EPA, to D. Hawekamp, Air Division Director, Region IX,
U.S. EPA. Interpretation of the Policy on Compliance with the Statutory Provisions of
Part D. January 9, 1984. PN-165-84-01-09-012. Preconstruction Requirements.
71. Memorandum. O'Connor, J.R., Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, to T.W. Devine, Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region IV, U.S. EPA. PSD Increment Consumption Calculations. January 20, 1984.
PN-165-84-01-20-013. Preconstruction Requirements.
72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rec'eptor Model Technical Series, Volume V:
Source Apportionment Techniques and Considerations for Combining Their Use. EPA-
450/4-84-020. April 1984
8
-------
73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume IV:
Summary of Particle Identification Techniques. EPA-450/4-83-018. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1983.
74. Memorandum. Cannon, J.A., Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S. EPA, to C. Jeter, Regional Administrator, Region IV, U.S.
EPA. Applicability of PSD Increments to Building Rooftops. June 11, 1984. PN-165-84-
06-11-014. Preconstruction Requirements.
75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume V:
Source Apportionment Techniques and Considerations for Combining Their Use. EPA-
450/4-84-020. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
NC. July 1984
76. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality
Models (Revised). EPA-450/4-84-023. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1984
77. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air and Waste Management Division
Directors, Regions II, IV, VI-VID, and X; and Air Management Division Directors,
Regions I, in, V, and EX, U.S. EPA. Final Guidance on Use of Unannounced
Inspections. September 6, 1984. PN-114-84-09-06-004. Inspections, Monitoring, and
Entry.
78. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Directors, Air and Waste Management
Division, Regions II, IV, VI-VIU, and X, and to Directors, Air Management Division,
Regions I, IJJ, V, and IX. U.S. EPA. Final Technical Guidance on the Review and Use
of Excess Emission Reports. October 5, 1984. PN-113-84-10-05-021. Federal
Enforcement.
79. Memorandum. Rasnic, J.B., Chief, Compliance Monitoring Branch, Stationary Source
Compliance Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air
Program Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X; and Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, JJI,
V, VH, IX, U.S. EPA. Policy on Non-Action Assurances. December 20, 1984. PN-113-
84-12-20-022. Federal Enforcement.
80. Memorandum. Tikvart, J.A., Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance. January 2, 1985. PN-110-
85-01-02-070. Implementation Plans.
-------
81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Guide: Fugitive Dust Control
Demonstration Studies. EPA-600/8-84-032. Center for Environmental Research
Information. Cincinnati, OH. January 1985
82. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline for PM-10 Episode Monitoring
Methods. EPA-450/4-83-005. February 1985
83. Memorandum from Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Development Programs Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and Wycoff, P.H., Assistant General Counsel, Air
and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Redesignations That Would Change the SIP. February 2, 1985
84. Memorandum. Price, C.M., Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring; and Elkins, C., Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrators and Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Permissible Grounds for Settlement ofNoncompliance Penalties Under Section 120 of the
Clean Air Act. March 19, 1985. PN-120-85-03-19-006. Noncompliance Penalty.
85. Memorandum. Price, C.M., Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring; and Elkins, C., Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrators and Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Guidance Concerning Implementation of Section 120 of the Clean Air Act in Fiscal Year
1985. March 19, 1985. PN-120-85-03-19-007. Noncompliance Penalty.
86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fluid Modeling Demonstration of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height in Complex Terrain. EPA-600/3-85-022. Atmospheric
Sciences Research Laboratory. April 1985
87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume VI:
A Guide to the Use of Factor Analysis and Multiple Regression Techniques in Source
Apportionment. EPA-450/4-85-007. April 1985
88. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Improved New Source Review/prevention of Significant Deterioration
(NSR/PSD) Program Transfer. May 9, 1985. PN-165-85-05-09-015. Preconstruction
Requirements.
89. Memorandum. Koerber, M., Region V, to J.A. Tikvart, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Ambient Air. May 16, 1985
90. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height
Regulations) (Revised). EPA-450/4-80-023R. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1985
10
-------
91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume VI:
A Guide to the Use of Factor Analysis and Multiple Regression (FA/MR) Techniques in
Source Apportionment. EPA-450/4-85-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1985
92. Memorandum. Elkins, C.L., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, to Air and Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 13 and VI; and
others, U.S. EPA. Paniculate Matter Interim Enforcement Policy. June 28, 1985 PN-
113-85-10-30-024. Federal Enforcement.
93. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality
Models: Experience with Implementation. EPA-450/4-85-006. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1985
94. 50 Federal Register 27,892-907, (July 8, 1985), Stack Height Regulation.
95. Memorandum. Tikvart, J.A., Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D. Stonefield, Chief, Policy Development
Section, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Fluid Model Demonstrations for Determining GEP
Stack Height in Complex Terrain. September 19, 1985. PN-123-85-09-19-006. Stack
Heights.
96. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Workshop on Implementing the Stack Height
Regulations (Revised). Control Programs Development Division. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1985
97. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Ozone Air Quality Data for Redesignations. October 8, 1985. PN-107-85-10-
08-010. Area Designations.
98. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Questions and Answers on Implementing the Revised Stack Height Regulation.
October 10, 1985. PN-123-85-10-10-007. Stack Heights.
99. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Exceptions from Restrictions
on Credit for Merged Stacks. October 28, 1985. PN-123-85-10-28-008. Stack Heights.
11
-------
100. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Implementation of Stack Height Regulations - Presumptive NSPS
Emission Limit for Fluid Modeling Stacks Above Formula GEP Height. October 28,
1985. PN-123-85-10-28-009. Stack Heights.
101. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I-X. Determining Stack Heights "In Existence" Before December 31, 1970.
October 28, 1985. PN-123-85-10-28-010. Stack Heights.
102. Letter. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
to W.F. O'Keefe, American Petroleum Institute. January 22, 1986
103. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Priority for Review of Paniculate Matter Sources for
Compliance With Revised Stack Height Regulations. February 11, 1986. PN-123-86-02-
11-011. Stack Heights.
104. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion Modeling Requirements for
Plants With "Tall Stacks" and Other Prohibited Dispersion Techniques. February 11,
1986. PN-123-86-02-11-012. Stack Heights.
105. Memorandum. Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response Guidance. April 11, 1986. PN-113-86-04-11-028. Federal
Enforcement.
106. Memorandum. Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Federally-
Reportable Violations for Stationary Air Sources. April 11, 1986. PN-113-86-04-11-029.
Federal Enforcement.
107. Memorandum. Reich, E.E., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards; and Michael S. Alushin, Associate Enforcement
Counsel, Air Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA, to Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S.
EPA. Transmittal of National Program Guidance - Enforcement Applications of
Continuous Emission Monitoring System Data. April 22, 1986. PN-113-86-04-22-030.
Federal Enforcement.
12
-------
108. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised).
EPA-450-2-78-027R. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC. July 1986
109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air
Quality Data Affected by Exceptional Events. EPA-450/4-86-007. July 1986
110. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S: EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and DC; and others,
U.S. EPA. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Definition of "Modification."
July 7, 1986. PN-165-86-07-07-024. Preconstruction Requirements.
111. Memorandum. Rasnic, J.B., Chief, Compliance Monitoring Branch, Stationary Source
Compliance Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air
Program Branch Chiefs, Regions I, VI, VIE, X; and Air Compliance Branch Chiefs,
Regions El-VI, IX, U.S. EPA. Sample Federal Register Language for Proposal and Final
DCOs. August 22, 1986. PN-113-86-08-22-033. Federal Enforcement.
112. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification, Assessment, and Control of
Fugitive Paniculate Emissions. EPA-600/8-86-023. Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1986
113. 51 Federal Register 32,176-187, (September 9, 1986), Requirements for Preparation
Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans.
114. Memorandum. Farmer, J.R., Director, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D.P. Howekamp, Director,
Air Management Division, Region IX, U.S. EPA. Delegation of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Authority to State/Local Agencies. September 11, 1986. PN-lll(e)-86-09-ll-
00. New Source Performance Standards Enforcement.
115. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, to D. Kee,
Director, Air Management Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Applicability of PSD to
Portions of a Plant Constructed in Phases Without Permits. October 21, 1986. PN-165-
86-10-21-025. Preconstruction Requirements.
116. 51 Federal Register 40,656-77, (November 7, 1986), Attainment and Maintenance of
National Standards.
13
-------
117. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air Management Division, Regions V, U.S. EPA. Need
for a Short-Term Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Analysis for the Proposed
William A. Zimmer Power Plant. November 24, 1986. PN-165-86-11 -24-016.
Preconstruction Requirements.
118. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air Management
Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Need for Emission Cap on Complex Netting Sources.
December 1, 1986. PN-165-86-12-01-026. Preconstruction Requirements.
119. 51 Federal Register 43,814, (December 4, 1986), Emissions Trading Policy Statement;
General Principles for Creation, Banking and Use of Emission Reduction Credits. PN-
110-86-12-04-077. Implementation Plans.
120. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Estimating Probability of
Nonattainment of a PM10 NAAQS Using Total Suspended Paniculate or PM]0 Data.
EPA-450/4-86-017. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC. December 1986
121. Letter. Rasnic, J.B., Acting Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to T. Bispharm, Air Quality
Administrator, Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. Minimum CDS Data
Reporting Requirements. January 9, 1987. PN-113-87-01-09-034. Federal Enforcement.
122. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, to B. Miller,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Region IV, U.S. EPA. Determination of Economic
Feasibility. January 20, 1987. PN-110-87-01-20-080. Implementation Plans.
123. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Division, Regions I-X,
U.S. EPA. Implementation of the Revised Modeling Guideline for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD). January 29, 1987. PN-165-87-01-29-027.
Preconstruction Requirements.
124. Memorandum. Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and DC; and others, U.S.
EPA. Plantwide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution. February 27,
1987. PN-165-87-02-27-017. Preconstruction Requirements.
125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protocol for Reconciling Differences Among
Receptor and Dispersion Models. EPA-450/4-87-008, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1987
14
-------
126. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, U.S. EPA,
to PM10 Advisory Task Force. PM10 Advisory Task Force Meeting. March 13, 1987.
127. Guideline on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of Paniculate
Matter Standards. EPA-450/4-87-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1987
128. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to I. Dickstein, Director, Air and
Toxics Division, Region VIII, U.S. EPA. Wyoming - Definition of Ambient Air. April 7,
1987
129. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air Management Division Directors,
Regions I, HI, and IX; and others, U.S. EPA. Clarification of New Source Review Policy
on Averaging Times for Production Limitations. April 8, 1987. PN-165-87-04-08-018.
Preconstruction Requirements.
130. Memorandum. Farmer, J., Director, Emissions Standards and Engineering Division, U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, to D.D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs
Development Division, U.S. EPA. PM10 Stack Sampling Method in 40 CFR Part 51.
April 9, 1987
131. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to G. Emison, U.S. EPA. Note to
Craig Potter explaining the elements of the PM10 implementation program. Apiil 20,
1987
132. Memorandum. Bauman, R.D., Chief, Standards Implementation Branch, U.S. EPA, to
J.A. Tikvart, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, U.S. EPA. Valley Stagnation
Model. April 21, 1987
133. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Controlled Programs Operations Branch, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Bruce Miller, Chief, Air Programs
Branch, Region IV, U.S. EPA. Ambient Air. April 30, 1987. PN-110-87-04-30-082.
Implementation Plans.
134. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to S. Rothblatt, Chief, Air Branch, Region V,
U.S. EPA. Ambient Air. April 30, 1987. PN-110-87-04-30-083. Implementation Plans.
135. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD). EPA-450/4-87-007. Research Triangle Park., NC.
May 1987
15
-------
136. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protocol for Applying and Validating the CMB
Model. EPA-450/4-87-010. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, NC. May 1987
137. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Example Modeling to Illustrate SIP Development
for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA-450/4-87-012. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1987
138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Network Design and Optimum Site Exposure
Criteria for Paniculate Matter. EPA-450/4-87-009. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1987
139. Memorandum. Rhoads, R.G., Director, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I, IE, V, and DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Accounting for Trends in
Paniculate Matter Emission and Air Quality Data. May 11, 1987. PN-110-87-05-11-
088.
140. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D.P. Howekamp, Director, Air Management
Division, Region EK, U.S. EPA. Reactivation ofNoranda Lakeshore Mines' RLA Plant
and PSD Review. May 27, 1987. PN-113-87-05-27-036. Federal Enforcement.
141. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. EPA-450/2-
86-001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
June 1987
142. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling Applications. EPA-450/4-87-013. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1987
143. Memorandum. Woodard, K.R., Plans and Policies Section, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. EPA, to L. Clayton, Central Docket Section, U.S. EPA. Material for
Docket A-82-38 [regarding regulation for implementing revised particulate matter
standards]. June 1, 1987
144. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, HI, V, and IX; and others,
U.S. EPA. Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New and Modified
Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs). June 26, 1987. PN-165-87-06-26-020.
Preconstruction Requirements.
16
-------
145. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplement A to the Guideline On Air Quality
Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1987
146. 52 Federal Register 24,634-69, (July 1, 1987), Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Paniculate Matter.
147. 52 Federal Register 24,716-23, (July 1, 1987), Air Programs; Paniculate Matter (PM-10)
Fugitive Dust Policy.
148. 52 Federal Register 24,724-35, (July 1, 1987), Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods.
149. 52 Federal Register 24,736-50, (July 1, 1987), Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for
Particulate Matter.
150. 52 Federal Register 24,670-716, (July 1, 1987), Air Programs; Review of National
Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.
151. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Controlled Programs Operations Branch, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to C. Walters, Chief, Air Branch, Region
VII, U.S. EPA. Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's). July 21, 1987. PN-
110-87-07-21-089. Implementation Plans.
152. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
to W.S. Baker, Air Branch Chief, Region II, U.S. EPA. Ambient Air Issues from New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. July 27, 1987
153. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and EX; and others,
U.S. EPA. State Implementation Plans for Sulfur Dioxide. July 29, 1987. PN-110-87-
07-29-084. Implementation Plans.
154. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regional Workshop for Revised Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter (PM]0). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1987
155. Memorandum. D.D. Tyler, Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I, HI, DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Implementation of Revised Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program for Particulate Matter. Augusts, 1987. PN-
165-87-08-05-028. Preconstruction Requirements.
17
-------
156. 52 Federal Register 29,382-5, (August 7, 1987), National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Paniculate Matter.
157. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, U.S. EPA,
to Regional Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA. Development Plan for PM10 State
Implementation Plans (SIP's). August 11, 1987
158. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA. Processing of Paniculate
Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions. August 11, 1987
159. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Technical Support for Stack Height Negative Declarations. Septembers, 1987. PN-123-
87-09-03-013. Stack Heights.
160. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to B.P. Miller, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Region IV, U.S. EPA. Ambient Air Definition. September 21, 1987. PN-110-87-09-21-
086. Implementation plans.
161. Memorandum. Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation; and
others, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators and Counsels; and others, U.S. EPA.
Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal
Sufficiency. September 23, 1987. PN-113-87-09-23-041.
162. Memorandum. Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA; and others, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal
Sufficiency. September 23, 1987
163. Memorandum. Tyler, D.D., Director, Control Programs Development Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division,
Regions I, IE, DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Clarification of Implementation Policies for
PMW National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). October 2, 1987. PN-110-87-
10-02-091.
164. Memorandum. Helms, G.T., Chief, Control Programs Operations Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations. October 9, 1987. PN-123-87-10-09-
014. Stack Heights.
18
-------
165. Memorandum. Adams, T.L. Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring; and Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators and Counsels; and others, U.S. EPA.
Settling Enforcement Actions in Clean Air Act Nonattainment Areas Against Stationary
Air Sources Which Will Not Be in Compliance by the Applicable Attainment Date.
November 23, 1987. PN-113-87-11-23-042. Federal Enforcement.
166. Memorandum. Potter, J.C., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA, to Regional Administrator, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Improving New Source Review
(NSR) Implementation. December 1, 1987. PN-165-87-12-01-022. Preconstruction
Requirements.
167. Memorandum. Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring; and Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source
Compliance Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Evaluating Clean Air Act
Enforcement of State Implementation Plan Violations Involving Proposed State Revisions.
December 31, 1987. PN-113-87-12-31-043. Federal Enforcement.
168. 53 Federal Register 480, (January 7, 1988), Stack Height Emissions Balancing; Final
Policy. PN-123-88-01-07-015. Stack Heights.
169. Letter. Bauman, R.D., Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch, U.S. EPA, to G.
Satterfield, Technical Director, Wood Heating Alliance, Washington, DC. Response to
letter of November 2,1987 regarding State regulation of emissions from wood stoves and
fireplaces. January 25, 1988
170. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Gap Filling PM10 Emission Factors for Selected
Open Area Dust Sources. EPA-450/4-88-003. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1988
171. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protectional Agency, to G. O'Neal, Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Region X, U.S. EPA. Interpretation of "Expected Exceedance" for Determining Ozone
and PM]0 Attainment Status and Design Values. March 8, 1988
172. Memorandum. Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, U.S. EPA, to T.L.
Adams, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring; and
J.C. Potter, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA. Opinion in
U.S. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Civil Action No. 86-A-1880 (D. Colorado, March 22,
1988). March 29, 1988. PN-167-88-03-29-002. PSD Enforcement.
19
-------
173. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air Management Division Directors,
Regions I, IE, and DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY
89. March 31, 1988. PN-114-88-03-31-006. Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry.
174. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air Management Division Directors,
Regions I, HI, and DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Transmittal of OAQPS Interim Control
Policy Statement. March 31, 1988. PN-113-88-03-31-047. Federal Enforcement.
175. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
to Air Management Division Director, Regions I, HI, and DC; and others, U.S. EPA.
Transmittal of Reissued OAQPS CEMS Policy. March 31,1988. (PN 113-88-03-31-048)
176. Memorandum. Woodard, K., Paniculate Matter Programs Section, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to PM10 Regional Contacts, U.S. EPA. PM10 SIP
Tracking System. April 5, 1988
177. Memorandum from Potter, J.C., Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, to Air
Management Division Director, Regions I, III, and DC; and others, U.S. EPA. Interim
Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions. April 22, 1988
178. Memorandum. Stonefield, D.H., Chief, Particulate Matter Programs Section, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S.
EPA. Draft Guidance on Control of Urban Fugitive Dust. May 3, 1988
179. Memorandum. Stonefield, D.H., Chief, Particulate Matter Programs Section, SDPMPB,
U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. PMW SIP Checklist. May 13,
1988
180. Memorandum. Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA, to Tikvart, J., Chief,
Source Receptor Analysis Branch, U.S. EPA. Ambient Air. May 16, 1988
181. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
Application of the Interim Policy for Stack Height Regulatory Actions. May 17, 1988.
PN-123-88-05-17-016. Stack Heights.
182. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PM10 SIP Development Guideline - Supplement.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1988
183. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response to Questions Regarding PM10 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Development. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1988
20
-------
184. Memorandum from Tikvart, J.A., OAQPS, to Regional Chiefs; and others, U.S. EPA.
Revised Model Clearinghouse Operational Plan. June 7, 1988
185. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quab'ty Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to G. O'Neal, Director, Air and Toxics
Division, Region X, U.S. EPA. Demonstration of "Representative Emission Conditions"
for Use in "Expected Exceedance" Determinations. June 17,1988. PN-110-88-06-17-094.
Implementation Plans.
186. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, HI, IX; and others, U.S.
EPA. "Grandfathering" ofRequirements for Pending SIP Revisions. June 27, 1988. PN-
110-88-06-27-095. Implementation Plans.
187. Memorandum. Stonefield, D.H., Chief, Paniculate Matter Program Section, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA.
PM10 SIP Checklist. July 1, 1988
188. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air Management Division. Air Quality
Analysis for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). July 5, 1988. PN-165-88-07-
05-032. Preconstruction Requirements.
189. Memorandum. Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring; and Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source
Compliance Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient
New Source Permits Under the Clean Air Act. July 15, 1988. PN-167-88-07-15-003.
PSD Enforcement.
190. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air
Quality Impact of Stationary Sources. EPA-450/4-88-010. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1988
191. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards; and Alushin, M.S., Associate Enforcement Counsel for
Air, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, U.S. EPA, to Air Management
Division Directors, Regions I, HI, and IX; and others, U.S. EPA. Identifying and
Expediting SIP Revisions that Impact the Enforcement Process. August 5, 1988. PN-
110-88-08-05-096. Implementation Plans.
21
-------
192. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, Region V. Transfer of Technology in Determining Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER). August 29, 1988. PN-165-88-08-29-034. Preconstruction Requirements.
193. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-
450/3-88-008. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1988
194. Memorandum. Clay, D.R., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, to D.A. Kee, Director, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA. Applicability
of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Requirements to the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Port
Washington Life Extension Project. September 9, 1988. Pn-165-88-09-09-035.
Preconstruction Requirements.
195. Letter. Thomas, L.M., Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, to J.W.
Boston, Vice President, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, WI. Response
to a request made on September 15 concerning final determinations regarding the
applicability of the Clean Air Act's New Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to the proposed life extension project at
the Port Washington steam electric generating station. October 14, 1988. PN-165-88-10-
14-036. Preconstruction Requirements.
196. Memorandum. Clay, D.R., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Long-term
Nonattainment of the PMW Standards. November 4, 1988. Pn-110-88-11-04-098.
Implementation Plans.
197. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, HI, DC; and others, U.S.
EPA. Revision to Policy on the Use of PMJO Measurement Data. November 21, 1988.
PN-110-88-11-21-099. Implementation Plans.
198. 54 Federal Register 2,138-41, (January 19, 1989), State Implementation Plan
Completeness Review - Appendix V: Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan
Submissions..
199. 54 Federal Register 2,214-26, (January 19, 1989), State Implementation Plan Processing
Reform.
200. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for the Review of SIP Revisions by
EPA Regional Offices. EPA-450/2-89-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1989
22
-------
201. Memorandum. Clay, D.R., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, to J.W. Boston, Vice President, Wisconsin Electric Power Company,
Milwaukee, WI. Response to a request made on September 15 concerning revised final
determination regarding the applicability of the Clean Air Act's New Performance
Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to the
proposed life extension project at the Port Washington steam electric generating station.
February 15, 1989. PN-165-89-02-15-042. Preconstruction Requirements.
202. Memorandum from Bauman, R.D., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to J. Tikvart, Office of Air Quality Planing and Standards, U.S. EPA. Revised
Final Determination, on Reconsideration, Regarding the Applicability of the Clean Air
Act's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Provisions on the Life Extension Project at Port Washington Steam
Electric Power Company. February 15, 1989
203. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Cut-off Date for Determining LAER in Major New Source
Permitting. February 24, 1989. PN-165-89-02-24-046. Preconstruction Requirements.
204. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quab'ty Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to D. Kee, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, Region V, U.S. EPA. Guidance on Determining Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER). February 28, 1989. PN-165-89-02-28-038. Preconstruction Requirements.
205. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Estimating and Allocating Area
Source Emissions of Air Toxics - Working Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1989
206. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division; and William G.
Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, to T.J. Maslany, Director, Air Management Division, Region IE,;
and W.B. Hathaway, Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region VI, U.S. EPA.
Use of Allowable Emissions for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Impact
Analyses Under the Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).
March 16, 1989. PN-165-89-03-16-039. Preconstruction Requirements.
207. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to W.B. Hathaway, Director, Air, Pesticides, and
Toxics Division, Region VI, U.S. EPA. Application of Building Downwash in Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Analyses. March 31, 1989. PN-165-89-03-31-
040. Preconstruction Requirements.
23
-------
208. Letter. Emison, G.A., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to J.P.
Proctor. Response to letter of February 23, 1989 to Administrator Reilly. April 20, 1989
209. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S. EPA, to
W. Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, U.S. EPA. Identification of New Areas
Exceeding the NAAQS. May 3, 1989.
210. Memorandum. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to I.L. Dickstein, Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII, U.S. EPA.
Response to PM-10 Control Strategy Issues. June 30, 1989. PN-110-89-06-30-103.
211. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation,
Volume IV: Mobile Sources. EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised). Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1989
212. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to T.J. Maslany, Director, Air Management
Division, Region HI, U.S. EPA. LAER Determination for a Previously Constructed
Source. August 9, 1989. PN-165-89-08-09-047. Preconstruction Requirements.
213. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S. EPA, to
T.J. Maslany, Director, Air Management Division, Region III, U.S. EPA. Review of PM-
10 Implementation Policy. August 14, 1989. PN-110-89-08-14-104. Implementation
Plans.
214. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Director, Air
Division, Regions I-H, IV-VD, IX-X. PM-10 Implementation Policy. August 24, 1989
215. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline Series - Guidance Document for
Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures. EPA-450/2-89-015. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1989
216. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to W.B. Hathaway, Director, Air, Pesticides,
and Toxics Division, Region VI, U.S. EPA. Request for Clarification of Policy
Regarding the "Net Emissions Increase." September 18, 1989. PN-165-89-09-18-045.
Preconstruction Requirements.
217. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inspection Manual for PM-10 Emissions from
PavedlUnpaved Roads and Storage Piles. EPA-340/1-89-007. Office of Air and
Radiation. Washington, DC. October 1989
24
-------
218. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Model Clearinghouse: FY-89 Summary Report.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October
1989
219. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to W.A. Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides, and
Toxics Management Division, Region IV, U.S. EPA. Criteria for Group II Area SIP
Reviews. October 19, 1989
220. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to W.G. Laxton, Director, Technical Support
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA. Assistance in
Development Information Needed for PM-10 Implementation. October 30, 1989
221. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PM10 Emission Factor Listing Developed by
Technology Transfer and AIRS Source Classification Codes with Documentation. EPA-
450/4-89-022. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
NC. November 1989
222. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Receptor Model Technical Series - Volume III
(1989 Revision): CMB7 User's Manual. EPA-450/4-90-004. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1990
223. Letter. Emison, G.A., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,
to M. Sterling, Director, Environmental Protection, Detroit Edison Company, Detroit, MI.
Follow-up to an October 19 meeting requesting a review of Region V's previous
determination that the proposed fuel conversion was a "major modification" for PSD
purposes. January 18, 1990. PN-165-90-01-18-049. Preconstruction Requirements.
224. 55 Federal Register 5,824-31, (February 16, 1990), State Implementation Plan
Completeness Review; Final Rulemaking.
225. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AIRS Facility Subsystem Source Classification
Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants. EPA-450/4-90-003.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1990
226. Memorandum. Stonefield, D.H., Chief, Paniculate Matter Programs Section, Oifice of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S.
EPA. PM10 Issues. May 22, 1990
227. Letter. Rosenberg, W.G., Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA,
to J. Boston, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, WI. United States Court
of Appeals decision regarding a challenge by WEPCO to two final determinations issued
by the EPA. June 8, 1990. PN-165-90-06-08-050. Preconstruction Requirements.
25
-------
228. Memorandum. Laxton, W.G., Director, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to W.A. Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region IV, U.S. EPA. Replacement of Surrogate PM10 Monitors.
June 18, 1990. PN-110-90-06-18-105. Implementation Plans.
229. Memorandum. Bauman, R.D., Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch; and
Tikvart, J.A., Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S. EPA. PM-10 SIP
Demonstration for Small Isolated Areas with Spatially Uniform Emissions. July 5, 1990.
PN-110-90-07-05-106.
230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50, Appendix K - Interpretation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Paniculate Matter. July 1, 1990
231. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New Source Review Workshop Manual -
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting - Draft
Report. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
October 1990
232. Memorandum. Tikvart, J.A., Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to U.S. EPA Regional Modeling Contacts,
Regions I - X, U.S. EPA. Model Clearinghouse: FY-90 Summary Report. October 1,
1990
233. Memorandum. Bauman, R.D., Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, U.S.
EPA. Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG's)for PM-10. October 4, 1990
234. 55 Federal Register 45,799-804, (October 31,1990), Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of State Implementation Plans; Corrections to PM-10 Areas of Concern.
235. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VOC/PM Speciation Data System Documentation
and User's Guide, Version L32a. EPA-450/2-91-002. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. November 1990
236. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to Director, Air Management Division, Region HI; and others, U.S. EPA.
Nonattainment Designations and Classifications. November 14, 1990
237. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to I.L. Dickstein, Director, Air and Toxics
Division, Region VIJJ, U.S. EPA. Stack Height Questions. November 27, 1990
26
-------
238. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division; and Laxton,
W.G., Director, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA. PM-10 Attainment
Demonstration Policy for Initial Moderate Nonattainment Areas. March 4, 1991
239. Memorandum. Seitz, J.S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, to Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, Regions I, IV, and
VI; and others, U.S. EPA. New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance.
March 11, 1991
240. 56 Federal Register 11,101-5, (March 15, 1991), Designations and Classifications for
Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas.
241. Memorandum. Rasnic, J., Acting Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air Management Diivision
Directors, Regions I, III, and IX; and others, U.S. EPA. Revised Compliance Monitoring
Strategy. March 29, 1991
242. Letter. Reilly, W.K., Administrator, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., to J.D. Dingell,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Response to letter of November
2, 1990 Regarding the General Accounting Office's (GAO) report of September 27, 1990
Which is Entitled "Air Pollution: Improvements Needed in Detecting and Preventing
Violations". April 10, 1991
243. 56 Federal Register 16,274-6, (April 22, 1991), Preparation, Adoption, and Subimttal of
State Implementation Plans; PM-10, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead Nonattainment and
Unclassifiable Area Designations.
244. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Completing the USEPA PM-10
Exceedance Report (Draft). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. May 1991
245. 56 Federal Register 23,826-8, (May 24, 1991), State Implementation Plan Completeness
Criteria.
246. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Document for Selecting Antiskid
Materials Applied to Ice- and Snow-Covered Roadways. EPA-450/3-90-007. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1991
247. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections.
EPA-450/4-91-019. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC, July 1991
27
-------
248. 56 Federal Register 37,653-65, (August 8, 1991), Designations and Classifications for
Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas.
249. Memorandum. Renner, F.H. Jr., Acting Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions
I-X, U.S. EPA. Questions and Answers (Q&A's)for Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), and Lead (Pb). August 20, 1991
250. 56 Federal Register 42,216-9. (August 26,1991), State Implementation Plan Completeness
Criteria.
251. Memorandum. Paisie, J.W., Acting Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions
I-X, U.S. EPA. Questions and Answers (Q&A's)for Paniculate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), and Lead (Pb). November 4, 1991
252. 56 Federal Register 65,433-42, (December 17, 1991), Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of State Implementation Plans, Method for Measurement of Condensible
Paniculate Emissions from Stationary Sources.
253. Memorandum. John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region I and IV; and others, U.S. EPA. Contingency Measure
Due Date for Initial PM-10 Moderate Nonattainment Areas. February 25, 1992
254. Letter. Skie, D.M., Chief, Air Programs Branch, Region Vffl, U.S. EPA, to J.T. Chaffee,
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. East Helena Lead SIP.
March 13, 1992
255. 57 Federal Register 13,498-570, (April 16, 1992), State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
Proposed Rule.
256. 57 Federal Register 18,070-7, (April 28, 1992), State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
Supplemental; Proposed Rule.
257. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV; and others, U.S. EPA. Processing of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals. July 9, 1992
28
-------
258. Memorandum from Seitz, J.S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. EPA, to Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Regions I, IV, and VI, U.S.
EPA. New Source Review (NSR) Program Supplemental Transitional Guidance on
Applicability of New Part D NSR Permit Requirements. September 3, 1992
259. Memorandum. Calcagni, J., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV; and others, U.S. EPA. Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. September 4, 1992
260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PMW SIP Checklist for General Requirement
Applicable to Areas in Group I, Group II and Group HI. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
29
-------
UJ
U
z
o
Q
y
2
o
8 8
s g T3
ill
i , i
U S 2
So
O (3
u uj
i i
1 .8
Q. 3
7
06
- S
^ .2
§ 5t
£
P Ic
"SS u
O £
U —
CO
tJ
3C S
3 "j3
a>
£, eo M)
I 1 1
e
"S.
w -^
e p
0 g.
'« IS
.a S
3 >
u JS
1 1 3
| a S
Q <
e b
0 U
1 a
>.
X
C^4
>•
m
X
X
^
X
m
X
vn
X
^
>•
oo
X
rr>
X
X
o
X
_
X
X
CN
X
X
f>
X
Tt
X
\r\
X
\o
X
[~
X
00
X
ON
X
o
X
X
CN
X
m
>
Tt
X
vn
X
\o
X
^~-
>•
oo
X
ON
X
^
P
X
—
-------
u
P
O
« Q
O
13
o
Q-
O
8 8 w
5 § ?
£33
!
i,
Is!
ii
O. 3.
•2 I
I!
if
° s
.SP §
o .2
iA s
o w
I «S
C§ I
I
S u
"o.
I o
^3 OT
d 1
ll
i I
Q *
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
85
2
2
-------
4) 4}
o y «
3 1 "2
o S o
co S ^g
i* -2 1
1 1 1
u ,§
OS
l!
u,
VI
1 1
o .a
5 1
"2 -a
SI
il
s «
I I1
>, 60 J«
1 'I |
^ | 1
3
c
o e *"
s 1 s
a § s
|
w
CJ e £>
2i ® ®
9 '§1
o
Q "i- £>
Z '1 ^a
< 1=3
. SOS
PM-10 POLIC
Document Det
Number Air
<
*.
X
VO
X
3
^
S
X
X
«
X
X
s
X
oo
VO
••
X
S
X
o
t--
X
-
>
2
>
R
X
j,,
S
-
8
-
VO
X
*
X
CO
r-
X
"
X
-
^
o
oo
X
X
00
>
cs
00
X
00
X
*
X
00
-
00
-
00
X
00
00
>
s
>
X
s
»•
s
X
cs
-
s
-------
0 U
0 g w
i; S -0
o 1 S
w 5 -3
s £ §
SI*
» €
JU i
Is!
u iS
S .§
*l
•a J
§ |
0 £
1-1
1 1
0 5
I a
l!
o *o
S u
§* oo
^ J3
* J
3 s
& fi S
1 1 5
01 •? I
**3
e
o
fl 1 S
a s J
w 3 a-
1
W
U | fr
Q § •*
K W A
t-J
1 ^ *
>t_, S3 "^ 61
5 SI1
! «.
2 a |
S | z
iX ™
•*
W1
VO
X
*"•"
>
90
o\
S
0
>
C^J
o
f!
0
x
S
X
X
S
>•
S
X
X
o
X
_
>•
X
X
CM
>.
m
X
X
**•
X
>T1
>•
VO
>-
X
r~
X
00
>•
X
ON
X
X
o
ts
X
r!
X
CM
IN
X
m
CM
X
S
-------
w
O
z
o
Q
Z
O
2
o
i
8 § .
1 1 1
IS'
8 1
I* 1
o "a
U a
JS
~ S
1 §
S3 -s
* 1
<*
? 1
S •§
O 2
a.
en
"2 •§)
u is
on
'S '2
33 _o
3 °
£« 60
73 ^
ts
1 f 1
If 1
c
o
« 3 .
w g S
•s,
,0
$ $
M "S
ll
If "
1 1 1
Q ^
§ S
§•8
&*
X
X
!N
X
X
X
(N
X
X
X
X
t—
(N
>
oo
X
7!
X
*
s
?*
X
>
m
X
m
X
X
X
X
r~
>
00
X
X
X
s
X
o
X
X
>M
-
X
X
X
7
*
-
s
X
m
X
X
9
1/1
;*.
$
X
5
X
oo
X
$
X
5?
X
in
*
5?
X
K
X
X
X
X
%
X
-------
U
D
Q
Q
g 1 .g
l||
11"
U §
a s
"3« H *
1 •§
u ,2
iJ
* 1
7 i
2 .a
c^ 1
a.
•2 I
1 S
u £
t/3
JS w
OO S3
•S .2
S 3
^ 1
3 (3
o
"3 *^
IS
a 1 s
o.
JB
i $
'« 'S
§ |
1 1 *
1 g, |
4) 5/5
||
1 *
X
>«
X
X
r-
X
00
X
X
>-
o
>,
X
^— ,
>M
N
X
X
X
X
r>
>,
S
X
^
X
X
«
X
X
f.
X
93
X
?!
X
o
X
X
t—
X
X
CM
r-
^.
>•
t~
X
>
X
S
^,
^
X
JS
>
p-
X
oo
X
0
X
o
>«
OO
X
>
X
oc
X
X
>
X
>•
X
00
>
$
X
-------
§ 5 "8
t/a g •«
5 "** Ji
z eK
8 1
§ S
3 T3 S
n
1 1
*!
-a 1
• If
It
U £
CO
j± w
fib fl
•g -2
ac ts
•S 3>
a U
S at!
j> 60
o- -|
jj|
§
1 ll
"5 g ft.
"S,
w
o g e^
*Z .2o
<* g c
9 '§|
Q f £>
^ "c *5 w
< 'i 1 3
> 1 ^ w
U ^ ^
2 « .
0 | J
S § 1
i Q 2
X
00
,
X
oo
oo
X
X
00
^
0
X
—
X
X
CM
X
X
X
gj
X
X
s
X
X
<£
X
S
X
-
X
t-
X
*
OO
X
ON
01
8
X
X
S
>
CM
O
X
X
S
X
X
s
X
o
X
>
\D
o
X
SH
g
?"
§
^
S
X
X
>
X
X
X
o
es
X
-
X
^
X
X
X
X
«
CN
X
X
X
X
^
CN
X
>
X
10
CM
X
vO
CM
X
X
X
X
t-
ol
-------
u
z
O
O
2
8 § .
5 § -g
w 5 "3
ii*
2 *
§ -o S
"E, S 2
So
O S
u a
13
G
a §
s .8
fc §•
a!
•a 1
U S3
6 s
a.
•s .S
C, no
6 i
C/5
4 s
£ -
a .2
Q «J
S u
.IT *>
3 T3
w
>* oc °°
.^d c S
*ij N-"\
l| 5
| | Q
§
1 i j
w 1 ft.
"3.
a
1 1
||!
1 1
X
*
oo
CM
X
X
CM
X
X
X
X
CM
X
a
^
CM
X
m
X
CM
X
8
X
\D
CM
X
X
CN
CM
X
OO
CM
X
>•
^
>-
X
CM
CM
^
8
X
^*
X
X
X
X
X
X
m
CM
X
X
CM
CM
X
CM
X
*
CM
X
CM
X
-
CM
>_
c—
PO
CM
X
X
>
oo
m
CM
^"
X
-
CM
X
X
«
^.
S
>»
CM
X
>
§
^
I
X
s
X
X
CM
X
X
*
X
-
OQ
4
I
-------
o
<
Q
5
o
Q
u o
O y el
s a ~°
3 S M
0 8 •§
Hi
Z £
1 1
1 -o 1
§
II|
fi
§
fl e g
*j O 5-*
oo S O.
"5.
•S
3 fr
•2 2
« G
M ^
u] -S
III
I 1 l
Q
I S3
1 |
Q Z
X
X
CM
X
8
X
X
S
^
3
>.
g
-
a
^
>.
>-
r^
>
in
CM
^
z
>
r~
oo
CN
>
in
CM
X
S
CN
6
^
G
1
|
1
.3
1
—
•g
d
•g
O
6
3
8
e '
11
8 M
8 o
o T
5 S
•s t
**
S .3
11
W W3
0 4>
Ji Ji
O 1)
fit fi£
X >
-------
1
Region b, Li;«" 12th FlOOt
77 \Vefit J^- '•' '
Chicago, IL 600'J
-------